United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-417

April 1998

Economies in Transition:

An Assessment of Trends

Relevant to Management of

the Tongass National Forest

Stewart D. Allen, Guy Robertson, Julie Schaefers
Authors STEWART D. ALLEN is a research social scientist, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Juneau, AK 99801;

GUY ROBERTSON is an economist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry

Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; and JULIE

SCHAEFERS is an economist, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802.
Conservation and Resource

Assessments for the Tongass

Land Management Plan Management Plan Revision

Charles G. Shaw III, Technical Coordinator

Economies in Transition: An Assessment of Trends

Relevant to Management of the Tongass National Forest.

Stewart D. Allen, Guy Robertson, and Julie Schaefers

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-417

April 1998
Abstract Allen, Stewart D.; Robertson, Guy; Schaefers, Julie. 1998. Economies in transition: an assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National

Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-417. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw,

Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the

Tongass land management plan revision).

This assessment focuses on the regional and community economies of southeast

Alaska. A mixed economy composed of subsistence harvest and cash income characterizes the economies of most of the region’s rural communities. Although the share

of natural resource-based sectors relative to total employment has remained fairly

consistent over the past 10 years, the mix of industries within that share is shifting,

with substantial declines in the wood products sector and substantial increases in

the recreation-tourism sector. Regional trends are reflected very differently across

boroughs, and even more so across the many small communities of southeast

Alaska; analysis at diverse scales was needed to accurately portray economic and

social conditions and trends.

Keywords: Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska, economic trends,

employment, subsistence, communities.

Contents 1 Introduction

1 Methodology

4 Overview of Historical Development and Current Population

11 Regional Conditions and Trends

16 Tongass National Forest-Related Regional Economy

38 Subsistence

40 Subregional Conditions and Trends

42 Tongass-Related Industries

44 Community Conditions and Trends

49 Tongass-Related Industries

54 Forest Receipts and Payments to State

56 Community Resiliency

60 Conclusions

67 Acknowledgments

67 References

72 Appendix 1: Employment by Sector and Community Group

95 Appendix 2: Per Capita Revenues and Expenditures by Community
Introduction The USDA Forest Service has adopted ecosystem management as the strategy

by which to manage the National Forests, including the Tongass National Forest in

southeast Alaska. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems, so our social and economic systems are components of overall ecosystem functioning and integrity. Conditions of sociocultural and economic systems must be evaluated side by side with biological and physical systems. This will lead to a better understanding of how human

and nonhuman ecosystem components interact and affect each other. This is especially needed for southeast Alaska, because of the many ways people depend on

natural resources for food, employment, recreation, health, and cultural survival, and

the effects of these uses on ecosystems.

This assessment describes one portion of the complex human-environment story: the

economies of southeast Alaska. It focuses on conditions and trends relevant to understanding management of the Tongass National Forest and the Forest’s relation to

both regional and local economies. The social and economic systems of southeast

Alaska are subject to many of the same forces affecting rural areas nationwide, but

the Tongass plays a central role as manager of the vast majority (over 80 percent)

of the land in southeast Alaska.

Because the focus of this report is on regional and local economies, it should not be

considered a complete assessment of social and economic conditions and trends in

southeast Alaska, or as an indication that characteristics not discussed are less important to southeast Alaska residents or to management of the Tongass. Reports on

other aspects of the human ecosystem will be published under the long-term social

research program currently being developed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station. It also should be understood that the purpose here is to describe existing economic conditions and recent trends, and not to forecast the future. Additional social and

economic information and impact assessment is provided in the final environmental

impact statement for the Tongass Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service

1997). This report documents economic conditions and trends present during the

writing of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Tongass National

Forest Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997). Future reports will

provide updates on those trends.

The following section describes some methodological considerations, including the

important issue of scale of analysis. The third section is a brief summary of historic

settlement and the current population of southeast Alaska. The fourth section provides

an overview of trends at the regional level, which includes all of southeast Alaska.

The fifth section describes information available at the subregional level—in this case,

boroughs and census areas in southeast Alaska (the functional equivalent of counties

elsewhere in the United States). The sixth section describes economic conditions and

trends for communities and groups of communities. The final section contains conclusions about the economic status of southeast Alaskans and implications for management of the Tongass.

Methodology The issue of scale or level of analysis is as important for socioeconomic analyses as

it is for biological or physical analyses. It is important, for example, to begin with an

overview of conditions at the regional scale. The entire region has a number of characteristics that distinguish it markedly from other portions of the United States, such

as its climate and topography, sparse population, lack of road access, strong dependence on natural resources for cultural, social, psychological, and economic benefits,

1
and the lack of political units common in other parts of the country (i.e., counties).

Similarly, some economic trends are best understood at the regional level because

they have effects throughout southeast Alaska. Regional-level analyses also allow

comparison between conditions and trends in southeast Alaska and those present

nationwide or Alaska-wide.

Assessing conditions at only the regional level misses the many distinctions present

at the next main political unit of analysis: borough or census area level (because large

portions of southeast Alaska have not incorporated into boroughs). These units are

widely recognized by all Federal agencies and most state agencies as county equivalents for Alaska. Southeast Alaska’s boroughs and census areas, as shown below,

differ in their social and economic structure and diversity and in the emphasis on natural resources used. Southeast Alaska contains five boroughs: the city-boroughs of

Juneau, Sitka, and Yakutat; and Ketchikan Gateway and Haines, which have independent, incorporated communities within their boundaries. The remaining unorganized

area is divided into three census areas for enumeration by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census: Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon; Wrangell-Petersburg; and Prince of Wales-Outer

Ketchikan.

The next primary unit of analysis and understanding is communities within boroughs

or census areas. Each of southeast Alaska’s communities, whether the few classified

as urban (population of 2,500 or greater) or the majority, which are rural and in some

cases very small, has a unique set of social and economic characteristics and qualities that contribute to quality of life for the residents. Very different communities may

occur within the same borough.

Some of the data desirable for describing community economies are either unavailable (the state does not collect employment and income data at very small scales,

and some information is viewed as proprietary and not released) or available infrequently (only collected every 10 years during the U.S. census). A recent change in

state policy, however, has made available data for groups of communities (discussed

in greater detail in “Community Conditions and Trends”). These data, available only

since July 1, 1996, provide a much better understanding of local distinctions. Table 1

shows how these various levels of analysis fit together.

It is also possible, and for many purposes desirable, to discuss other units of measure

in social and economic assessments. “Communities of interest,” for example, is a

term used to describe like-minded groups of people who form a social unit regardless

of their place of residence, such as the timber community or the environmental community. These subgroups can be differentially affected by public policy changes, even

if a community as a whole is doing well. Other social units include clans, families, and

individuals. Another subgroup, but a spatially defined one, is logging camps—mobile

yet independent settlements that sometimes become formal communities. Communities of interest and other possible subgroupings are not the focus of this report but are

occasionally mentioned where appropriate.

The data referenced come from many sources. Employment, income, and revenue

statistics were drawn primarily from the Alaska Department of Labor and Department

of Community and Regional Affairs, with additional analysis by the Forest Service,

and from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Analysis. For each

industry, numerous estimation techniques were used, each containing underlying assumptions and subject to various degrees of error. Where appropriate, these assumptions are stated and the nature of associated interpretation discussed.

2
Table 1—Boroughs and census areas, community groups, and communities of southeast Alaska

Boroughs and census areas Community groups Communities

City and Borough of Juneau Juneau Auke Bay, Berners Bay, Douglas, Dupont, Fritz Cove, Hawk Inlet,

Juneau, Lemon Creek, Lena Cove, Lynn Canal, Mendenhall Valley,

North Douglas, Salmon Creek, Snettisham, Switzer Creek, Taku Harbor,

Taku Lodge, Tee Harbor, Thane, and West Juneau.

Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan City Carlanna, Charcoal Point, Clover Pass, Herring Cove, Ketchikan,

Mountain Point, Mud Bay, North Tongass Highway, Peninsula Point,

Pennock Island, Point Higgins, Refuge Cove, Saxman, Shoreline Drive,

Thomas Basin, Totem Bight, Upper Nickeyville, Wacker, and Ward Cove.

Revillaggigedo Fire Cove, Gedney Pass, George Inlet, Gravina Island, Guard Island,

Hassler Pass, Loring, Neets Bay, Princess Bay, Shoal Cove, and

Twin Peaks.

Haines Borough Haines Eldred Rock, Excursion Inlet, Haines, Letnikof Cove, Moose Valley,

Mosquito Lake, Pleasant Camp, Porcupine, Port Chilkoot, and

Saint James Bay.

Sitka Borough Baranof Baranof, Big Port Walter, Chatham, Corner Bay, False Island, Lake Eva,

Little Port Walter, Port Armstrong, Port Conclusion, Rodman Bay,

Saook Bay, Todd, and Warm Spring Bay.

Sitka Biorka Island, Chichagof, Cobol, Deep Bay, Goddard, Halibut Point,

Jamestown Bay, Japonski Island (Mt. Edgecumbe), Katlian Bay,

Klag Bay, Nakwasina Cove, Redfish Cape, Saint John Baptist Bay,

Schulze Cove, Sitka, and Sitka Logging Camp.

Yakutat Borough Yakutat Situk and Yakutat.

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Chatham Strait Angoon, Catherine Island, Cube Cove, Hanus Bay, Tenakee Springs,

Tyee, and Whitewater Bay.

Gustavus Bartlett Cove, Cape Spencer, and Gustavus (Strawberry Point).

North Chichagof Elfin Cove, Gull Cove, Hoonah, Idaho Inlet, Lisianski, Pelican,

Port Althorp, Port Frederick, and Yakobi Island.

Stephens Passage Cape Fanshaw, Five Fingers, Freshwater Bay, Funter Bay,

Hobart Bay, Point Retreat, Port Houghton, Sawyers Landing, Sumdum,

and Windham Bay.

Skagway Clifton and Skagway.

Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan Central POWa Craig, Hollis, and Klawock.

Southeast POW Bokan Mountain, Campbell, Dall Island, Dora Bay, Kendrick Bay,

Klakas Inlet, Rose Inlet, Twelvemile Arm, View Cove, and Waterfall.

Hydaburg Hydaburg.

3
Overview of

Historical Development and Current

Population

This section begins with a brief summary of the history of southeast Alaska’s primary

resource-dependent industries. The purpose is to provide a context for understanding

and interpreting changes occurring in southeast Alaska economies today, at both regional and community scales. State and Federal policies, critical to population and

development of southeast Alaska, continue to shape the behavior of natural resourcebased industries.

Southeast Alaska’s contemporary society is influenced by many cultures. The abundant resources of the forest and water have provided for the physical and cultural

livelihood of local peoples for thousands of years. The earliest known people to

inhabit the area, the Tlingit, adapted well to the coastal environment, developing

a rich culture that still thrives through the changes brought by European peoples.

Native corporations operating today are a major economic force in southeast Alaska

(McDowell Group 1997).

Table 1—Boroughs and census areas, community groups, and communities of southeast Alaska

(continued)

Boroughs and census areas Community groups Communities

North POW Cape Pole, Coal Bay, Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, El Capitan, Kasaan,

Labouchere Bay, Little Naukati Bay, Naukati Bay, Noyes Island,

Point Baker, Port Alice, Port Protection, Ratz Harbor, Red Bay,

Salt Chuck, Shakan, Steamboat Bay, Thorne Bay, Thorne Island,

Tokeen, Tuxekan, Warren Cove, and Whale Pass.

Metlakatla Annette, Mary Island, and Metlakatla.

Hyder Hidden Inlet, Hyder, Smeaton Bay, Tongass, and Tree Point.

Cleveland Peninsula Bell Island, Meyers Chuck, Union Bay, and Yes Bay.

Wrangell-Petersburg Kake Kake.

Kuiu Island Alvin Bay, Cape Decision, Coronation Island, Duncan Canal, Fairway

Island, Hamilton Bay, Kah Sheets Bay, Port Alexander, Rowan Bay,

Saginaw Bay, Security Bay, Tebenkof Bay, and Washington Bay.

Petersburg Kupreanof, Mitkof Island, Petersburg, Scow Bay, and Vank Island.

Thomas Bay Thomas Bay.

Wrangell City Wrangell.

Wrangell Island Bradfield River, Burnette Inlet, Deer Island, Ernest Sound, Etolin Island,

Kakwan Point, Roosevelt Harbor, Saint John Harbor, Tyler Logging

Camp, and Zarembo Island.

a POW = Prince of Wales Island.

Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1995.

4
In the 1700s, the Russians began exploration in Alaska.1 The fur trade, primarily in

sea otter (Enhydra lutris) pelts, was the main force driving colonization. Sitka, established as Russian headquarters, was a city by the early 1860s, complete with sawmills, a shipyard, a foundry, numerous support industries, and a thriving harbor. When

most of the sea otter population was depleted, the fur industry declined and Russia

lost interest in her North American colony; Alaska was sold to the United States in

1867 (Seward’s Folly).

As American colonization continued, new industries developed. In the late 1800s,

commercial fishing, including salting and canning, became an important part of the

economy of southeast Alaska. The first American shore-based salmon saltery operated in 1868 on Klawock Island, where a salmon cannery opened 10 years later.

By the start of the 20th century, one-third of the million cases of salmon processed

in Alaska came from the southeast. Concerns about the sustainability of harvest

rates led to policy mandating artificial propagation; the largest hatchery in the world

began operation in 1901 at Heckman Lake. Mild-curing started soon thereafter, with

Germany as the principal market. Many communities sprang up around the fishing

industry. In the early 1900s, Port Alexander’s harbor was filled with up to 1,000 fishing

boats, and the community swelled with many businesses. Later, floating fish traps

greatly increased catch rates, until they were outlawed at the time of statehood

(1959). Many canneries closed, but the fishing boat industry flourished. Commercial

salmon fisheries in southeast Alaska became limited entry in the mid 1970s and early

1980s; this system limited the number of commercial permits available and established rules for allocating them.

The discovery of gold brought thousands of miners to the area, many of whom were

then followed by their families. Kowee, a chief of the Auk Tlingits, is credited with

showing Joe Juneau and Richard Harris to their finding at Juneau in 1880. The

Treadwell Mine across the channel in Douglas, one of the largest mining complexes

in the world, began operation in 1885 and continued until 1917, employing an average

of 700 to 750 workers annually and up to 2,000 in peak years. Discovery of gold in

the Klondike led to establishment of Skagway as a gateway to the gold fields. By

1920, the Alaska-Juneau mine was the largest bar-grade gold mine in the world,

processing a peak of 12,000 tons of ore per day and employing 1,000. In the 1920s

and 1930s, the Great Depression brought a decline in mining employment. The gold

mines, not considered critical to the war effort, were closed by Federal order during

World War II. Afterwards, rising labor costs and fixed gold prices prevented most

Alaska mines from reopening for some time.

The region’s timber resources were used by the earliest inhabitants for shelter, heat,

utility, and cultural purposes. The Russians also harvested timber for building ships

and structures, but commercial timber harvest did not develop until the 1900s. In the

early part of the 20th century, small sawmills were operating in a few communities

and served local markets. Alaska’s first pulp mill opened in 1921 south of Juneau, but

closed after 3 years as a result of poor market conditions. The Alaska Spruce Log

program was headquartered at Edna Bay, where 250 newcomers were housed. The

program operated from 1942 to 1944 to produce lumber for airplanes needed for the

1 Much of the following history is adapted from Roppel (1983).

5
Figure 1–Major communities and land ownership of southeast Alaska.

6
war. It was not until the mid-20th century, though, when two large pulp mills opened

in Ketchikan and Sitka, that the timber industry became a major social and economic

factor in southeast Alaska. The Ketchikan Pulp Company mill was completed in 1954,

and the Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company mill near Sitka opened in 1959. Long-term

contracts guaranteed a supply of timber from Federal lands to these large southeast

Alaska mills. Closure of the mills in 1994 (Sitka) and 1997 (Ketchikan) led to social,

economic, and political effects that continue to reverberate throughout southeast

Alaska.

The tourism industry in southeast Alaska began in the 1870s with visits by John Muir

and others who wrote of the land’s magnificence. Transportation developed to bring

freight and workers was used by travelers to see the region’s sights. Steamships

brought 5,000 travelers to the region in 1890, and completion of the White Pass

and Yukon Railroad in 1900 attracted tourists as well as gold miners. Air passenger

service between Juneau, Ketchikan, and Seattle began in 1940 with Pan American

Airways’ Sikorsky flying boat, which could carry 32 passengers. By 1951, just after the

Alaska Highway opened to the public, southeast Alaska visitation increased to about

50,000. Recent years have seen southeast Alaska attract industrial-scale tourism, and

the Inside Passage is Alaska’s most frequently visited attraction.

Today, land ownership in southeast Alaska is dominated by the Tongass National

Forest, which comprises over 80 percent of the land base (17 of 21 million acres). An

additional 15 percent, is Federal land managed by the National Park Service, most of

which is in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. The next largest ownership is by

Native corporations, which own just over 500,000 acres, followed by the state with

180,000 acres, boroughs and communities with 53,000 acres, and other private lands

with 11,000 acres. Given this distribution, it is not difficult to imagine the pervasive

effects that Tongass management has on the people of southeast Alaska.

Southeast Alaska (fig. 1) contains about 12 percent of Alaska’s population and

6 percent of its land base. Presently, about 74,000 people live in the towns, communities, and villages of Alaska’s southeastern panhandle, mostly on islands or

along the narrow strip of coastline (Alaska Department of Labor 1995). As of 1995,

only 5 of southeast Alaska’s 32 primary communities were considered urban by

the U.S. Bureau of the Census definition as having a population of 2,500 or greater.

Together, these cities account for 71 percent of the total regional population. Three—

Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka—rank within the top five urban areas in the state; only

Anchorage and Fairbanks are larger in population. At 29,500, Juneau alone accounts

for almost 40 percent of southeast Alaska’s population.

The region’s remoteness is reflected in a population density of around 2 persons

per square mile, compared to the U.S. average of over 70 persons per square mile.

Southeast Alaska consists of a narrow strip of mainland and a chain of hundreds of

islands known as the Alexander Archipelago. Most locations are accessible only by

boat or plane, and landing strips or seaplane facilities are available in virtually all

communities. Ferries owned and operated by the state’s Alaska Marine Highway

System transport people and vehicles between several ports in southeast Alaska,

Prince Rupert, BC, and Bellingham, WA. Haines and Skagway, at the northern

end of the interisland waterway, and Hyder at the southern end, offer the only road

access to the interior and south-central Alaska via the Alaska Highway, and Canada

via the Cassiar Highway.

7
Table 2—Population characteristics compared for the United States and Alaska, 1990 and 1995

Education attainment

(25 years and older)

Population

High Bachelor

Census area Asian and Median Persons per school degree or

and year Total Caucasian Native Black Pacific Islander age Males household or higher higher

––––––––– Percent ––––––––– Years Percent No. ––– Percent –––

United States,

1990 248,709,873 83.9 0.8 12.3 3.0 32.8 48.7 2.6 75.2 20.3

Alaska:

1990 550,043 76.5 15.7 4.2 3.7 29.2 52.7 2.8 86.6 23.0

1995 603,453 75.7 15.7 4.4 4.2 30.0 52.0 NA NA NA

Southeast region:

1990 68,989 77.5 18.7 0.6 3.2 31.1 52.4 NA NA NA

1995 74,668 77.8 18.0 .8 3.4 33.1 51.8 NA NA NA

Haines Borough:

1990 2,117 85.8 13.3 0 0.8 34.2 53.2 2.6 78.5 17.6

1995 2,295 86.5 12.9 .1 .5 36.5 50.9 NA NA NA

City & Borough

of Juneau:

1990 26,751 81.4 13.1 1.1 4.4 31.7 50.8 2.6 89.9 30.7

1995 28,757 82.2 11.9 1.2 4.7 32.6 50.6 NA NA NA

Ketchikan Gateway

Borough:

1990 13,828 82.2 13.8 .4 3.6 31.5 52.3 2.7 85.4 20.2

1995 14,773 83.4 11.9 .5 4.3 33.6 52.0 NA NA NA

Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan:

1990 6,278 61.7 37.7 .1 .5 30.2 56.5 2.9 77.5 11.4

1995 6,755 59.7 39.9 0 .3 31.8 54.8 NA NA NA

Sitka Borough:

1990 8,588 74.6 21.0 .5 3.9 30.4 52.5 2.8 87.0 21.4

1995 8,891 74.6 20.1 1.1 4.2 32.9 51.2 NA NA NA

Skagway-HoonahAngoon:

1990 3,680 62.0 37.2 .2 .7 31.2 55.1 3.0 79.3 15.8

1995 3,733 62.2 37.5 0 .3 34.4 53.0 NA NA NA

Wrangell-Petersburg:

1990 7,042 79.0 19.5 .2 1.3 31.6 53.5 2.8 81.0 19.8

1995 7,198 79.9 18.6 .3 1.3 34.2 53.0 NA NA NA

Yakutat Borough:

1990 705 54.2 44.3 .1 1.4 30.3 54.6 aaa

1995 767 40.8 55.8 .1 3.2 31.6 54.3 NA NA NA

NA = not available.

a Yakutat Borough was delineated in 1992, for these 1990 census figures, it is included in the Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1995; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1990, 1996.

8
Between 1980 and 1990, southeast Alaska’s population increased at about 2.5 percent annually, from just under 54,000 to nearly 69,000 (Alaska Department of Labor

1991); this was a slightly lower rate of increase than that of Alaska as a whole (3 percent annually). The largest rate of change within the southeast was in the Prince of

Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area (5 percent increase annually) and the smallest

was in the Sitka Borough (1 percent annually).

Population change is comprised of two components: natural increase (births minus

deaths), which tends to be a fairly stable component; and net migration (inmigration,

which is the number of people moving into an area, minus outmigration, the number

of people leaving), which can fluctuate more rapidly. Between 1980 and 1990, about

38 percent of southeast Alaska’s population increase was due to net migration, compared to about 35 percent of the statewide increase. The pattern differed across

southeast Alaska; in Sitka Borough and the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, net

migration was negative (more people moved away than moved in), while population

growth due to net migration far outpaced natural increases in the Skagway-YakutatAngoon Census Area and Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area.

Between 1990 and 1996, southeast Alaska’s population continued to grow, but at a

slower rate (about 1.4 percent annually, compared to the statewide average of 1.9)

than in the 1980s (table 2). Growth rates were more uniform at the subregional level.

For example, Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan increases slowed to just under 2 percent annually, although this remained the highest rate except for Yakutat Borough

(incorporated in September 1992), which grew at nearly 2.5 percent annually. Data

on migration trends for 1990-96 are not yet available.

The racial mixture of Alaska’s population remained fairly constant between 1990 and

1995, with a small decrease in the Caucasian share and small increases in the Black,

and Asian and Pacific Islander populations (table 2). The greatest difference between

southeast Alaska and the Nation is the proportion of Natives. At the start of the 20th

century, Native and non-Native populations were about equal in southeast Alaska,

and by the 1950s non-Native outnumbered Natives by about a 2:1 ratio. Today,

Alaska’s Natives comprise nearly 16 percent of the population statewide and 18 percent of southeast Alaska, much larger than the approximately 1 percent proportion

nationwide.

Alaska has the second youngest population in the United States and the lowest overall percentage of females of any state. In line with national trends, Alaska’s median

age increased from 29.2 in 1990 to 30 in 1995. Southeast Alaska also reflects this

trend, with the median age increasing from 31.1 in 1990 to 33.1 in 1995. The median

age in Haines Borough of 36.5 was the highest in Alaska in 1995. The region’s maleto-female ratio also moved closer toward an even split between 1990 and 1995.

Areas such as Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area and Yakutat Borough,

which have concentrations of jobs traditionally held by males (in logging and fishing

camps), have populations of more than 50 percent male. Table 2 also shows that

a higher proportion of the Alaskan population 25 years and older completed high

school or higher education compared to the proportion in the entire United States.

The boroughs of southeast Alaska follow this trend, with the largest population of

people having higher educations living in the City and Borough of Juneau.

9
Demographic information can describe some aspects of a region’s population but

not its values and lifestyles. Southeast Alaska is a unique and special place to the

people who live there. Insight into the values and challenges shared by residents was

gained in a recent series of informal meetings held by representatives of the Henry P.

Kendall Foundation in five communities. Findings from those meetings, published in a

report called “Listening to Communities in Southeast Alaska” (Smith 1996), were laced

with references to “human dignity, fairness, community/place/home, the economy,

inclusiveness/participation, long-term vision, and land and water.” Excerpts

demonstrate the range of values held by southeast Alaska residents:

Southeast Alaskans cherish their place, their closeness to the land, water,

mountains, and wildlife—their lifestyles. Personal use of forest and marine

resources is considered by many to be a vital component of local culture,

lifestyle, and family provisioning [p. 1].

Southeast Alaskan communities seem to prefer a diverse local economy,

one that is not dominated by a single corporate employer, native or nonnative. Nearly every community is experiencing changes in its leading

economic sectors [p. 2].

Many residents want to protect the forest lands, wildlife, and fisheries in

the areas surrounding their own city or village. This (apparently growing)

sense of economic and life-style territoriality is expressed in comments

about logging, hunting, fishing, and tourism [p. 3].

Commercial fishermen express concern over habitat destruction in the

Tongass, but they seem more interested in issues like access, market

prices, and restrictions imposed to protect Columbia River salmon runs

[p. 4].

Several communities are facing the same issues on their own. Examples

include tourism planning and passenger (user) levies, solid waste disposal,

municipal water, and all of the challenges and problems associated with

investments in new woods products facilities [p. 5].

There is growing frustration in rural communities/villages among residents

who believe they cannot influence decisions in corporations and governmental agencies which control the use of surrounding forests. Some people

think that communities need to find a way to develop a vision of their future

and then deliver that message to institutions that dominate their local economies. There is presently said to be no institution capable of bringing

people together to search for an acceptable medium to long-term strategy

for Tongass management [p. 3].

10
Regional Conditions

and Trends

Table 3 displays several key economic statistics reflecting the current state of the regional economy and its development since 1985.2 Certain of these measures display

a healthy and dynamic economy. For example, at 2.1-percent annual growth, job

creation in southeast Alaska exceeded the national average by about 40 percent.This

growth was matched by growth in the region’s total population. Taken together, these

statistics indicated a regional economy positioned to weather negative effects and

take advantage of positive effects arising from forest policy, as well as other sources.

Recent analyses predict continued growth in employment, but at a slower pace of

less than 1 percent for 1996-97, and about 1 percent for 1997-98 (Tromble 1997).

Table 3—Southeast Alaska economic overview, 1985 to 1994

SE

Alaska U.S.

1985-94 growth growth

Variable 1985 1994 change rate rate

–––––– Percent –––––

Total personal income (million 1995$)a 1,745 1,911 9.0 1.2 2.0

Population 62,800 72,700 16.0 1.6 1.0

Average annual employmentb 39,113 47,352 21.0 2.1 1.5

Per capita personal income (1995$): 28,327 26,372 -6.9 -.3 .9

As percentage of U.S. average 138.0 118.0 — — —

S-W diversity index:c

Southeast Alaska borough average 46.0 55.0d — ——

U.S. county average 54.0 60.0d — ——

Average earnings per job (1995$/year) 36,975 31,674 -14.0 -1.5 .4

Per capita unearned income (1995$): 6,741 7,482 11.0 1.1 1.2

As percentage of total per capita income 24.0 29.0 18.0 — —

Southeast Alaska unemployment rate (percent) 10.2 8.2 — — —

U.S. unemployment rate (percent) 7.2 6.2 — — —

— = not applicable.

a All dollar figures are in 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer price index.

b Employment is full- and part-time annual equivalent and does not include proprietors and selfemployed.

c S-W = Shannon and Weaver (1949). This measure of economic diversity was calculated by using

Bureau of Economic Analysis regional economic information system data. This measure is not equivalent

to those presented in subsequent portions of this analysis.

d Estimate for 1990.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

2 The choice of 1985 as a base year for comparison is

problematic because it was a low year of timber industry

employment, but it is acceptable in terms of summary

statistics for the total regional economy. The growth rates

shown in table 3 are calculated from annual data and so

are not as susceptible to the choice of initial and final years,

although the end points affect the calculations. Year-by-year

trends and other periods are examined elsewhere in this

paper.

11
Other statistics shown in table 3, however, indicate a more complex situation. The

regional unemployment rate, for example, is well above the national average and

has remained so since at least 1975. This indicates that higher unemployment is a

structural feature of the region’s economy; the “natural” rate of unemployment for

southeast Alaska is higher than the national average.3 The unemployment rate seems

to be tracking the national average more closely in recent years, perhaps the result

of increased economic diversification and opportunity in the region.

Given the relative youth of the region’s population, the seasonal nature of much

resource-related employment, and the mixed cash-subsistence economy, it is not

surprising that southeast Alaska residents find themselves between jobs more frequently or for longer periods do than other U.S. citizens. Many southeast Alaska residents may be willing to accept economic hardship or uncertainty to remain because

of the unique lifestyles still possible. The Alaska Public Survey (Alves 1979) found

that southeast Alaska residents (and other Alaskans) rated “being close to a wilderness environment” and “living near the water and recreation opportunities” as more

important than “long term economic opportunities” as reasons for moving to or remaining in the region (although recent migrants cited “a challenging job” more frequently than did long-time residents).

A measure of economic diversity, the Shannon-Weaver (S-W) diversity index (Attaran

1986, Shannon and Weaver 1949) is provided in table 3.4 Economic diversity, a goal

of many communities historically dependent on a single industry (or even a single

company) for a large proportion of employment, correlates with other positive economic indicators (Ashton and Pickens 1995, Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT] 1993). The index is best viewed as a relative measure used to

compare communities within a region or one region to another. It does not measure

the strength or size of an economy and thus should be used in conjunction with other

economic indicators.

The S-W index for southeast Alaska boroughs and census areas indicated that these

areas tend to fall well below national averages in terms of economic diversification.

Over 90 percent of all U.S. counties reported a higher diversity index than the southeast Alaska average in 1985 (calculated by using a standard deviation of 0.06 for all

U.S. counties). In 1990, 83 percent of U. S. counties scored higher than the southeast

Alaska average (standard deviation of 0.05), indicating that the region’s economy

3 The official unemployment rate does not include people

not covered by unemployment insurance, such as selfemployed individuals or fishers. This definition also excludes

people who have made no attempt to find work recently, such

as discouraged workers or people who do not want to work.

In other words, the official unemployment rate does not

represent the actual number of people currently not

employed, especially in rural areas (Boucher 1996).

4 This analysis measures the percentage of employment

within an industry sector relative to the total. If employment

is evenly distributed across all industry sectors, the S-W

index will yield a maximum score (100 percent). In economies with substantial concentration in a single sector, the

S-W score will be relatively low.

12
has diversified but is still significantly less so than the national average. Economic

diversity is highly correlated with population density. Most of the communities of

southeast Alaska are characterized by low populations (relative to towns and cities in

the lower 48 States) and a high degree of isolation, and thus are unable to support

the specialized industries found in a more diversified economy.

Total personal income in southeast Alaska presents an ambiguous picture. It increased at an annual rate of 1.2 percent from 1985 to 1994, but this rate is 38 percent below the national average. When combined with a growing population, the net

result is an actual decline in per capita personal income for the region. Residents of

southeast Alaska still earn more, on average, than the general U.S. population, but

the difference has fallen from 138 percent of the national average in 1985 to just 118

percent in 1994. A decline in average real wages is the primary cause of decreasing

per capita income. Real average earnings per job have declined at an annual rate of

1.5 percent, falling from $36,975 in 1985 to $31,674 in 1994. When the higher cost

of living faced by consumers in southeast Alaska is taken into account, it is hard to

argue that residents of the region are economically better off than other U.S.

residents.

Table 3 also reports changes in unearned income, such as transfer payments and

returns on investments, an increasingly important component of personal income in

local economies throughout the United States. Unearned income can be viewed as

equivalent to basic industries; because the source of these payments lies outside the

region, they represent new money coming into the region and therefore have an associated multiplier effect. Between 1985 and 1994, real per capita unearned income

increased at an average of 1.1 percent annually, a rate roughly equivalent to the national average of 1.2 percent (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996). In 1994, unearned income comprised 29 percent of total income in southeast Alaska, compared

to 33 percent of income nationwide. Sources of transfer payments for southeast

Alaska residents include income maintenance (4 percent of unearned income; this

includes food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and other assistance

programs); unemployment insurance (3 percent); dividends, interest, and rent (47 percent of unearned income); and retirement and other (46 percent): these proportions

were comparable to national proportions.

Residents of Alaska also receive transfer payments from the state that are not

common in the lower 48. The State of Alaska, which no longer has a state income

tax, pays each resident an annual sum under the Permanent Fund Dividend Program

based on investments made from state oil revenues. The average payment over the

15 years of the program has been $796, ranging from a low in 1984 of $331 per

person, to a high in 1996 of $1,131 per person. Alaska residents who were 65 years

or older before 1996 are eligible for further state assistance in the form of longevity

bonus payments. The latter program pays a monthly amount to residents 65 or older

to encourage them to remain in Alaska during retirement. The program no longer

accepts new applicants as of December 1996, but all who qualify will continue to

receive payments for the rest of their lives or until they move out of Alaska. For those

who qualified in 1990 or earlier, the bonus is $250 per month, dropping to $100 per

month for those qualifying in 1996. This same population also qualifies to live in a

“pioneer home,” a state-operated, full care facility, with payment based on individual

income.

13
Table 4—Southeast Alaska employment by sector, 1985 to 1995

Employment Share of total

1985-95 1995 share

Sectora 1985 1995 1985 1995 change relative to U.S.

Annual equivalent –––––––– Percent ––––––––

Agricultural production 0 0 0 0 — —

Mining 44 189 1 1 333 -16

Construction 1,665 1,620 6 5 -3 -10

Total manufacturing 3,234 4,027 11 11 25 -14

Retail trade 4,182 6,098 14 17 46 2

Wholesale trade 370 507 1 1 37 -70

Financial, insurance, real estate 1,112 1,311 4 4 18 -50

Services 4,389 6,496 15 18 48 -38

Transportation and public utilities 2,032 2,771 7 8 36 64

Agriculture, forestry, fishing services 162 282 1 1 75 -35

Federal Government 2,075 1,939 7 6 -7 46

Other government 9,898 10,182 34 29 3 157

Totalb 29,162 35,422 — — 21 —

— = not applicable.

a Sectors defined according to Standard Industry Classification Manual, 1987:

Agricultural production includes farms, orchards, greenhouses, and nurseries primarily engaged in the production of crops, plants, vines, and

trees (excluding forestry operations).

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.

Total 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.

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.

Transportation and public utilities includes passenger and freight transportation, communications services, electricity, gas, steam, water and

sanitary services and all establishments of the United States Postal Service.

Agricultural, forestry, and fishing services includes businesses engaged in agricultural production, forestry, commercial fishing, hunting and

trapping, and related services.

Federal and other government includes all Federal, state, and local government employees involved in executive, legislative, judicial,

administrative and regulatory activities.

b Employment is full- and part-time annual equivalent and excludes proprietors and self-employed. Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

14
Another type of income unique to Alaska, but not supplied by the state, comes from

Native corporation activities. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

(ANCSA; U.S. Laws, Statutes 1971) extinguished aboriginal claims to Alaska in return

for about $1 billion and 44 million acres of land. Under ANCSA, the land and money

were distributed to 13 regional Native corporations, which distributed about half the

money to village corporations and shareholders. Sealaska was established as the

regional corporation in southeast Alaska, along with two urban corporations and 10

village corporations. A recent report (McDowell Group 1997) estimated that southeast

Alaska’s ANCSA corporations accounted for more than 1 out of 10 private sector

jobs in southeast Alaska (through direct and indirect employment combined). The

corporations distributed about $47 million in dividends in 1996, $27 million to southeast Alaska residents; during the past 5 years, dividends averaged $22,000 per

shareholder. The report also documented the corporations’ support of scholarships,

social service organizations, cultural heritage groups, and nonprofit agencies.

Southeast Alaska employment by sector is shown in table 4. Services and retail

trade have contributed a growing share of the region’s total employment, increasing

from 29 percent of total employment in 1985 to 36 percent in 1995. Nonetheless, the

share of retail employment is currently quite close to the national average and services are still largely underrepresented. Jobs in these sectors have by no means

been replacing jobs in the manufacturing sector, where a 2.2-percent annual growth

rate is evident and the share of southeast Alaska total employment has remained

stable at about 11 percent. Declines in share are concentrated in the government

sector where growth in employment has been limited. Recent forecasts suggest that

growth through 1998 could be strongest in mining and construction sectors, while

declines are expected to continue in the manufacturing, forest products, and state

government sectors (Tromble 1997). Other sectors are expected to remain stable

or show slight increases.

Table 4 displays industrial sector employment shares relative to the U.S. average.

Wholesale trade, F.I.R.E. (finance, insurance, and real estate), and services are

largely underrepresented in southeast Alaska, reflecting the lack of economies of

scale in the region and the propensity to import these goods and services from the

lower 48 States. Manufacturing is also underrepresented, but to a lesser extent.

This is the result of certain basic industries (primarily wood products and commercial fishing) partially offsetting a less developed manufacturing base. Government and

transportation, on the other hand, far exceed their representation in the U.S. economy

at large. In the first instance, the location of the state capital in Juneau is a primary

determinant, but relatively higher proportions of government employment also are

present in the other communities of southeast Alaska. The high share of transportation arises, for the most part, from the importance of air and water traffic in a region

lacking an interconnected road system.

15
Table 4, and much other employment data reported by the Alaska Department of

Labor (ADOL) and other relevant agencies, includes only nonagricultural wage and

salary (NAWS) employment, which excludes self-employed individuals and thus omits

a substantial proportion of regional total employment; sufficiently detailed statistics on

total employment are generally unavailable. In 1994, the difference between total and

NAWS employment (with salmon harvesting included) was estimated at 10,289 jobs,

with NAWS jobs accounting for 78 percent of total regional employment. This percentage is substantially lower than the U.S. average of 85 percent, indicating that southeast Alaska residents are more apt to be self-employed. Several reasons may underlie this tendency. First, much of the tourism industry is comprised of small businesses

in which self-employed proprietors account for a large share of total employment.

Second, because halibut, crab, and other nonsalmon fishing are not included in our

estimates, they are counted in the self-employed category. Third, logging often employs a large number of independent contractors, although this practice is not as

prevalent in southeast Alaska as in the lower 48 States.

This snapshot of the regional economy describes both strengths and weaknesses relative to the whole of the United States. Growth in employment opportunities is higher

than in much of the rest of the country, but so is growth in the local population. When

combined with the fact that much of the new job creation has occurred in lower paid

retail and service sectors, the result is a steady erosion in average wages and per

capita income. Nonetheless, current per capita income is still significantly higher than

the national average, and much of the new job creation in the region is occurring in

locally underrepresented industries. Were the regional economy to grow at its recent

pace, it might eventually more closely resemble that of the United States at large.

This could mean a further diminution of per capita income, but also increased economic diversification and resiliency and a decline in unemployment rates to levels

more closely matching the rest of the country. Projections of lower growth rates for

the upcoming year (1998) suggest uncertainty regarding these results.

Tongass National

Forest-Related Regional

Economy

The Tongass National Forest supplies southeast Alaska (and the Nation) with resources ranging from traditional commodities, such as salmon and timber, to more

intangible goods and services such as recreational opportunities and scenery. Industries based on natural resources comprise a comparatively large proportion of the

regional economy. Consequently, policy decisions affecting the potential supply of

certain outputs (such as timber or recreational opportunities) have relatively large

impacts. At the same time, forces outside the control of the Forest Service also

influence the system, such as world market prices, national and international competition for providing products and services, demographic trends and consumer preferences, and trends in climate that affect natural resource conditions.

One example of this influence is evident in timber policies. In recent years, the

Tongass has accounted for slightly less than half of the total regional timber harvest,

with harvests from private lands accounting for nearly all the rest. Private land harvests are an important determinant of logging employment. Local mills have been

unsuccessful, however, in bidding for logs that have instead gone to the export

market, so an overwhelming majority of saw-log quality timber from private lands is

exported in raw-log form. This leaves the Forest Service as the sole supplier of logs

to local mills and creates an ambiguous policy picture; mill owners have identified

certain aspects of Forest policy as a barrier to their further development (and survival), yet have relied on other aspects of Federal policy for their existence.

16
There also is a complex relation between the Tongass and the tourism industry. The

National Forest provides most, but by no means all, of the recreational and tourism

opportunities and amenities on which the industry relies; however, the majority of

southeast Alaska tourists arrive on cruise ships and have the Inside Passage as their

destination. Forest Service policies provide much of the scenery and habitat for wildlife that are viewed or hunted and contribute to the fish that are caught by tourists,

but it is difficult to determine at what point a change in policy would cause a change

in tourist behavior. Similarly, salmon populations and thereby the salmon fishing and

processing industries depend on numerous factors. The importance of Tongass management is recognized, but the specific percentage of contribution can only be estimated. The Tongass obviously plays a central role in the fortunes of southeast

Alaska’s resource-dependent industries but, as these examples illustrate, it is not

their sole determinant.

Management of the Tongass also contributes greatly to the subsistence lifestyles

and mixed economy of rural southeast Alaska. It is beyond the scope of this paper

to thoroughly describe subsistence and its economic, psychological, social, and

cultural benefits, but the economy of southeast Alaska cannot be described without

understanding subsistence. Rural Alaska communities generally have integrated

three-sector economies composed of public, private, and subsistence sectors (Glass

and others 1995). The public sector provides substantial employment opportunities

in local, state, and Federal government and many types of services. It also spurs

local employment through capital investment, and provides transfer payments, some

of which are unique to Alaska. The private sector provides jobs, investment opportunities, and marketed goods and services. The subsistence sector provides natural

resources that supplement income, often substantially. The three sectors interact in

many ways, so it is difficult to separate the contributions of each sector to social and

economic well-being and the quality of life in rural Alaska (Glass and others 1995).5

This section describes employment and income for the region’s natural resourcerelated industries because they are most likely to be directly affected by policy

decisions on management of the Tongass National Forest. These include wood

products, seafood harvesting and processing, recreation and tourism, and mining.6

An overview of subsistence and its role in the mixed economy of rural southeast

Alaska is included.

The primary statistical source for natural resource employment data is ADOL, which

publishes employment figures based on unemployment insurance contribution reports

filed by state employers, as well as other sources. In these data, recreation and tourism is not reported as a separate industry. Employment within this sector is distributed across various industry categories, particularly the service sector. For this paper, recreation and tourism jobs were derived by using the impact analysis for planning (IMPLAN) regional-level input-output model developed by the Forest Service

(Taylor and others 1993). For the recreation and tourism industry, as well as for commercial fishing, the methodologies used are further described in the industry-specific

subsections below.

5 Subsistence will be the subject of future publications

following collection of more up-to-date information on

patterns of subsistence harvest in southeast Alaska (begun

early in 1997 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game).

6 Mining is not addressed in equivalent detail because new

development is less directly linked to Forest Service policy.

17
The employment and income IMPLAN-generated multipliers7 used to derive total

employment levels are shown in table 5. Employment and income multipliers for the

resource-dependent industries averaged around 1.5, with a low of 1.32 for recreation

and a high of 1.92 for fish processing. The high figure for fish processing reflects

the dependence of the industry on local fish harvesting as a major input. Relative

to multipliers estimated for other states, these are low, but this is not surprising given

that a higher percentage of goods and services purchased by local firms and individuals are imported from Seattle and elsewhere (Hoover and Giarratani 1984).

Figure 2 shows the distribution of direct employment in southeast Alaska by major

economic sector. These numbers, and all subsequent employment figures, are expressed in annual equivalent employment (equivalent to 1 year of full-time or part-time

employment). Out of just over 37,000 jobs, 23 percent were in resource-dependent

industries. Estimates of total (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced) employment from the

resource-dependent sector were not made because of double-counting concerns, but

the share of total employment attributable to the resource-dependent industries would

be significantly higher. Due to a rapid increase in recreation and tourism-related employment, direct employment in the resource-dependent industries has risen about 9

percent since 1985. Total southeast Alaska employment, on the other hand, increased

by about 21 percent during the same period.

Table 5—Southeast Alaska employment

and income multipliers, 1995

Employment and

Industry income multipliers

Wood products 1.73

Mining 1.74

Salmon harvesting 1.42

Seafood processing 1.92

Recreation and tourism 1.32

Hunting 1.40

Sport fishing 1.44

Source: Morse 1992.

7 Economic activity within one industry generates activity in

others as firms purchase services and materials as inputs

(“indirect” effects) and employees spend their earnings within

the local economy (“induced” effects). Each industry has a

unique multiplier representing its impact on the regional

economy given its particular distribution of local purchases

and payments. The total employment generated by an

industry is the product of direct employment and the multiplier.

18
The differential rates of growth in resource-dependent jobs and total employment has

been reflected in a recent gradual decline in the share of resource-dependent industries in southeast Alaska’s total employment mix (fig. 3). The 23-percent share of resource-dependent employment in 1995, however, is still higher than the 22 percent

recorded in 1984, a low year for timber employment. Direct employment shares of the

various resource-dependent industries within the resource sector total are displayed

in figure 4. Salmon harvesting and fish processing together account for 40 percent of

the total, followed by recreation and tourism (including hunting and sportfishing; 34

percent), wood products (24 percent), and mining (2 percent). The distribution of total

employment (using the multipliers mentioned above) differs due to the multipliers attached to each industry. While the share of total employment related to recreation and

tourism declines due to its relatively small multiplier, the total share of wood products

employment increases. Relative changes in share for the salmon harvesting and

processing sector total employment are ambiguous; the complementary nature of the

sector’s two industries means that indirect effects from each cannot be summed to

estimate a total. Income shares also differ among the industries because jobs in wood

products and mining pay more.

The average annual earnings shown in table 6 roughly correspond to the wage rate

for each industry (expressed in annual equivalents). Mining, followed by wood products, occupies the high end; these two industries are, respectively, 100 percent and

48 percent higher than the average for the region. Estimates for tourism and recreation also are slightly higher than the regional average. At $26,074, seafood processing

provides the lowest annual wage of the five industries (profits to fishing permit holders

are not included in the fish harvesting earnings, and the earning figures do not reflect

total income of fishing industry participants).

Figure 2–Distribution of 1995 southeast Alaska direct employment by major sector. Resourcedependent industries include paper and wood products, mining, salmon harvesting and seafood

processing, and recreation and tourism. All employment figures are standardized to annual

equivalent and include an estimate of those self-employed in salmon harvesting. Sources:

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1996, Alaska Department of Labor 1996a,

USDA Forest Service 1996b.

19
Figure 3–Total and resource-dependent employment in southeast Alaska, 1980-94. Resource-dependent

industries include paper and wood products, mining, salmon harvesting and seafood processing, and

recreation and tourism. All employment figures are standardized to annual equivalent and include an

estimate of those self-employed in salmon harvesting. Sources: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry

Commission 1996, Alaska Department of Labor 1996s USDA Forest Service 1996b.

Figure 4–Distribution of 1995 southeast Alaska direct employment

within resource-dependent industries. Resource-dependent industries

include paper and wood products, mining, salmon harvesting and

seafood processing, and recreation and tourism. All employment

figures are standardized to annual equivalent and include an

estimate of those self-employed in salmon harvesting. Sources:

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1996, Alaska

Department of Labor 1996a, Morse 1992, USDA Forest Service

1996b.

20
Although not included in table 6, the proportion of Federal Government employment

comprised by the Forest Service (and other resource management agencies) also

could be considered resource dependent. Forest Service employment within a community might be considered a basic industry, because the salaries come from outside

the region. In 1995, Forest Service employment accounted for at least 45 percent of

the Federal Government employment in southeast Alaska, although the level of employment has been declining. Government wages are a steady source of income, tend

to be above average, and in Alaska, include a 25-percent, tax-free cost-of-living adjustment. Employees are concentrated in communities with Regional, Forest, and

District offices. The Ketchikan Administrative Area has the most employees (full-time

equivalents [FTEs]) with offices in Ketchikan, Thorne Bay, and Craig. The Chatham

Administrative Area has offices in Juneau, Sitka, Hoonah, and Yakutat. The Stikine

Administrative Area, with the smallest workforce, has offices in Petersburg and

Wrangell. The Regional Office, which currently employs about 200 FTEs, is in Juneau.

Table 6—Southeast Alaska 1995 employment and earnings for resource-dependent industries

Individuals employed Employee earningsa

1995 direct Change SE AK 1995 total 1995 direct SE AK 1995 average 1995 total

Industry employment 1985-95 total employment earnings total annual earnings earnings

Annual Annual Million Million

equivalent – – Percent – – equivalent 1995$ Percent 1995$ 1995$

Wood products 2,070 2 6 3,584 92 8 44,542 160

Mining 189 -10 1 329 12 1 60,971 20

Recreation and tourismb 2,941 22 8 3,888 93 8 31,773 124

Salmon harvesting 1,855 -4 5 2,634 49 4 26,418 70

Seafood processing 1,648 14 4 3,164 43 4 26,074 83

Total, resource-dependent 8,703 9 23 c 289 25 33,224 c

Southeast Alaska total 37,307 21 100 37,307 1,153 100 30,914 1,153

a All dollar figures are in 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer price index.

b Recreation and tourism employment and earnings estimated from 1990 levels (derived from USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, IMPLAN

model [Morse 1992]) by using historical recreation use on the Tongass as an index.

c Total resource-dependent employment and income is omitted because of inability to sum resident and nonresident recreation and tourism

measures.

Sources: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1995, Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, Morse 1992.

21
Two other characteristics of employment are relevant to southeast Alaska: nonresident share and seasonal variation. Nonresident shares for southeast Alaska total

employment and direct employment in the resource-dependent industries are shown

in figure 5. Nonresident shares help to indicate how much of the benefits generated

by an industry are likely to leave the region. At 44 percent, the share of nonresidents

in the resource sector is about twice that for all industries within the region. This results mostly from the high proportion of nonresidents working in the seafood processing sector and the recreation and tourism sector. Other sectors, particularly mining,

are substantially lower but, with the exception of hunting-related employment, all are

higher than the regional average.

Subsectors within these broad categories may differ. Within the wood products sector

statewide, employment in lumber and wood manufacturing has had a much higher

proportion of nonresident employment than has the pulp industry (Hadland 1996).

Alaska Pulp Corporation, for example, employed just 18 percent nonresidents in 1994

(Alaska Department of Labor 1996b).

The seasonality of employment is another factor in southeast Alaska, where the difference between levels of employment in summer and winter is quite pronounced.

Figure 6 shows one measure designed to capture seasonal variation (monthly statistics were not available for many of the resource-dependent industries discussed). A

pattern similar to that of nonresident employment is apparent, with seafood processing

showing an extremely high degree of seasonal variation (salmon harvesting can be

assumed to display comparable but somewhat smaller figures due to increased preparation time). Although not reported here, it is safe to assume that tourism and recreation shows a high degree of seasonal variability; cruise ships, the travel method

for a majority of southeast Alaska tourists, operate only from May through September.

With the exception of pulp mills, the mining and wood products industries also show

a higher variation in seasonality than the regional average.

Figure 5–Nonresident share of direct employment in southeast Alaska, 1994. All employment figures are

standardized to annual equivalent and include an estimate of those self-employed in salmon harvesting.

Sources: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1996, Alaska Department of Labor 1996b, USDA

Forest Service 1996b.

22
The following sections contain detailed descriptions of each of the industries comprising the Tongass-related sector. The sources of the statistics discussed above

are provided, along with trend data showing their changes since 1982. Each industry

is analyzed separately, but they likely interact in both direct and indirect ways. Development in any industry, for example, provides at least some benefit to other industries through the provision of funds for transportation and other public infrastructure

as well as enhancing local economies of scale. It is beyond the scope of this assessment to analyze the interactions among industries, and the extent to which they are

complementary, competitive, or exclusive. It would not be sufficient, for example, to

simply correlate employment trends among the industries over time, for this would

not determine causation. Additional research is needed to better understand the

interrelations among resource-related (and other) industries in southeast Alaska.

Wood products—The forests of southeast Alaska consist mainly of western hemlockSitka spruce types (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.-Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.)

found in the temperate rain forest lying along the coast from Oregon to south-central

Alaska. In the Tongass, these stands comprise nearly all the timberlands, with the

remaining 2 percent occupied by western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don),

Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach), and cottonwood

(Populus spp.). As of 1991, the 17 million acres of the Tongass National Forest

included 7 million acres of nonforest land, 4.2 million acres withdrawn from timber

production, 2.4 million acres not capable of growing commercial timber, and almost

1 million acres physically unsuited for timber harvest. An additional 250,000 acres

Figure 6–Average seasonal variation in southeast Alaska employment, 1990-94. The difference between

summer maximum and winter minimum is divided by the annual average employment. The 1990-94

employment is a weighted average of employment variation in each year, proprietors and those self

employed are excluded. Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, USDA Forest Service 1996b.

23
were made unavailable to harvest between 1991 and 1996 because of policy

changes, new information, and ownership adjustments, leaving about 2.3 million

acres tentatively suitable for timber production (USDA Forest Service 1996b). This

does not mean that all these lands will be harvested; that will be decided through

ongoing management processes.

Southeast Alaska’s wood products mix has included dissolving pulp, logs, cants,

dimension lumber, wood chips, and a small but growing volume of specialty products.

Overall, most of southeast Alaska’s pulp production and a substantial majority of its

lumber has been shipped overseas, with some 30 nations represented among the

purchasers. Until the 1997 closure of the Ketchikan Pulp Company mill at Ward’s

Cove near Ketchikan, dissolving wood pulp constituted a major (if not the major) wood

product export for the region. Exclusive of Canada-U.S. trade, Alaska accounts for

about 8 percent of the softwood logs moving into Pacific Rim markets and about 4

percent of the softwood lumber.

The vast majority of the region’s harvests come from two ownerships: the Tongass

National Forest and Native corporations. On average, over the 1983-to-1995 period,

these two ownerships accounted for 45 and 52 percent, respectively, of total harvests,

with private harvests exceeding those from the Tongass National Forest by an average of 14 percent. Consequently, the Tongass cannot be seen as the sole driving

force in the region’s timber economy. Future levels in Native corporation harvests

should be incorporated into predictions regarding evolution of the wood products

industry, or at least that of the logging sector.

Timber from the Tongass National Forest and from Native corporation lands flows into

essentially different markets. While Sitka spruce and western hemlock saw logs (the

region’s mainstay species) from the Tongass must be processed locally (in response

to law reflecting concern for keeping timber jobs in Alaska), Native corporations face

no such constraint, and sell a majority of their timber as raw-log exports because of

the higher prices paid by that market. Consequently, changes in Native corporation

harvests are reflected primarily in changes in log exports.

Figure 7 shows southeast Alaska harvests by owner since 1983. Harvest levels range

from about 600 million board feet (MMBF) in 1983, to peak levels of just under 1,000

MMBF in 1989 and 1990, and then to a period low of 497 MMBF in 1995. This pattern

is similar to that in the Pacific Northwest, where a global recession in the wood products industry depressed output in the early to mid 1980s. This was followed by a

boom and then subsequent declines in harvests, in spite of rising prices, due to

supply constraints. The variability is striking but not that unusual in industries prone

to cycles.

As is clear from trends in recent harvest levels, timber supply on Native corporation

lands is declining. It is widely assumed that Native corporation harvests will continue

to decline, stabilizing at a level of around 100 MMBF at the start of the 21st century

(Brooks and Haynes 1994). Under this assumption, continued declines in forest sector

employment and revenue, particularly in logging and log export-related services, are

inevitable unless harvests from the Tongass make up the approximate 100 MMBF

difference between 1994 Native corporation harvests and the predicted equilibrium

level. Future reductions in the availability of timber from private suppliers in southeast

Alaska may increase pressure to harvest timber from the Tongass National Forest.

24
Total volumes of wood products produced in southeast Alaska are shown in figure 8.8

For comparability, all production units have been converted to round-wood equivalents (MMBF log scale); roundwood is defined as the amount of raw material input

needed to produce the reported volume of output. Comprising 43 percent of total production in the 1981-95 period, log exports were, on average, the largest component

of southeast Alaska’s production by volume. At 36 percent, pulp production was the

second largest component of production and has been far more stable than log exports. On average, 19 percent of Native corporation harvests have been used in pulp

production. Similarly, an average of 17 percent of Tongass National Forest logs were

classified as utility grade and more likely to be used for pulp. This does not necessarily indicate the amount of timber dedicated to pulp production, because lower

grade saw logs also were chipped for pulp and some utility grade logs were sawn,

depending on market conditions.

Lumber is the smallest component of total production (19 percent), although sawmill residuals from lumber also have constituted a major source of chips for pulp. In

1994, for example, mill residues supplied an estimated 102,000 tons of chips to the

regional market, or about one quarter of southeast Alaska’s 429,000 tons of total chip

supply. Logs chipped by sawmills provided another 67,000 tons. These data highlight

the complementary relation between lumber production and local chip markets.

Figure 7–Southeast Alaska total timber harvest by ownership, fiscal years 1983-95. Source: USDA Forest

Service 1996b.

8 The primary source for this figure was fiscal year export

volumes for the State of Alaska as reported by the USDA

Forest Service (1996a). Calendar year data on exports by

port were used to estimate southeast Alaska’s share in total

state exports, and these shares were used to scale the fiscal

year data. The resulting figures represent an estimate of

southeast Alaska’s exports based on state totals. Total

volumes were obtained by adding estimates for domestic

shipments derived from export shares (Brooks and Haynes

1994). In the final step, roundwood equivalents were

produced by using conversion factors, also given in Brooks

and Haynes (1994).

25
Louisiana Pacific, the parent company, closed the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation mill

in March 1997, citing market conditions and declining Federal timber supplies; nearly

500 jobs were lost in the industry. Harvest of sufficient timber volume to supply southeast Alaska sawmill capacity would continue to provide a proportionate volume of

lower grade logs and chips suitable for pulping or alternative processing. It is not yet

known what alternative market (or policy direction) will develop for this product.

Employment generated by the wood products sector follows the pattern of production,

with generally depressed levels in the early 1980s followed by a peak in 1990 and

subsequent decline, but the variation is somewhat less than in the harvest or production statistics (fig. 9). Lags in employment response to decreases in production are

common, and further declines in employment levels can be expected even if 1995

harvest levels are maintained. On average, over the 1981-95 period, logging employment accounted for about half of total sector direct employment. Pulp production and

sawmills accounted for 31 and 17 percent, respectively. Both sawmill and pulp mill

employment declined dramatically following closure of the Alaska Pulp Corporation’s

(APC) pulp mill in Sitka and sawmill in Wrangell. In total, the industry has lost 1,540

jobs since 1990 and is projected (in 1996) to fall below the period low of 1,947 jobs

that occured in 1985.

Although the types of technologies employed in logging and sawmilling are influential

in the long run, production volumes of wood products are the primary determinant of

employment levels in the wood products sector in the near to medium term. Figure

10 shows the annual equivalent employment levels associated with production in the

logging, sawmilling, and pulp sectors, per million board-foot lengths (MMbf ls; roundwood equivalent). Although year-to-year variation is evident, the data show that the

physical productivity of labor has remained relatively constant. At an average of 2

employees per MMbf ls, the logging sector constitutes the initial link in the production

chain. The lumber and pulp sectors employed, respectively, 3.5 and 3.3 people on

average per roundwood equivalent of end product output. Consequently, lumber or

Figure 8–Volume of southeast Alaska production in roundwood equivalents, fiscal years 1981-95.

Domestic shipments and conversions to roundwood equivalent were derived by using export shares

and conversion factors reported in Brooks and Haynes (1994). Source: USDA Forest Service 1996b.

26
pulp exporting employed about 5.5 persons in the logging and processing sectors.

Additional employment is generated in a number of other related sectors (such as

shipping and handling). Reliable estimates of these numbers were not made for

this assessment but they would be included in the 1.72 multiplier for the wood

products sector.

Figure 9–Southeast Alaska wood products sector direct employment by type, fiscal years 1991-95.

Source: USDA Forest Service 1996b.

Figure 10–Average annual employment per wood product output in southeast Alaska, 1981-95.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, USDA Forest Service 1996b.

27
Both the direct link between employment and output shown in figure 10 and the

indirect links assumed in the multiplier are more robust at the regional level where

the law of averages more generally applies. At local levels, on the other hand, large

deviations from average levels can be expected. This deviation is especially apparent

with sawmills; mill openings and closures result in abrupt changes in employment

rather than the smooth fluctuations implied in the regional average-jobs-per-volume

estimates.

Commercial fishing and seafood processing—Fish and aquatic resources of the

Tongass National Forest provide major subsistence, commercial and sport fisheries,

as well as traditional and cultural values. The Forest includes about 45,000 miles

of known streams, and 20,900 lakes and ponds. Anadromous fish habitat includes

10,800 stream miles and 4,100 lakes and ponds. Most of the Forest’s streams and

rivers empty into bays or estuaries, which are important during some life stages of

anadromous species as well as for many saltwater species. These aquatic systems

of the Tongass provide spawning and rearing habitats for the majority of fish produced

in southeast Alaska.

Commercial fish harvest has fluctuated over the years, averaging 50 million fish

annually in the late 1930s, but declining to 20 million in 1950 and then to 6 million

in 1975. Since 1975, however, the trend is upwards, with 60 million fish caught in

southeast Alaska in 1985, a record 76 million in 1994, and new records since. Fluctuations in commercial harvest trends are partly attributable to changes in ocean

productivity. The productivity of marine waters in the Gulf of Alaska, and the survival

of salmon are both highly variable and cyclic. Since the mid-1970s, favorable ocean

currents have resulted in high productivity and, consequently, high marine survival of

salmon (Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Team 1995). Releases of hatchery

juvenile salmon also have increased substantially, from 20 million in 1980 to 500

million in 1991.

Although the profitability of the seafood industry in southeast Alaska continuously

changes, it remains a major component of the regional economy. Employment in

seafood processing is reported in ADOL employment statistics, but commercial

fishing is not. We relied on a methodology developed by McDowell Group (1989) to

estimate employment in salmon fishing.9 This technique has been applied only to the

salmon fishery, and the employment numbers reported here are for salmon only. The

salmon fishery constitutes about 75 percent of the region’s total catch (halibut, crab

and herring constitute about 25 percent by value). Statistics available for the seafood

processing industry, however, do not allow for an easy distinction between salmon

processors and other firms, so the entire industry is represented in our tables and

figures.

9 This technique uses the yearly number of fishing permits

issued and the average amount of time spent in fishing and

preparation per fishing entry. Earnings figures are estimated

by dividing up net revenues among captains and employees

in the fishery. Because profits to captains are not included,

this allows for comparability with ADOL figures and helps to

explain extremely low yearly earnings estimates. This method

yields a best approximation of the economic activity

attributed directly to commercial salmon fishing but may be

subject to a substantial degree of error. Despite this,

employment trends are accurately reflected.

28
Taken together, commercial salmon fishing and seafood processing formed the

region’s largest private industry in 1994. At an estimated 3,500 average annual employees in 1994, combined direct employment in the salmon fishing and seafood processing industries exceeded that in wood products by 61 percent and that in recreation

and tourism by 28 percent. Components of the seafood industry are spread throughout the region with a significant presence in virtually every community. Sitka leads

southeast ports in the number of permits, and Petersburg residents lead the region in

catch and gross earnings. Sport fishing also has made substantial progress as an

economic force, with saltwater charter fishing service providers increasing substantially in recent years to over 700 in 1994. Ketchikan, Sitka, and Juneau are the three

largest centers of activity, but Prince of Wales Island, Petersburg, Wrangell, and

other, smaller communities show increases as well.

Most fresh and frozen Alaska salmon is sold in the United States and Japan with

lesser amounts sold in Europe, primarily France and the United Kingdom. Canned

salmon is sold primarily in the United States; other markets include the United Kingdom, other European nations, Australia, and Canada. World fish consumption far exceeds the productive capability of the Tongass National Forest, and any changes in

commercial fish production attributable to forest management will not have a significant effect on market prices except possibly for specific species such as king salmon.

Alaska’s seafood industry is subject to wide price fluctuations as a consequence of

changes in the international market for seafood products of all types.

Despite overall growth in Alaska’s salmon production and worldwide increases in consumption, Alaska’s market share of global salmon supply (estimated at 31 percent in

1990) has been falling. The loss of market share is not a function of poor stocks or

low supply, but a consequence of the growing acceptability of farmed fish as a source

of fresh salmon. Seafood processing, another vital component of southeast Alaska’s

economy, also has undergone fundamental changes, including the increased use of

floating fish processing facilities and a trend toward freezing rather than canning

salmon.

Value and volume measures of salmon harvest for southeast Alaska are shown

in figure 11. In spite of extreme variation from year to year, harvest levels show a

definite upward trend since 1980. Gross revenues (in 1994 constant dollars), on the

other hand, display no consistent trend. Divergence of volume and value, most pronounced in the 1990s, is likely the result of falling prices for Alaska wild salmon as the

industry faces changing preferences in some markets, recession in major markets,

and increasing competition with farmed salmon.

In contrast to revenue and catch levels, employment in both salmon fishing and, to a

lesser extent, seafood processing is remarkably stable (fig. 12). A generally increasing

catch using the same work force has, on average, allowed fisherman to maintain real

incomes in spite of falling prices. Alongside the high degree of seasonality and nonresident participation in salmon fishing and processing, the extreme variation in yearly

income stands out. Nonetheless, the relative size and stability of employment in the

industry identifies fishing and processing as an extremely important element in southeast Alaska’s regional economy. The success of the industry in increasing markets,

developing new products, and increasing the overall consumption of Alaska salmon

will determine the size of the industry in the future.

29
Figure 11–Salmon harvest gross earnings and catch in southeast Alaska, 1980-94. Gross earnings to

commercial fishers are ex-vessel values in 1994 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer

price index. Source: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1996.

Figure 12–Southeast Alaska direct salmon harvesting and seafood processing employment, 1980-94.

Salmon harvesting employment was derived by using average crew size and number of permits fished

(McDowell Group, 1989). Source: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 1996, Alaska

Department of Labor 1996a.

30
Several assumptions were used to relate the salmon fishing and seafood processing

industries back to the Tongass National Forest. For example, it was assumed that 80

percent of southeast Alaska salmon originate within the Tongass, so 80 percent of the

salmon fishing industry is dependent on the National Forest.10 The dependence of

fish processing employment on the Tongass was derived similarly with the added

assumption that salmon represented 60 percent (by volume) of the total processed

catch. The result was an estimate that 48 percent of employment in the seafood processing industry relies on the productivity of Tongass National Forest salmon streams.

The Forest Service and cooperators have invested substantial amounts of money in

fisheries enhancement projects over the past 15 years, developing 176 projects that

contribute an estimated 17 million pounds of fish to annual harvest levels. However,

much of the future of the fishing and seafood processing industry in southeast Alaska

will continue to depend on conditions outside the National Forest, such as offshore

harvest levels and changes in ocean currents. Should these cycles continue as they

have in the past, conflicts among commercial, sport, and subsistence uses of fisheries

may increase in times of scarcity, especially for specific species and fishing locations.

The interrelations are complex; commercial fisheries, for example, can both support

and disrupt subsistence fishing systems (Betts and Wolfe 1992).

Recreation and tourism—Southeast Alaska possesses a unique combination of

features, including inland waterways with over 11,000 miles of shoreline, mountains,

fjords, glaciers, and large or unusual fish and wildlife populations. These physical and

biological resources, coupled with recreational access and facilities, provide opportunities for a wide range of outdoor recreation experiences.

Most recreation and tourism attractions in the Tongass National Forest and much

of the associated use occur in remote, largely undeveloped areas. Although most

of southeast Alaska is available for public recreation, the limited road system, steep

terrain, wetlands, ice fields, glaciers, and heavy vegetation confine most recreation

activities to accessible shorelines, river and stream bottoms, and around the many

lakes. The marine interface where the land meets the sea tends to be the setting

most sought for recreation.

The focus of this section is on nonresidents who visit southeast Alaska, because this

portion of the recreation-tourism economy brings new dollars into the region (and

would therefore be considered a basic industry). Residents, too, highly value recreational opportunities of the Forest, and cite recreation as a major contributor to their

quality of life (Alves 1979). An even more specific focus is on nonresidents who visit

the region for pleasure-vacation travel (as opposed to business and other types of

travel; McDowell Group 1993a) because this portion of visitation is most likely to be

linked either directly or indirectly to recreation and scenery in the Tongass.

The Inside Passage was Alaska’s most frequently visited attraction in summer 1993;

it was visited by over 370,000 people, or 73 percent of the state’s pleasure-vacation

visitors (McDowell Group 1993a). Among visitors to southeast Alaska, casual walking,

photography, wildlife viewing, and bird watching were the most frequently undertaken

10 Based on research conducted by the USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region. Salmon return and harvest rates

within southeast Alaska were compared and distributed by

ownership. Adjustments were made by species based on

habitat requirements.

31
outdoor activities (in descending order). Of the available sightseeing opportunities, city

tours, native cultural presentations, Alaska shows, day cruises, and flightseeing were

the most popular (in descending order). The most popular activity of all, however,

was shopping.

Tourists (nonresident pleasure visitors) can be categorized broadly as package visitors (traveling as part of an organized group; e.g., cruise ship clients) or independent

visitors traveling on their own (but who also use outfitters and commercial services).

In summer 1993 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available),

68 percent of southeast Alaska visitors bought a packaged trip in advance for their

Alaska trip, a percentage much higher than among visitors to other Alaska regions

(McDowell Group 1993a).

Over half (53 percent) of the 1993 pleasure-vacation summer visitors entered southeast Alaska by cruise ship; 27 percent flew on domestic airlines, 14 percent arrived in

personal vehicles, and 5 percent came by the state ferry system. Visitors to southeast

Alaska spent an average of 9 days in Alaska, 5 in the southeast region and 4 elsewhere; the most frequently visited other places were Anchorage, Fairbanks, and

Denali. Not surprisingly, 62 percent of southeast Alaska pleasure-vacation visitors reported using cruise ships as lodging, although 17 percent stayed at hotels and 11 percent used a recreational vehicle or stayed at a campground.

One-third of the summer 1993 pleasure-vacation visitors said they were likely to return

within the next 5 years, a percentage comparable to visitors to other regions with the

exception of southwest Alaska visitors, nearly 75 percent of whom planned to return

(most were regular fishing clients).

Table 7 shows trends in visitation for the 1989-94 period. Although the trends clearly

point to increased visits for all travel modes and the two sites listed, the most distinct

trend is in the cruise ship market, which has exhibited dramatic increases almost

annually. A closer look at this market reveals some differences between it and other

markets (McDowell Group 1993b). All cruise ship visits take place from May through

September, resulting in concentrations of use at select points based on where cruise

ships dock. Nearly all the people who entered Alaska on a cruise ship were pleasurevacation visitors on a package trip. They have made the fewest previous visits to

Alaska compared to people using other travel modes, and most came from the west

(26 percent) or south (26 percent). Cruise ship visitors were older, with an average

age of 55, were comprised of more women than men, and were equally likely to be

employed or retired. Trends suggest that the average age of cruise ship visitors has

dropped from 59 in 1985, and that visits from the Western United States are decreasing and visits from the south are increasing. Recent projections estimate a growth rate

of about 4 percent annually for the cruise ship market in the short term (Alaska Visitor

Association 1992), but visitation is expected to be near a plateau and recent rapid

expansion may not continue. The rate of visits by independent travelers also seems

to be flattening out.

For the 12-month period from May 1993 to April 1994, just over 1 million nonresidents

visited Alaska. They spent a total of about $1.6 billion associated with their trip away

from home, and about $700 million in Alaska (McDowell Group 1994). Vacationpleasure visitors accounted for 70 percent of total expenditures and was the fastest

growing market, with 73 percent more visitors coming to the state than did in 1989-90.

32
About $160 million, almost one-fourth of the instate total, was spent in southeast

Alaska, nearly all during the summer months. Statewide, instate expenditures included

tours and recreation (26 percent of the total), lodging (22 percent), transportation (18

percent), food and beverage (14 percent), and gifts and souvenirs (12 percent).

Economic activity in the tourism industry (including sport fishing and hunting) now

accounts for an estimated 2,941 jobs in the region (direct employment only).11 This

constitutes about 7 percent of southeast Alaska total 1995 employment and is the

second largest level among the region’s resource-dependent industries. Much of the

employment resulting from tourism is in relatively low-paying jobs such as hotels and

Table 7—Southeast Alaska visitation trends, 1980-94

Year Juneau cruise SE Alaska state Juneau airline Juneau ice field Mendenhall

ship passenger ferry passenger departures tour passenger Glacier visitor

1980 86,815 276,000 155,699 NA NA

1981 83,566 282,000 156,257 NA NA

1982 87,358 300,000 150,871 NA NA

1983 99,706 307,782 167,302 NA NA

1984 118,781 311,459 168,685 NA NA

1985 137,000 313,147 163,837 12,925 94,072

1986 164,400 296,070a 156,667 17,553 110,229

1987 202,000 326,644 157,952 22,152 119,577

1988 198,870b 344,209 167,314 25,018 110,000

1989 193,983b 343,100c 176,429 27,326 184,452

1990 237,070 363,122 183,677 34,765 188,000

1991 248,428 368,780 190,244 41,887 145,482

1992 269,000 372,680 236,824 45,638 160,000

1993 306,600 342,613d 200,066 53,600 210,000

1994 372,923 347,998 229,820 62,449 265,000

NA = not available

a 2 vessels (1 trip per week) on the route to Seattle reduced total traffic.

b Bankruptcy of a large company reduced total passengers these years.

c Threat of strike reduced passengers late in season.

d Ferry Taku out of service in May and June reduced total passengers.

Sources: Alaska Marine Highway System 1995, Juneau Airport Manager’s Office 1995, Juneau Convention

and Visitors Bureau 1995, USDA Forest Service 1995.

11 Estimating recreation-tourism related employment is

complicated by the fact that expenditures are widely

distributed across various industries. For example, in addition

to making purchases from souvenir shops, outfitters, and

guides, tourists may spend a large portion of their money in

local restaurants, grocery stores, and other establishments

where local residents also spend their money. As a result,

there is no easy way to determine a precise level of

employment for the industry.

33
other lodging places or eating and drinking places, but other components include the

relatively high-paying transportation industry, which in 1991 provided 27 percent of

the total visitor industry employment and 42 percent of the total annual payroll of

$141 million (McDowell Group 1991).

Economic benefits from the tourism industry also accrue directly to state government.

For the state as a whole, the tourism industry generated about $52 million in direct

revenues through nonresident visitor spending (the bulk attributable to the Alaska

Marine Highway System and nonresident fishing and hunting permits and tags), taxes

and fees from the visitor industry business (primarily through corporate income tax

and aviation fuel taxes), Alaska Division of Tourism receipts, the Alaska Railroad, and

international airport system (McDowell Group 1992).

A substantial proportion of recreation and tourism activity, however, does not occur

directly in the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass National Forest and associated

public perceptions of its undisturbed character play an important role in attracting outof-state visitors to southeast Alaska, who, in turn, generate jobs and income through

activities not directly related to the Tongass. The Tongass provides the scenic backdrop for recreational activities such as float plane and helicopter tours, as well as

commercial and noncommercial boating. Although these activities may not require

stepping onto Forest lands, they clearly involve resources located within the Tongass.

Possible impacts to tourism and recreational uses are acknowledged in Forest Service

management of visual resources along major waterways, and on visual quality objectives designed to maintain the overall attractiveness of the Forest.

The following discussion and employment analyses focus on activities occurring

directly in the Tongass. This likely understates the Forest’s contribution to overall

tourism and recreation employment, but the scientific basis for allocating proportions

of the total industry to the Tongass has not yet been developed.

A recent inventory identified 1,436 recreation places—specific geographic areas with

recreational values—located in the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 1997). Of these,

about 80 percent were outside designated wilderness areas. Just under half were

within 15 to 30 miles of a community (this distance was defined as a home range,

accessible by a community road system or for day trips via a small boat). Just over

40 percent of the places were defined as marine recreation opportunities consisting

of water areas and adjacent lands accessible by boat or plane. Sixty-one percent of

the recreation places in the Tongass were deemed important for tourism, either as a

destination or as a scenic backdrop for popular activities such as photography, wildlife

viewing, flightseeing, and hiking.

General recreation use and tourism related to the Tongass has more than doubled in

the last 10 years. The Forest Service’s Recreation Information System (RIM) database is a yearly estimate of the number of recreation visitor days (RVDs) occurring in

the Forest. Use estimates from RIM were the basis for future use projections, without

consideration of constraints related to capacity. Figure 13 displays the RIM use data

from 1984 through 1995, future trends as predicted directly from past use, and the

amount of use likely to occur given the constraint of existing capacity. Given these

trends and estimates, the Forest is expected to be able to provide sufficient opportunities for all types of recreation except for semiprimitive motorized opportunities (USDA

Forest Service 1997). These opportunities, characterized by motorized access (usually

float plane or motorboat) into relatively remote, undeveloped areas, are becoming

34
Figure 13–Historical and projected recreation visitor days, Tongass National Forest, 1984-2010.

Source: USDA Forest Service 1996b.

Figure 14–Tongass National Forest-related direct employment in recreation and

tourism, 1984-95. Employment is annual equivalent and includes proprietors and

those self-employed. Source: USDA Forest Service 1996b, Morse 1992

35
more popular. Other types of settings in the Tongass, including primitive and semiprimitive areas without motorized access, and the more developed roaded and rural

settings, are not likely to be limiting factors on recreation in the Tongass for the near

future.

Tongass-related direct employment estimates were derived by multiplying jobs per

RVD12 (estimated to be 0.00074) by historical use levels (fig. 14). We used a regional input-output economic model to derive an estimate of the average levels of

employment generated by a unit of recreation-tourism activity in the Tongass. There

is considerable room for error in this process, and the estimates should be taken as

an approximation of the true value. Unlike a traded commodity, such as timber, there

is no direct way to integrate supply and demand to yield a level of consumption or

market value for recreational experiences on public lands. Trends illustrated by this

measure should be relatively accurate nonetheless, assuming that the rate of jobs

per RVD is relatively stable in the short run.

In addition to the “Direct Employment” category, figure 14 shows a “From Nonresident” employment category that refers to jobs generated by expenditures from

out-of-region visitors and is comparable to an export industry bringing new money

into the region. Nonresident visitors to the Tongass National Forest account for an

estimated 44 percent of total use (based on Forest Service RIM database), so

nonresident-generated employment estimates are considerably less than those for

direct employment.

Mining and mineral development—Mineral exploration and mining have been a part

of life in southeast Alaska for over 120 years, with various mineral deposit types and

mineral resources occurring within the boundaries of the Tongass National Forest.

Locatable minerals13 of the Tongass include gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, iron,

nickel, lead, zinc, limestone, and marble. Today, due to the most favorable metal

prices since the mid-1980s, the mining industry is exploring new areas for potential

mineral deposits and is revisiting historic mining areas with modern exploration techniques. Thirteen identified mineral deposits in the Tongass seem economically viable

under today’s market conditions. In 1990, the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated the

gross value of identified mineral resources within the boundaries of the Tongass

National Forest as $47.4 billion (1995 dollars). Highest among the individual minerals

were molybdenum ($18.4 billion) and iron ($16.2 billion), with gold third ($2.89 billion).

In 1995, 196 workers were directly employed by the mining industry, down from a

recent peak of 342 employees in 1991 (fig. 15), and a scant fraction of levels earlier

in the 20th century when mining was the dominant source of employment in southeast

Alaska. Mining-related indirect employment in 1995 was estimated at 145 workers,

yielding a total of 341 jobs generated in southeast Alaska by the mining industry. At

over $60,000 per year, employee earnings are twice the regional average. In 1995,

direct employee earnings for the industry were $11.7 million (in 1995 dollars) and total

earnings $20.4 million.

12 The USDA Forest Service Alaska Region developed

estimates of employment generated per RVD by using the

IMPLAN model. The actual estimate was 1,352 RVDs per

job. Miernyk (1965) provides a good introduction for those

interested in a general description of input-output modeling.

13 A locatable mineral is any mineral that is valuable in the

usual economic sense or has a property giving it distinct and

special value.

36
Mining development activities are primarily at the Greens Creek silver, lead, and zinc

mine on Admiralty Island, the Quartz Hill molybdenum site in Misty Fiords, and the

Kensington gold mine north of Juneau.14

The Greens Creek project is a major metals mine containing silver, gold, zinc, and

lead on the northwest end of Admiralty Island about 18 miles from Juneau. At its

peak in 1990-91, this mine employed about 265 workers with an estimated payroll of

$14.1 million (1995 dollars), making it the Juneau area’s largest private employer.

The Kensington property, within the boundaries of the City and Borough of Juneau

about 45 miles north of Juneau on Lynn Canal, is mostly on National Forest System

lands. Coeur Alaska, a division of Coeur d’Alene Mines, is planning a 4,000-tonper-day operation over a projected mine life of 12 years. Once in full operation, the

Kensington Mine could employ 340 workers, with an annual payroll of about $20.7

million (1995 dollars). The company currently is seeking permits and approval to

proceed.

The Quartz Hill molybdenum deposit in Misty Fiords National Monument, discovered

in 1974, is considered one of the largest such deposits in the world, containing as

much as 10 percent of the world’s known reserves. The mine could produce 80,000

tons of ore per day, through an open pit mine operation, and employ 850 to 900

people. Expected life of the mine is predicted to be at least 70 years.

Figure 15–Southeast Alaska direct and indirect mining employment, 1987-95. Employment is annual

equivalent and excludes proprietors and those self-employed. Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a.

14 Echo Bay Mines, Ltd., of Edmonton, AB, initially sought

to obtain permits to operate the Alaska-Juneau (AJ) mine,

anticipating production of 350,000 ounces of gold annually

for a minimum projected life of 13 years and employing 450

workers earning about $27 million in annual payroll. Early in

January 1997, the company announced it would not pursue

development of the mine because of economic

considerations.

37
Exploration investments in southeast Alaska in 1995 totaled about $12 million, the

most spent in any of the state’s seven regions of mineral activity (Bundtzen and

others, no date). This amount dropped to about $7 million in 1996 (Swainbank and

others 1997). These amounts are lower than those spent between 1988 and 1991,

which averaged over $20 million per year, but higher than the early 1980s of about

$3 million per year. In general, the short- to medium-term prospects for southeast

Alaska’s mining industry seem good, but much will depend on environmental concerns

and whether prices for precious metals and other minerals can support Alaska’s high

costs of exploration, development, and production.

Subsistence As mentioned in the “Introduction,” this report does not attempt to define or cover the

full range of social, cultural, economic, and other meanings and benefits of subsistence, or to detail the harvest levels or species in southeast Alaska. This section will

provide a brief overview of subsistence activities within the context of economic

conditions.

A variety of cultural, popular, and sociological definitions and interpretations of subsistence are possible, but Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; U.S. Public Laws, Statutes 1980) defines subsistence use:

The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources for direct, personal or family consumption as food,

shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of

handicraft articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources

taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal

or family consumption; and for customary trade.

ANILCA provided for “the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural

residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands.” It

also stated that “customary and traditional” subsistence uses of the renewable resources “shall be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources on the public

lands of Alaska.”

The opportunity to participate in subsistence activities reinforces a variety of cultural

and related values in both Native and non-Native communities. Distribution of fish and

wildlife, for example, contributes to the cohesion of kinship groups and to community

cohesion through sharing of resources derived through harvest activities. Subsistence

resources provide the foundation for Native culture, from the totemic basis of clan

divisions, to norms governing the distribution of wealth in potlatch ceremonies, and

reinforcement of basic values of respect for the earth and its resources. Participating

in subsistence activities contributes to the self-reliance, independence, and ability to

provide for oneself, values that are important reasons why many people move to or

remain in southeast Alaska (Alves 1979).

Noncommercial harvest of fish, animals, and plants is especially important in the context of southeast Alaska’s highly seasonal and cyclical resource-based employment

and the high prices of commercial products in the retail sector. Commercial enterprise,

trade, and money have been part of subsistence economies ever since the commercial fur trade with European markets began about 300 years ago (Wolfe 1989).

38
A mixed subsistence-market economy, in which subsistence harvests and cash income are complementary, characterizes the economies of most of the region’s rural

communities. Families live by combining harvest of wild resources with income from

employment. For example, cash income frequently supports purchase of fuel and

equipment that are part of subsistence harvest technology; the same equipment may

be used for commercial activities such as fishing. In fact, the same activity can produce resources for both commercial and subsistence use: Glass and others (1995)

report that, in rural Alaska in 1987, between 12 and 28 percent of salmon used for

personal consumption was removed from commercial catches.

Although subsistence plays a prominent role in the economy and social well-being of

rural communities, it is a hidden portion of the economy, not revealed by measures of

economic growth, employment, or income (Wolfe and Walker 1987). Before the early

1980s, the amounts of wild fish and game used by communities had not been systematically measured despite the acknowledged social, cultural, and economic importance. Initial studies suggested that subsistence harvest was especially critical to rural

communities, with harvest levels increasing with distance from urban centers:

The combination of subsistence and commercial wage activities provides

the economic basis for the way of life so highly valued in rural communities....In rural communities there is a great desire to maintain this part of a

region’s economy in the face of new economic changes primarily developing

from the urban population centers [Wolfe and Walker 1987: 68 ].

Subsistence activity is substantial; 30 percent of rural southeast Alaska households

obtain 50 percent or more of their meat from subsistence activity. About 40 percent

of all households get at least a quarter of their food from subsistence harvest activities, and 85 percent of rural southeast households harvest subsistence food (Kruse

and Frazier 1988, Kruse and Muth 1990). In 1987, 51 percent of all households reported harvesting more than 80 pounds of edible subsistence product per capita, and

a quarter of all households harvested more than 250 pounds per capita. A diversity of

food sources is commonly used; more than half of all households (61 percent) harvested at least four different types of fish, wildlife, and plant resources in 1987. One

in ten households harvested more than 10 different types of resources.

The use of subsistence resources in southeast Alaska cannot be explained simply in

terms of household harvest and consumption (Muth 1989). Most subsistence harvesters give away at least part of their harvest. In 1987, one-third of all households

in rural southeast Alaska gave away at least four different types of resources. Native

households and lower income, non-Native households are most likely to give away or

receive resources (Kruse and Muth 1990).

There is little question that subsistence has economic value. Researchers have taken

various approaches to estimating these values, typically using replacement costs.

For all of rural Alaska, the per capita cash value of subsistence foods equals almost

half of the per capita income (Wolfe and Bosworth 1994). In Hoonah, for example,

the annual replacement value of all harvested foods was between $3,141 and $5,497

(1985 dollars), a sizable amount “for an isolated community with few employment

opportunities” (Tainter 1996). Assigning a dollar value to subsistence foods does not

imply the existence of a subsistence economy separate from a cash economy

(Nakazawa and Goldman 1991); as discussed, subsistence hunting, fishing, and

gathering activities constitute part of a mixed subsistence-market economy.

39
One use of economic estimates has been to compare effects of alternative management strategies on subsistence activities. To compare the economic effects of alternative methods of managing subsistence, Nakazawa and Goldman (1991) multiplied

pounds per capita consumption of land animals by the cost per pound of red meat in

the region by the number of eligible subsistence users. Because the different management strategies led to different numbers of people who would be defined as subsistence users, this approach provided one way of differentiating effects of the alternatives. Glass and others (1995) point out that the presence of a mixed-sector economy

has the potential to greatly complicate socioeconomic impact assessments conducted

by state and Federal resource management agencies. A similar statement could be

made about economic activity in general; the pervasive role of subsistence in the

lifestyles of southeast Alaska rural residents complicates traditional discussions about

regional and local economies.

Subregional

Conditions and

Trends

A common problem encountered in analysis of the southeast Alaska economy is that

Juneau dominates regional statistics. As a result, trends in employment or income

sometimes more closely represent developments in Juneau than changes elsewhere.

Analyzing certain economic statistics at the borough level clarifies subregional

differences obscured at the regional level.

The boroughs and census areas of southeast Alaska (referred to collectively in this

section as “boroughs”) display large differences in their economic structure and development (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996). Table 8 displays population,

income, and employment measures for southeast Alaska boroughs since 1985. In

general, trends are similar for each borough, but there are large differences in magnitudes. For example, population growth in the Prince of Wales and Outer Ketchikan

Borough and in the “northern complex” (an aggregate of the Skagway-HoonahAngoon Census Area and Yakutat Borough) is considerably higher than the regional

average. Change in employment levels is positive for all boroughs, but ranges from

50 percent for the northern complex to just 12 percent for Juneau.

Real per capita income is a measure that includes trends in population and employment levels and in wages earned per job. Real per capita income has dropped the

greatest amount in Prince of Wales and Outer Ketchikan Borough as a result of a

sharp rise in population (which exceeds the increase in job growth), and a 23-percent

decline in average earnings per job. The absolute level of per capita income is also

considerably lower, indicating that, on average, Prince of Wales and Outer Ketchikan

Borough residents receive 35 percent less income than the regional average. In contrast, Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the northern complex both experienced gains

in real per capita income in this period due mostly to the rapid creation of new jobs in

both boroughs.

The Shannon-Weaver diversity index, derived for each borough by using ADOL

employment data, provides a measure of local economy diversity. To allow easy

comparison, the index was constructed so that the borough displaying the greatest

diversity was recorded as 100 percent, with other boroughs reported as a percentage

of this maximum. In addition to demonstrating positive growth in per capita income,

Ketchikan Gateway (the principle trade center for the southern portions of southeast

Alaska) and the northern complex also exhibit the highest relative diversity rating.

Haines Borough shows the lowest rating, but this is expected because it has by far

40
the fewest jobs, and the index is sensitive to the size of the economy. Juneau, on the

other hand, also exhibits a relatively low index rating in spite of its size and role as a

regional trade center, the result of high employment concentrations in government and a lack of manufacturing jobs.

Taken together, these economic statistics show a mixed picture of economic developments in the boroughs of southeast Alaska. With the highest per capita income, employment growth and diversity score, Ketchikan Gateway Borough demonstrates the

strongest economic performance. The Northern Complex also exhibited dynamic performance over the last decade, but its per capita income is significantly lower than the

regional average and, at 11 percent, its average unemployment rate is significantly

higher (it also should be remembered that the northern complex does not comprise a

geographically contiguous set). With by far the lowest per capita income and next to

lowest diversity score, Prince of Wales and Outer Ketchikan Borough seems to be

relatively weak from an economic standpoint, but this conclusion must be tempered

by its higher population growth rate, gains in economic diversity, and higher rate of

new job creation than other boroughs.

Table 8—Summary economic statistics for southeast Alaska boroughs, 1985-94

Real per capita S-W diversity

Population incomea Total employmentb indexc

1985-94 1985-94 1985-94 1985-94

Area 1994 change 1994 change 1994 change 1995 change

Thousands Percent 1995 $ Percent Jobs −−−− Percent −−−−

Northern boroughs:

Haines Borough 2.2 10 26,755 -5.6 1,582 25.1 84 13

City and Borough of

Juneau 28.8 17 28,055 -13.5 19,456 11.6 92 11

Sitka Borough 8.8 10 24,285 -2.1 5,669 22.8 95 5

Northern complexd 4.5 25 23,370 4.9 2,846 50.2 100 10

Southern boroughs:

Ketchikan Gateway

Borough 14.4 8 29,941 10.5 10,472 35.5 100 5

Prince of Wales-Outer

Ketchikan 6.9 35 17,113 -16.0 2,985 34.4 90 16

Wrangell-Petersburg 7.2 16 25,682 -12.0 4,342 13.0 98 0

Total 72.8 16 26,372 -6.9 47,352 21.1 94 8

a All dollar figures are in 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer price index.

b Employment is full- and part-time annual equivalent and includes proprietors and self-employed.

c S-W = Shannon-Weaver (1949) diversity index based on Alaska Department of Labor employment by industry.

This index is normalized to the maximum index reported by any borough in a given reporting year.

d Aggregate of Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area and Yakutat Borough.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

41

As noted in “Regional Conditions and Trends,” the choice of a base year for comparison is difficult; relatively low timber employment was recorded in 1985, and 1990 was

one of the highest years on record. In addition, using the 1985-94 period for analyzing

data can have the effect of obscuring changes or trends occurring within this decade

span. For these reasons, a longer period was selected for analysis; it was divided

into two sections to allow comparison of recent trends with previous ones.

Figure 16 shows annual growth in NAWS employment for 1981-90 and for 1990-95.

During the 1981-90 period, much of southeast Alaska saw strong employment growth,

with many boroughs expanding at rates above the national average of 2 percent annually. Other boroughs, notably Wrangell-Petersburg, experienced much slower

growth, although all growth estimates for this period were positive. The 1990-94 period reveals a markedly different situation. With the exception of Juneau, all borougs

demonstrated slower growth in this later period, and employment in four of the seven

boroughs actually declined. Due to the dominance of Juneau in the regional economy

(and regional statistics), average growth for the entire region remained positive, but

less than half of the 1981-90 average. In short, at least when viewed in terms of total

NAWS employment growth, southeast Alaska’s regional economy seems far less

robust in the 1990s than in the previous decade, largely the result of decreases in

timber employment.

Tongass-Related

Industries

The 41-percent decline in total regional wood products industry employment (including

logging) is reflected in sharp declines in wood products industry employment at the

borough level for all boroughs (table 9). In particular, mill closures in Sitka, Haines,

and Wrangell have resulted in over an 80-percent decline in wood products industry

employment since 1990 in each of these boroughs. Logging employment declined

from 2,144 to 1,177 (-45 percent) between 1990 and 1994, and sawmill and pulp mill

employment declined from 1,399 to 1,048 (-25 percent).15

In contrast to the wood products industry, employment in lodging, restaurants and

recreation-related services has demonstrated strong gains since 1990. The contrast

between losses in wood products industry employment versus gains in recreationrelated employment is consistent with overall trends discussed in the regional economic section, but there is considerable variation across boroughs. Certain boroughs

(and, by extension, the communities they encompass) have benefited much more

from the expansion of the tourist-related economy than others. The northern complex,

for example, saw a doubling of wage and salary employment in this category, with

nearly 20 percent of employment there accounted for by lodging, restaurants, and

recreation-related services. The Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, on the other hand,

saw a substantial fall in employment in this category, and the share of total employment is only 7 percent.

Subregional differences also are evident in the salmon fishing and seafood processing sector (table 9). The most jobs are in Wrangell-Petersburg, followed by Ketchikan

Gateway Borough, but Sitka and the northern complex contribute substantial proportions of regional employment. The industry contributes more than 10 percent of local

employment to three of the boroughs, and is declining in none. Juneau has the fewest

seafood processing jobs of any borough, despite having by far the greatest

population.

15 These declines become even more pronounced given the

recent closure of the pulp mill in Ketchikan and the loss of an

additional 500 jobs in the industry.

43
Table 9 also indicates a distinction between northern and southern boroughs. As of

1995, boroughs in the northern portion of southeast Alaska were far less dependent

on the wood products industry for their employment base. The northern complex held

464 wood products industry jobs, or 22 percent of the regional total, almost all in logging. The vast majority of timber employment and all the jobs in wood products processing arising from harvests on the Tongass National Forest are concentrated in the

southern boroughs, particularly Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Prince of Wales and

Outer Ketchikan Borough. Recreation and tourism employment, by contrast, shows

higher concentrations in the north, accounting for 70 percent of the regional total in

this category. Growth in employment in this area also has been more pronounced in

the north, with the northern complex showing relatively strong growth in this category

since 1990. Seafood processing, a factor throughout southeast Alaska, is concentrated in the southern boroughs, where the highest growth rates also are present.

At least at this level of aggregation, it is evident that the northern and southern

boroughs likely have different interests in how the Tongass National Forest is managed. At lower levels of aggregation, the story becomes more complex, with certain

boroughs or communities of the north demonstrating extremely high concentrations in

logging employment, and others in the south demonstrating no wood products industry employment at all.

Growth rates in NAWS employment similar to those shown in figure 16 are displayed

for southeast Alaska total employment (excluding wood products employment) in

figure 17. In this analysis, regional employment growth appears stronger in the 1990s

and generally matches 1981-90 patterns at the borough level with a few notable exceptions. Average growth for the entire region is slightly higher for the latter period

owing to the influence of Juneau on aggregate statistics.

Timber employment has a strong influence on overall regional economic performance;

changes in employment in this sector are clearly evident in the stagnant or even declining total employment levels for the entire region. Second, and in contrast to the

first, the failure of trends in other employment to mirror those in the wood products

sector suggests that local economic sectors have a degree of independence. In other

words, substantial declines in one sector, even if considered a basic industry, do not

necessarily cause declines of similar magnitude in other sectors. Research, especially

at subregional levels, is needed on the interrelations among the resource-related and

other sectors of the southeast Alaska economy.

Community

Conditions and

Trends

The previous sections of this report concentrated on economic conditions at the regional and subregional levels of analysis by showing some of the differences that

emerge as the area studied becomes smaller. At the community scale, the story

becomes even more diverse. People usually are most concerned about conditions

and trends at the community level, because that is where the effects of social and

economic trends are felt daily. This is especially true in the remote, isolated communities of southeast Alaska. As by far the dominant land management agency in southeast Alaska, responsible for managing over 80 percent of the land area, the Forest

Service has a pervasive influence on the quality of life in southeast Alaska rural communities (Alves 1979).

Community is a concept with multiple dimensions and definitions, from the common

notion of a village or town, to a “community of interest”—people who may not live in

the same town but are linked by a common stake, profession, interest, activity, or set

44
of values. This section uses the geographic-political definition of community—towns

and villages. The revised supplement to the Tongass land and resource management

plan (RSDEIS; USDA Forest Service 1996b) identifies 32 southeast Alaska communities with a state land selection base.16 Table 10, a display of several statistics by

community, demonstrates the diversity in population, income, use of subsistence resources, and other socioeconomic characteristics.

As was the case at the regional and subregional levels of analysis, this assessment

focuses on conditions most relevant to (and affected by) management of the Tongass. We begin by providing a context for trends affecting small, rural communities

throughout Alaska and the resulting fiscal conditions and challenges. An examination

of second-class cities17 in the late 1980s suggested that operating revenues declined

significantly; per capita revenues declined 20 percent and expenditures 28 percent

from 1985 to 1989 (Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 1992).

Although actual funding levels tended to increase, they did not keep pace with inflation. Cities cut budgets in nearly every area of administration and service provision,

and many communities found it difficult to operate and maintain public facilities and

infrastructure. State revenue sharing and municipal assistance programs decreased

by nearly one-third during the same period. An issue raised in the report was the

ability of these strapped communities to respond to new initiatives transferring additional responsibilities to local government. Only two of the cities sampled for the study

Figure 17–Southeast Alaska annual growth in nonagricultural wage and salary employment (excluding the

wood products sector) by borough (1981-90, and 1990-95). Employment is annual equivalent and

excludes proprietors and those self-employed. Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a.

16 Logging camps are communities, and contribute to the

social fabric of southeast Alaska. By their nature, they tend

to be mobile, to lack a dedicated land base, and to not be

defined as towns (although many communities, such as

Thorne Bay, Hollis, Naukati Bay, Coffman Cove, and Whale

Pass, began as logging camps). As a result, little quantitative

state or local data are available on logging camps except for

specific studies not repeated over time; however, logging

camp employment is included in this report.

17 The state has several classes of cities; second class is the

minimum form of municipal government in Alaska. The 115

(out of a total of 160) second-class cities are mostly very

small towns or villages having several hundred or fewer

residents.

45
Table 10—Southeast Alaska community statistics, 1990 and 1995

Median Households Median

household below subsistence Revenues/ Expeditures/

Population Natives, Income, poverty line, use, capita, capita,

Community 1995 1990 1990 1990 1990 1987a 1995b 1995b

Percent Dollars Percent Pounds −−−− Dollars −−−−

Angoon 594 636 82 32,083 22 242 629 586

Coffman Cove 249 186 7 44,063 5 186 977 594

Craig 1,907 1,260 23 47,250 4 185 3,477 3,242

Edna Bay 86 75 0 12,250 64 517 NA NA

Elfin Cove 43 57 2 43,125 7 264 NA NA

Gustavus 318 258 4 41,538 4 257 NA NA

Haines Borough 2,295 2,117 13 36,048 9 104 1,998 1,941

Hollis 112 111 3 31,250 15 164 NA NA

Hoonah 878 795 67 36,442 4 404 6,209 5,093

Hydaburg 400 384 89 20,139 26 337 5,118 5,980

Hyder 129 99 1 23,750 14 401 NA NA

Juneau, City and Borough 28,757 26,751 13 47,924 6 NA 4,403 3,944

Kake 700 700 73 35,875 7 159 7,229 5,605

Kasaan 41 54 54 46,667 0 186 4,121 1,571

Ketchikan City 8,635 8,263 14 45,172 4 NA 2,258 2,092

Klawock 745 722 54 39,583 8 830c 5,905 5,871

Metlakatla 1,523 1,407 84 37,143 10 71 NA NA

Meyers Chuck 35 37 11 16,250 33 414 NA NA

Naukati Bay 148 96 1 43,333 5 NA NA NA

Pelican 201 222 29 27,083 14 355 6,454 6,636

Petersburg 3,309 3,207 10 49,318 4 200 5,091 4,532

Point Baker 58 39 0 12,083 NA 344 NA NA

Port Alexander 96 119 3 20,625 18 306 384 325

Port Protection 60 62 2 10,000 46 311 NA NA

Saxman 386 369 77 30,481 6 89 1,924 1,611

Sitka 8,891 8,588 21 43,337 5 146 4,734 3,959

Skagway 771 692 6 37,500 4 52 4,695 2,954

Tenakee Springs 106 94 10 18,125 11 250 1,992 1,616

Thorne Bay 631 581 1 39,688 5 97 2,143 1,649

Whale Pass 87 75 3 49,583 14 186 NA NA

Wrangell 2,703 2,479 20 37,538 6 164 4,332 3,962

Yakutat 767 705 55 36,875 11 398 6,843 6,666

NA = not available.

a This is the 1987 per capita household subsistence harvest of edible pounds as reported by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The

species of fish, marine invertebrates, game, and plants harvested differ by community.

b The revenues and expenditures are reported in 1995 dollars. Unincorporated communities are not required to provide revenue and

expenditure data to the State of Alaska. In many cases, these communities do not provide services or collect revenues.

c This figure represents Klawock’s mean household subsistence harvest in edible pounds; per capita harvest information was unavailable.

Sources: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 1996. Alaska Department of Labor 1996a; U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census 1990; Wolfe and Bosworth 1994.

46
were in southeast Alaska, and the time period was the late 1980s, but the same

trends are of concern today, with funds provided through state revenue sharing

programs continuing to decline (Walters 1997).

Figure 18 displays per capita revenues and expenditures for southeast Alaska communities for which data existed in 1995. The magnitude of the differences among

communities is the most notable finding, but it is not correct to conclude that higher

revenues and expenditures lead to better social or economic well-being. Each community has a unique set of services and administrative structure. Electricity, for example, may be provided by local governments in some communities but by a private

company in others; particularly wealthy communities may undertake more service

provision on their own than will most other communties. It is also likely that residents

in some communities may not desire some types of services, so the lack of cityprovided services or infrastructure is not always a negative effect on the quality of life

of residents.

Comparison of per capita revenues and expenditures over time within communities

may provide a better illustration (than the above) of community fiscal conditions.

Appendix 2 contains trend information for 21 communities (or boroughs) for which

this information is available, along with trends in population. Generally upward trends

in revenues are present in seven communities, generally downward trends in six, and

fairly stable trends in eight. This pattern does not suggest a widespread, continuous

decline in revenues, but more indepth analysis is needed before firm conclusions can

be reached. Regardless, the fiscal conditions of communities is a continuing concern

for residents.

The communities of southeast Alaska are characterized by a relatively high degree of

geographic isolation, but their economies are not autonomous. Local businesses and

residents often rely on external sources for large proportions of purchased goods and

services. Consequently, southeast Alaska communities have relatively strong links

with larger regional trade centers (Juneau and, to a lesser extent, Ketchikan, Sitka, or

locations in Canada), and with suppliers of wholesale and retail goods in the lower 48

States, particularly those shipping from Seattle. An important result of this is that the

multiplier effects emanating from changes in local economic activity will often be felt

elsewhere, further up the trade hierarchy in places such as Juneau.

Economic structure and diversity in this section are not described for each individual

community. The smallest unit of analysis used by ADOL is groups of communities,

which are subareas of boroughs and census areas. Some of the community groups

represent individual communities, and some include several communities within the

boundary (refer to table 1 for a complete description). Information at the community

group scale provides a more detailed picture of local employment patterns than previously available data as a result of changes in policy effective July 1, 1996, regarding

release of employment data. Before that date, public release of employment data was

more restricted based on number of employees and percentage of employment provided, and in most instances at smaller geographic levels, requirements were not

met.18 The concern was that releasing information at very small scales would identify

18 Similar concerns extend to other types of employment and

income information as well. For example, the state releases

information about proportions of resident and nonresident

employees only for Alaska firms employing 20 or more

people.

47
employment and income information specific to a single business or company. Consequently, community group information was not available when the RSDEIS was

written.

At the community group level of disaggregation, there is a much greater potential for

substantial errors in the data. Changes in reporting jurisdictions or industry definitions

can result in large and abrupt changes in reported employment for a given community

or industry even with no underlying change in actual employment patterns. In addition,

employers may not report as accurately at this level.

Figure 18–Southeast Alaska community per capita revenues and expenditures, 1995.

Unincorporated communities were not included in this analysis as they are not required to report this

information to the state. All dollar figures are in 1995 dollars. Source: Alaska Department of

Community and Regional Affairs 1996.

48
Summary statistics for the ADOL community groups (appendix 1) show the relative

proportion of employment in each major economic sector. These data demonstrate

the widespread role of the government sector, as well as the difference in proportions

of employment that could be directly affected by Forest Service policies and actions.

A reader interested in evaluating a specific community group may use appendix 1 to

learn more and make comparisons with other community groups.

Average annual growth in total employment for each of the ADOL community group

for the 1981-90 and 1990-95 periods is further shown in figure 19 (the smallest community groups were omitted from this analysis because the extremely large rates of

change reflect problems of scale). One of the most striking characteristics is the extremely high variation in the rate of job creation (or loss) experienced by the different

community groups. The highest positive or negative changes are concentrated in

groups with the smallest total employment numbers. A rapid reversal in rates is evident for some community groups. Employment in Yakutat, for example, increased at

an annual rate of 14 percent in 1990-95 in contrast to a 2-percent annual rate of

decline in the 1981-90 period. Many of the other community groups showed similar

reversals, with the most pronounced occurring in the smaller community groups.

These data highlight an important aspect of community level impacts: the most severe

impacts (relative to total local employment) are often experienced in smaller communities, where even a few job losses may be a large proportion of total employment.

Conversely, the addition of a new firm or business can lead to sizable increases.

Smaller communities often exhibit higher concentrations of employment in a single

industry, such as logging camps or communities based on resorts or concentrations

of fishing lodges.

Larger communities, in which the absolute level of variation is considerably less, also

demonstrated very different trends in overall employment growth or decline in recent

years. Population size is highly correlated with the number of businesses in a community (r=0.77, p=0.005), with the current economic diversity (r=0.74, p=0.002), and

with the number of jobs (r=0.96, p=0.00) of the corresponding ADOL community

group. Median family income is more strongly associated with economic diversity

(r=0.66, p=0.006) than with population size (r=0.38, p=0.03), highlighting the benefits

of economic diversity.

Tongass-Related

Industries

Employment at the community-group level in the three resource-dependent industries

most likely to be affected by management of the Tongass National Forest is shown in

table 11, again highlighting the great diversity present across southeast Alaska. In the

23 community groups, 10 have 1 percent or less employment in the wood products

industry, 12 have 1 percent or less employment in seafood processing, and six have

1 percent or less employment in a combined category of lodging, restaurants, and

recreational and entertainment services. Very few community groups have significant

proportions of employment in all three categories.

Wood products—The wood products-related employment as a share of total local

employment is shown in table 11 for all ADOL community groups. Extremely high

concentrations are found in groups containing logging camps, such as the Baranof,

Kuiu Island, Revillagigedo, and North Prince of Wales community groups. A loss of

timber jobs could eliminate a substantial proportion of total employment within these

community groups, and because of their impermanence, small size, and relative lack

of social and institutional infrastructure, they would not be well positioned to

withstand such impacts.

49
Figure 19–Annual growth in nonagricultural wage and salary employment for southeast Alaska’s

larger community groups, 1981-90 and 1990-95. Communities are listed in descending order of

size. Employment is annual equivalent and excludes proprietors and those self-employed.

Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a.

50
Table 11—Summary of southeast Alaska employment statistics, by industry, for Alaska Department of

Labor community groups, 1990-95

Lodging, restaurant, and

Wage and salarya Wood products Seafood processing recreationb

Borough or 1995 1990-95 1995 1990-95 Local 1995 1990-95 Local 1995 1990-95 Local

Community group census area jobs change jobs change total jobs change total jobs change total

Annual Annual Annual Annual

equivalent Percent equivalent − Percent − equivalent − Percent − equivalent − Percent −

Baranof Sitka Borough 51 -4 39 -17 75 0 — 0 0 — 0

Central POWc POW-OKd 1,059 9 137 -56 13 42 155 4 123 24 12

Chatham Strait Northern complex 324 -2 112 26 34 0 — 0 21 10 7

Cleveland Pen. POW-OK 14 -38 0 — 0 0 — 0 14 -38 100

Gustavus Northern complex 159 29 0 — 0 4 130 2 97 65 61

Haines Haines Borough 791 -11 10 -93 1 90 9 11 131 30 17

Hyder POW-OK 21 -33 0 — 0 0 — 0 8 -12 37

Hydaburg POW-OK 61 -20 0 — 0 0 — 0 0 — 0

Juneau Juneau Borough 15,775 12 80 — 1 59 139 0 1,505 29 10

Kake Wrang-Peterse 282 -1 47 -62 17 0 — 0 0 — 0

Ketchikan City Kt-Gt-Wyf 7,911 1 1,006 -30 13 405 -9 5 647 -4 8

Kuiu Island Wrang-Peters 9 -90 4 -95 45 0 — 0 0 — 0

Metlakatla POW-OK 550 -7 96 -17 17 31 — 6 20 136 4

North POW POW-OK 447 -12 257 -4 57 4 -63 1 19 220 4

North Chichagof Northern complex 565 -5 139 0 25 139 -40 25 33 10 6

Petersburg Wrang-Peters 1,555 12 12 -83 1 430 65 28 100 -23 6

Revillagigedo Kt-Gt-Wy 28 — 23 — 84 0 — 0 0 — 0

Sitka Sitka Borough 3,765 -7 14 -97 0 227 -18 6 390 8 10

Skagway Northern complex 602 10 0 — 0 0 — 0 211 190 35

Southeast POW POW-OK 39 369 0 — 0 0 — 0 38 — 97

Stephens Pass. Northern complex 48 -86 3 -95 6 2 200 5 0 — 0

Wrangell City Wrang-Peters 813 -8 21 -87 3 83 38 10 74 -4 9

Yakutat Northern complex 419 93 68 86 16 72 — 17 61 114 14

— = not applicable.

a Employment is full- and part-time annual equivalent and excludes proprietors and self-employed.

b This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an indicator of trends and relative

concentration of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

c POW = Prince of Wales Island.

d POW-OK = Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area.

e Wrang-Peters = Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area.

f Kt-Gt-Wy = Ketchikan Gateway Borough.

Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a.

51
Lower yet still substantial concentrations of wood products industry-related employment are found in and around more established communities, including the Chatham

Strait and North Chichagof community groups, where timber employment shares exceed 20 percent of total nonagricultural wage and salary employment. These areas

also are at risk of negative social and economic impacts if the trend in decreasing timber industry employment continues.

Larger communities that contain wood processing facilities also can rely heavily on

the wood products industry for employment. Ketchikan is the principal example of this

type of community, but this characterization could have been equally applied to Sitka,

Wrangell, or Haines before their mill closures. Due to their size and general level of

economic development, these communities are characterized by a much more developed local economy, with wood products industry employment constituting a smaller

share of total employment.

As noted above, changes in timber-related employment have not been evenly distributed across the communities of southeast Alaska. In particular, the opening or closing

of wood products processing facilities, such as pulp mills or sawmills, has large and

abrupt impacts on local employment and earnings levels. The 1990s have witnessed

closures of large mills in Haines (1991), Sitka (1993), Wrangell (1994), and Ketchikan

(1997).

Table 12 displays yearly levels in total employment, wood products employment

(logging included), and other employment for Haines, Sitka, and Wrangell since 1990.

The direct impact of mill closures is evident in the elimination of virtually all wood

products-related employment in each community. These impacts also can be seen in

a substantial reduction in total employment, ranging from 7 percent in Sitka to 11 percent in Haines over the 1990-95 period, compared to a 4-percent increase in total

NAWS salary employment in southeast Alaska for the same period. Earnings figures

were not available at this level of detail, but it is safe to assume that impacts to

earnings are even greater because earnings in the wood products industries are

significantly higher than the regional average.

Indirect impacts (i.e., declines in employment in other sectors generated by the reduction in wood products employment) are far less evident than direct impacts, with each

community showing a positive increase in other employment since 1990. Increases in

Sitka (3 percent) and Haines (4 percent), however, are substantially less than the

regional average increase of 10 percent in nonwood-products related employment.

Though the evidence is not conclusive, mill closures seem to have had a substantial

dampening effect on growth in other employment categories.

At 10 percent, growth in other employment in Wrangell matches the regional average, but much of the indirect impact of the mill closure may not yet be present or may

have been partially mitigated through state and Federal programs. In 1995, other employment saw a 3-percent decline, reversing a strong growth trend since 1991. In

Sitka, and especially Wrangell, the total impact from mill closures probably has not

had time to work its way through the entire economy, as unemployment benefits and

outmigration of unemployed workers may continue for several years after the initial

job loss.

52
Due to the relatively high wages, the taxes paid, and the charitable activities they

engage in, the contribution of larger mills (and other industries) to the local economy

may be underestimated by employment statistics alone. At the community scale, large

employers cease to become just statistics of employment and are seen as members

of the community that provide benefits for local residents related to the standard of

living, transportation, and public services (McDowell Group 1995).

Commercial fishing and seafood processing—As shown by the regional- and

borough-level analyses, commercial fishing is another extremely important component

of southeast Alaska’s economy, but there are no reliable statistics available on

employment numbers at the community level. The ADOL nonagricultural wage and

salary statistics used in this report do measure employees of seafood processing

firms; the numbers are reported in table 11.

Table 12—Wood products and total nonagricultural wage and salary

employment in Haines, Sitka, and Wrangell, 1990-95a

1990-95

Employment 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 change

- - - - - - - Annual equivalent - - - - - - Percent

Haines:

Wood products 141 60 9 34 28 10 -93

Other employment 750 761 678 803 811 781 4

Total 891 821 688 836 839 791 -11

Sitka:

Wood products 404 407 412 343 25 14 -97

Other employment 3,653 3,477 3,482 3,667 3,709 3,751 3

Total 4,057 3,884 3,895 4,011 3,734 3,765 -7

Wrangell:

Wood products 162 196 224 272 234 21 -87

Other employment 721 716 744 771 819 792 10

Total 883 912 968 1,043 1,053 813 -8

Southeast Alaska:

Wood products 3,543 3,069 2,863 2,650 2,225 2,002 -43

Other employment 32,241 32,574 33,190 33,775 34,838 35,305 10

Total 35,784 35,643 36,053 36,425 37,063 37,307 4

a Nonagricultural wage and salary employment, annual equivalent excludes proprietors and self-employed.

Source: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a.

53
Our understanding of the links between forest management practices and anadromous fish populations, and thereby commercial fishing employment, is tenuous. The

best we can do is identify communities having the most at stake in commercial

fishing. Relatively large concentrations of seafood processing employment are encountered in Haines, Hoonah, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat. Fish processing

constitutes 27 percent of the total wage and salary employment in Petersburg, with

a peak monthly employment of just over 900 workers; in addition, it is an industry

where, statewide, more nonresidents are employed than in any other industry, yet

Wrangell-Petersburg and Ketchikan have higher percentages of Alaska residents employed in the industry compared to other portions of the state (Fried 1996). Attempts

are being made to reduce the extreme seasonal variation in employment in the industry. A dried fish plant is scheduled to open in Kake, with financing provided from the

city’s share of a congressional fund created to help southeast Alaska communities

replace jobs lost in the timber industry.

Recreation and tourism—With the exception of larger hotels and resorts, recreation and tourism-related economic activity often involves small operators who are

augmenting other small businesses that serve the needs of local residents. As such,

tourism provides opportunities for small-scale entrepreneurs. On the downside, wages

in this sector are usually less than those in wood products manufacturing, and the

work is seasonal. As shown in the analysis of the regional economy, recreation and

tourism has become a major source of growth for the economy of southeast Alaska.

This is reflected by rapid growth at the local level (see table 11).

As was the case of wood products industry employment, the highest concentrations

of recreation and tourism-related employment are in those community groups with

small, specialized operations, such as Cleveland Peninsula and Southeast Prince of

Wales, where concentrations are 100 percent and 97 percent, respectively. Other

community groups with larger total employment levels, such as Gustavus and

Skagway, also display relatively high concentrations of employment in the recreation

and tourism sectors.

To the degree that recreation and tourism-related employment in these localities relies

on specific natural locations within the Tongass National Forest, their economic wellbeing may be affected by Forest planning decisions. The decision of a cruise ship

company to dock or not dock in a community also can have a profound effect on the

local economy. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that local environmental amenities may be an important factor in decisions made to move to a certain community by

retirees, telecommuters, or other individuals whose incomes are not tied to local firms.

In the long term, local amenities may be an important factor in the ability of communities to thrive in a changing economy.

Forest Receipts and

Payments to State

Another way that Forest Service activities affect communities is through revenue

sharing, which transfers money to the state for local roads and schools. These funds

are then distributed to the communities of southeast Alaska to augment public school

and public road budgets. Twenty-five percent of all revenue received by the Tongass

National Forest is paid to the State of Alaska. In fiscal year 1996, the amount was

about $7.6 million, or about 11 percent of the total $67 million made available to communities through four primary state and Federal revenue-sharing programs (Alaska

54
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, no date). Despite comprising just

11 percent of this total, Federal payments have gained importance to communities

in recent years because, as mentioned above, state revenue sharing has steadily

declined since the early 1980s.

The Tongass contributes nearly all the Federal revenue sharing under the 25-percent

fund because nearly all timber harvest (the principal source of revenue) occurs there;

the Chugach National Forest contributes less than 1 percent of the total. Total receipts for the Tongass National Forest are shown in figure 20. The most striking

aspect of the chart is the extreme variation in revenues received by the Forest. The

1980-95 average income was over $20 million, but yearly income over that period

ranged from about $46 million in 1980 to -$2.6 million in 1987.19 Later peaks occurred

in the boom years of 1990 and 1991, but 1994 also posted one of the highest revenue years on record in spite of declining timber harvest volumes. Payments to Alaska

boroughs (25 percent of the total revenue) varied directly with revenues except for

1987, when negative forest revenues resulted in zero payment to the boroughs. Average payments to the State of Alaska were $5 million over the 1980-95 period.

Total forest revenues consist of forest receipts, actual cash payments received by

the National Forest, and capital improvements, capital goods received by the Forest

usually in lieu of payment—the bulk of which are roads. Since 1980, forest receipts

have comprised, on average, about 15 percent of total Forest revenues; capital improvements, on the other hand, constitute over 84 percent and thus are the driving

force behind revenues and subsequent payments to the State of Alaska.

Figure 20–Total Tongass National Forest receipts in real 1995 dollars, fiscal years 1975-96. All dollar

figures are in 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer price index. Source: USDA

Forest Service 1996b.

19 Tongass receipts in FY 1987 were negative due to

a comptroller decision to retroactively implement the

emergency rate redeterminations for short-term sales.

Without the reduction, Tongass receipts would have been

positive by $2.1 million. As a result of the negative receipt,

no payments to the State of Alaska were made in that year.

55
Almost 90 percent of forest receipts are comprised of revenues from timber sales, so

decreases in harvest levels can result in substantial drops in these Federal revenue

sharing payments. Other revenue sources within this category are recreational user

fees, payments for power line rights-of-way, fees paid by mineral developers, and

other land use fees. At 80 percent of total capital improvements, purchaser road

credits is the largest revenue source both within this category and within total Forest revenue. These credits are road construction expenditures undertaken primarily

by logging firms that are then reimbursed by the National Forest in reduced cash

payments for timber. The roads and related facilities remaining after harvest is completed are the property of the Federal Government. Other capital improvements include investments in forest stand regeneration and improvements or other silvicultural

activities, which are aimed at either augmenting the future sale value of forest stands

or meeting other Tongass objectives.

Incorporated boroughs receive payments based on the acres of Federal land within

the borough boundary. Historically, 100 percent of the payments to boroughs have

been spent on public schools. Table 13 shows how payments for schools over the

past 5 years have been distributed across boroughs and the amounts per student.

The 1995-96 range was quite broad, with per-student funding ranging from $117 per

student in Ketchikan Borough to $3,219 per student in Yakutat Borough. Boroughs

with large amounts of Federal land and small population, such as Yakutat, receive

more payment per student than those having larger populations, such as Juneau.

Unincorporated areas receive funds based on miles of public roads and public school

enrollment, with 25 percent of their funding going to roads and the other 75 percent

to schools. Several of the smaller communities are a part of a public school contract

with each community’s funding going to the organization as a whole. Table 13 displays enrollment and the per-student payments made from 1991 through 1996.

Basing the allocation in part on student enrollment has the obvious effect of equalizing

the payments per student.

Community Resiliency The preceding discussion described employment and economic diversity as key

components of communities, consistent with the purpose and narrow focus of this

assessment. Any discussion of communities would be incomplete, however, without

mention of some other variables that affect the economic and social well-being of

residents, and the community’s ability to adapt to changing conditions. Researchers

have used the term “community resiliency” (Harris and others 1996) or “community

capacity” (FEMAT 1993) to describe a community’s ability to weather significant

changes. These terms resemble the earlier concept of community stability that,

although defined in many different ways, had some common elements: “Community

stability is best defined as a process of orderly change...the prosperity, adaptability,

and cohesiveness of people living in a common functional geographic area and their

ability to absorb and cope with change” (Society of American Foresters 1989).

Some of the factors judged important for small, rural communities in the Pacific Northwest include community infrastructure, the presence of amenities, social cohesion

and effective community leadership, and economic diversity (Harris and others 1996).

Although information such as population size can be used as a rough proxy for resiliency (generally, larger communities tend to be more resilient than smaller ones), this

is not always the case, and population size and economic diversity are not the only

important determinants of community vitality and resiliency. The presence of adequate

infrastructure to accommodate existing residents and future growth also is a key consideration, as is the relative level of social cohesion and strength of local leadership.

56
Table 13—Southeast Alaska public school enrollment and Tongass National

Forest 25 percent fund payment per student, school years 1991-95

Enrollment and expenditure by School year

school districta 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96

Incorporated boroughs:b

Haines Borough—

School enrollment 450 434 400 414 439

Expenditure per student (1995$)c 1,254 446 535 1,188 949

City and Borough of Juneau—

School enrollment 5,199 5,448 5,408 5,372 5,531

Expenditure per student (1995$) 196 64 71 172 141

Ketchikan Gateway Borough—

School enrollment 2,797 2,799 2,886 2,873 2,890

Expenditure per student (1995$) 164 56 60 139 117

Sitka Borough—

School enrollment 1,837 1,887 1,903 1,828 1,802

Expenditure per student (1995$) 607 203 223 532 455

Yakutat Borough—

School enrollment 130 133 149 163 173

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,405 1,945 1,921 4,034 3,219

Unincorporated areas:d

Chatham schools—e

School enrollment 378 357 336 335 342

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,388 431 474 1,062 900

Southeast Island schools—f

School enrollment 427 416 430 381 369

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,437 443 469 1,094 865

Annette Island School—

School enrollment 416 411 388 406 420

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,421 433 512 1,129 965

Craig—

School enrollment 305 355 367 385 427

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,437 443 488 1,123 906

Hoonah—

School enrollment 239 268 259 262 273

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,371 443 503 1,081 915

Hydaburg—

School enrollment 120 119 109 110 103

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,383 429 489 1,067 921

Kake—

School enrollment 181 178 175 184 193

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,426 439 488 1,097 903

57
Table 13—Southeast Alaska public school enrollment and Tongass National

Forest 25 percent fund payment per student, school years 1991-95 (continued)

Enrollment and expenditure by School year

school districta 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96

Klawock—

School enrollment 207 200 202 193 212

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,427 445 507 1,170 948

Pelican—

School enrollment 46 44 45 47 35

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,392 466 487 1,042 997

Petersburg—

School enrollment 702 703 698 757 754

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,395 443 497 1,094 912

Skagway—

School enrollment 160 172 143 128 134

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,264 392 489 1,085 894

Wrangell—

School enrollment 527 521 500 573 550

Expenditure per student (1995$) 1,399 439 528 1,080 921

a Enrollment is taken each year on October 1.

b Incorporated boroughs receive a share of National Forest income proportional to the area of the National

Forest located within its boundaries.

c All dollar figures are in 1995 dollars, adjusted for inflation by using the U.S. producer price index.

d Unincorporated boroughs receive a share of National Forest income proportional to the number of

children in average daily membership of the city school district or regional educational attendance area.

e Chatham schools include Angoon, Cube Cove, Elfin Cove, Gustavus, Hobart Bay, Klukwan, and

Tenakee Springs.

f Southeast Island schools include Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, Hollis, Kasaan, Meyers Chuck, Naukati Bay,

Port Alexander, Port Protection, Thorne Bay, and Whale Pass.

Sources: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 1996, Alaska Department of Education

1996.

58
The importance of the human capital factor cannot be overstated. There are many

examples of communities lacking economic diversity, population, and amenities that

have weathered storms because they have refused to give up. Humans are highly

adaptable and have a variety of mechanisms to cope with change. At the community

level, one indicator of this ability is the presence of planning and leadership functions

and abilities. Successful prior completion of action plans, community visioning processes, economic development plans, and similar products can reflect a community’s

resiliency.

Analyses have not been conducted regarding the resiliency of southeast Alaska communities, and we do not know how well information gained elsewhere applies to

understanding southeast Alaska communities. The unique mixed economy of rural

Alaska communities, for example, is one central distinction. In this absence, we can

explore resiliency by taking a closer look at three communities that have experienced

rapid changes, all due to mill closures: Haines, Sitka, and Wrangell.

The sawmill in Haines, which employed 135 people, closed in May 1991. Following

mill closure, sales receipts dropped off, and population and school enrollment decreased. Employment in other sectors, such as lodging, restaurants, and recreation,

also showed abrupt declines. In subsequent years, school enrollment increased

(although not quite to premill-closure levels), and population levels remained fairly

steady, as have housing prices.

Sitka lost its largest employer when the APC pulp mill closed in September 1993.

Many individuals and families suffered greatly, and for some this continues today. This

was not just a major loss in employment, but in income; the mill jobs, on average,

paid 84 percent more than other wage jobs in Sitka (Lane 1994). Employment in construction, wholesale trade, and transportation industries declined as well when the mill

closed. School enrollment showed a decrease in the two subsequent years, as did

population, which remains below the 1993 level. Housing prices have continued to increase and rental prices, although fluctuating, have not dropped; vacancy rates remain slightly higher than in 1993.

A State of Alaska report (Tromble 1996) notes that, “Only strong, fortuitously timed

growth in other industries cushioned the community from the full blow of the mill

closure. So far, Sitka has weathered its loss surprisingly well.” The Kendall Foundation report (Smith 1996; described in “ Regional Conditions and Trends”) also states

that, “The city of Sitka has survived the closing of the Alaska Pulp Corporation mill

and community indicators, on balance, seem positive....Sitka benefits from having

several year-round institutional payrolls.” The city continues to work through this and

other changes, from both social and economic perspectives, and the long-term effects

of mill closure are uncertain.

59
Another case study is provided by Wrangell, where the APC sawmill, which employed

225 people and accounted for 23 percent of the wage and salary jobs and 30 percent

of Wrangell’s payroll wages (Boucher 1994), closed at the end of 1994. The impact

of losing its largest employer spiraled through Wrangell, with declines in wholesale

trade, transportation, service, and financial-insurance-real estate sectors. City sales

tax revenues fell 12 percent from the first quarter of 1994 to the first quarter of 1995,

compared to previous annual increases of about 4 percent (Tromble and Boucher

1995). School enrollment decreased and rental vacancy rates have increased substantially. In addition, some types of impacts do not occur for 1 to 2 years due to transition programs, payments, unemployment insurance, and other mechanisms, so additional socioeconomic effects may well occur.

Lacking the population size and economic diversity of a community like Sitka,

Wrangell faces a tougher struggle in reestablishing a local economy. The city’s

Overall Economic Development Plan (City of Wrangell 1996) contains a number of

economic goals—many defined prior to mill closure—that could help rebuild the economy and lessen the likelihood of similar devastating events in the future. They

include diversifying the economy so that it is not dependent on a single employer or

industry, encouraging year-round and long-term employment, enhancing the quality of

life for existing residents, encouraging new businesses, and strengthening the educational system.

These goals and others identified by community leaders and residents are likely to

be achieved given Wrangell’s sizable share (about $32 million over 4 years) of the

$110 million being distributed to southeast Alaska communities through the Southeast Alaska Economic Fund (under the Balanced Budget Down Payment Act of 1996

[U.S. Public Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 104-134]). Congress designed this fund

to provide immediate assistance to timber-dependent communities in southeast

Alaska because of recent drops in timber harvest on the Tongass.

The evidence suggests that mill closures have had a strong and lasting impact on

these communities. At the same time, it is also evident that, at least in the case of

Sitka and Haines, other sectors within these communities have continued to grow despite the loss in wood products employment. Short-term effects may not be the same

as long-term ones; a community’s resiliency and leadership can contribute to mitigating the effects of economic blows, and it is clear that impacts must be viewed in

the context of a dynamic economy. Given a continued favorable economic climate in

the region, it is likely that non-wood products-related employment in these communities will continue to expand, and growth rates may eventually match those of other

communities in the region. Additional exploration of the resiliency of southeast Alaska

communities could benefit community development efforts and management of the

Tongass.

Conclusions This section summarizes key findings and addresses some of the management

considerations flowing from the analyses in this report. Similar to the other TLMPgenerated assessments, this is done through a series of questions. It also incorporates suggestions for additional research to provide public land managers and

stakeholders with a better understanding of social and economic trends and their

relation to management of the Tongass National Forest.

60
The reader is reminded that this paper has taken a generally narrow view of the

socioeconomic dimensions of the Tongass, concentrating mostly on relatively direct

measures of economic activity and demographics. This does not mean that other

aspects, such as lifestyles, environmental amenities, and existence values are not

important. On the contrary, they are extremely important and constitute a major resource enjoyed primarily by the residents of southeast Alaska and other stakeholders.

A major challenge in the future will be to develop measures for these aspects that,

while unavoidably imprecise, will accurately measure general trends and can be easily

collected and updated.

1. What broad economic trends should public land managers be aware of as

they implement ecosystem management in the Tongass National Forest?

The various indicators of economic conditions discussed here do not present a

unified, consistent picture of southeast Alaska’s economy. The region is experiencing

annual growth in employment that exceeds the national level, but the rate is slowing

relative to past years. Total personal income, although rising, is not increasing as

much as the national average, and per capita personal income is declining, due primarily to a steady annual drop in real average earnings per job. Although southeast

Alaska residents earn more (on average) than the U.S. population, the difference has

decreased over the last 10 years.

The seasonality of many jobs leads to unemployment rates that fluctuate widely by

month, and the proportion of nonresidents working in many natural resource-based

occupations means that much income does not stay in Alaska. Economic diversity—

the balance of employment among various industries and one measure of economic

health—is generally lower in southeast Alaska than in other parts of the country. The

uniqueness of southeast Alaska in terms of population density, lack of a developed

road system, role of subsistence, reliance on natural resources, and other characteristics make direct comparisons with the U.S. economy difficult and, sometimes, not

very meaningful.

The analyses found major differences in economic structure and performance among

southeast Alaska’s boroughs and census areas, in such measures as growth in percapita income, economic diversity, proportion of employment in resource-dependent

industries, and population growth. Northern boroughs, for example, are less reliant on

the wood products industry for their employment base and contain higher proportions

of employment in recreation and tourism. As would be expected, differences become

more pronounced at the community level. It is difficult to generalize at this scale; the

limited number and unique characteristics of each community make aggregation

problematic.

Communities and community groups differ in many of the same ways that boroughs

do, only the differences tend to be more extreme. For example, community groups

as well as boroughs have tended to show slower rates of employment growth in the

1990s than they did in the 1980s, but some groups of communities show the opposite

trend. Communities differ greatly in the proportion of employment derived from the

wood products, tourism, and fishing industries. This was reflected in the message a

group of mayors brought to Washington, DC, in 1997: “the Southeast contingent did

not discuss timber harvest levels, because each community has different views”

(Mills 1997).

61
As a result, social and economic conditions and trends need to be studied and

understood at multiple scales. Similarly, analysis of effects of changes in public land

management and other policies need to be assessed at multiple scales to avoid a

“one size fits all” discussion of impacts that will not measure effects on anyone.

2. What are trends in employment for the region’s primary natural resourcebased industries (wood products, fish harvesting and seafood processing,

recreation and tourism, and mining)?

The share of natural resource-based sectors relative to other employment sectors has

remained fairly constant recently, but the mix of industries within that share is shifting.

Employment in the wood products industry has declined 41 percent since 1990, with

a loss of nearly 1,500 jobs, the largest drop in any of the resource-dependent (or

other) industries. The recent declines in timber harvest on both private and Tongass

National Forest lands are expected to continue, posing further risk to the industry. In

turn, communities that rely on wood products, through logging, sawmill operations, or

pulp mills, have lost a major employer, with social and economic effects that ripple

through the community.

The long-term effects on southeast Alaska communities are unknown, but it should be

clear that the industries and communities dependent on them are most at risk in the

short term from further reductions. Related effects could include decreasing revenues

to communities from taxes, decreasing real estate prices, increasing utility costs,

increasing school costs per student, and decreasing school funding from state and

Federal funds based on number of students. Impact estimates must take into account

that economies are dynamic; one cannot talk about job loss without considering job

growth. The attraction of southeast Alaska’s amenities may become a draw not just

for tourists, but for residents not linked to specific locations by employment, as is

already happening in other parts of the United States. The $110 million being distributed to southeast Alaska communities through the Southeast Alaska Economic Fund

of 1996 is being used to mitigate the effects of reduced timber harvests, as are various other programs, such as the Interagency Southeast Alaska Community Economic

Revitalization Team (SEACERT).

The level of employment in fishing and seafood processing exhibits more stability,

although shifts among permit holders may have distributive effects. Links with management of the Tongass are more difficult to determine, but communities with concentrations of fishing activity, such as Petersburg or Pelican, are sensitive, especially over

the long term, to changes in management of the Tongass. The degree of protection

of habitat for species that use Tongass streams and rivers is probably the key variable within Forest Service control; as noted in the fisheries section of the revised supplement to the draft environmental impact statement on Tongass land management

plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1996b), many other factors significantly contribute

to employment in the fishing industry.

62
The tourism industry is the fastest growing of the natural resource industries, and continued growth is expected. On the whole, impacts to the recreation and tourism industry can be expected to be far more diffuse than those for wood products. The recreation and tourism industry is characterized by smaller firms, so the closure of a single

firm represents a much smaller proportion of the total local employment than would a

sawmill. Recreation and tourism-related employment is more evenly distributed among

the communities of southeast Alaska, with all the larger community groups showing

an employment concentration of more than 5 percent in the lodging, restaurant, and

recreation services sectors. Consequently, any policy decision decreasing the overall

attractiveness of the region to outside visitors would most likely be felt (to various

degrees) throughout the region. For employment in the recreation industry, the ability

of the Forest Service to meet projected use levels for semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities may be another key variable.

Communities that have specialized in recreation and tourism may be just as susceptible to developments beyond their control (such as changes in the docking locations

of cruise ships) as are communities that have specialized in timber; for example, Sitka

expects a 29-percent drop in cruise passengers as one company shifts more of its

stops to Skagway (Tromble 1997). Different portions of the economy should not be

viewed as substitutable; growth in one sector may not compensate for declines in

another.

Although not dealt with in detail in this paper, subsistence is another use that is both

directly and indirectly affected by management of the Tongass. Subsistence is a substantial component of the rural economy of southeast Alaska, and may contribute substantially to the resiliency of rural communities. Timber harvest and other land uses

affect the quality and quantity of habitat available for many species. Road construction can increase access for subsistence, sport, and commercial users, as well as

affect habitat. Regulations proposed by state and Federal wildlife managers that determine subsistence users’ limits, harvest methods, and seasons take into account

conditions created through Tongass management. The continuous updating of subsistence harvest information at the community scale by the Alaska Department of Fish

and Game may help to answer some of the questions relating subsistence use to

management of the Tongass, but additional ethnographic studies would complement

this harvest information.

Future long-term research to explore relations between ecosystem conditions and opportunities in the Tongass and the health and resiliency of southeast Alaska communities is needed to provide a better baseline for assessing risk and possible socioeconomic effects of forest management. Information on how management of the forest affects tourism and fishing opportunities and employment would supplement the

better knowledge available for the timber industry. Links among the industries and a

better understanding of how impacts in one resource-dependent sector affect those

in another would complement those studies. Additional study is needed on how well

the “Lodging, Restaurant, and Recreation” sector actually represents the recreation

and tourism industry.

63
3. How well equipped are the communities of southeast Alaska to successfully

deal with the social, economic, and environmental changes facing them? Do

communities differ in this capacity?

Analysis of key statistics at the borough and local levels indicates a high degree of

variance in economic performance among different communities and different periods.

This variance is not surprising given the small size and lack diversity of many southeast Alaska communities and is to be expected, especially in timber-dependent communities where global market swings and forest management decisions will largely

dictate local developments in the timber economy. Few southeast Alaska communities

demonstrate a high level of economic diversity; even the largest city, Juneau, depends greatly on a single sector—government—for employment. The effects of a

major change (such as moving the capital) would likely have as abrupt an effect on

Juneau as would closing the mill in a mill town.

In either case, reliance on a single industry may lead to greater instability and lower

resilience to change over the long term. For certain of the larger communities (notably

Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan), a reasonably diverse economy in conjunction with a

developed physical and social infrastructure should allow for a reasonable degree of

economic stability. Most communities that have vision statements, overall economic

development plans, and similar documents have formally recognized the merits of

economic diversity and are working toward this goal. In other, smaller, communities

the opportunity to grow and diversify may be more limited, although subsistence

activities play a large role in maintaining quality of life.

Additional research on the characteristics of communities and their relation to community resiliency should be undertaken. We do not know if models of resiliency

developed elsewhere are equally applicable to southeast Alaska, but similar methodologies (Harris and others 1996, for example) could be applied to test such hypotheses. An important component of such techniques is combining information about

communities, such as population, location, access, infrastructure, and economic diversity (Force and others 1995), with perceptions from local leaders and residents about

the adequacy of existing conditions and the quality of life in their community. The

community self-assessment workshops used in the interior Columbia basin study

(Harris and others 1996) worked well to obtain this type of information. In addition,

surveys of southeast Alaska residents on their beliefs, attitudes, and opinions regarding natural resources and public land management would provide Forest managers and stakeholders with baseline information that could then be used to track the

acceptability and benefits associated with project activities and Forest plan revisions

(Stankey and Clark 1992).

4. One of the criticisms received by the Tongass Land Management Planning

team was the lack of a community-by-community description of the number of

jobs lost or created (and related economic and social impacts) under each

alternative. What are the problems associated with this type of impact analysis

and how can they be overcome?

There are several reasons why it is problematic to assess the effects of a programmatic plan on employment in individual communities. First, the analysis must be

based on available trend data, which is limited to community groups rather than communities. Another reason is that Forest Service activities provide economic opportunities to the private sector; how that sector and various industries respond depends on

64
many variables in addition to Forest Service management. Complex social and economic forces have great influence on community economics—many of which, such as

corporate decisions, may be outside the control of community residents.

Another problem in analyzing community-specific employment effects is that Forest

plans are programmatic, meaning that they establish direction and allowable activities

for broad land areas, rather than schedule specific activities on specific units of land.

The associated lack of specificity is a common source of frustration to local residents,

who want to know exactly how they and the places they care about will be affected.

Even though many outputs of forest management, such as scheduled timber harvest,

generally translate into social and economic activity, such as employment in the timber industry, it can be difficult to predict which communities will benefit the most from

that activity. Communities may even compete with each other in some instances.

Communities that rely on a given resource-related industry would be expected to be

the first to benefit or lose from significant changes in planned output levels affecting

that industry.

Another factor questioning the accuracy of predicting specific impacts at the community scale is that people and businesses have proven themselves highly adaptable.

Community resiliency can be both an intervening and a dependent variable; a resilient

community can weather effects better than a less resilient one, but resiliency itself

also can be affected. A systematic study of the resiliency of southeast Alaska communities has not been conducted, but would be very helpful in assessing effects at

both the project and Forest levels.

Given these considerations, it is more accurate to identify areas of concern for which

the risks of effects from a given alternative are higher or lower than it is to state certainties; to do the latter would be presumptuous, as though people are incapable of

responding to change. It is also critical to remember that impact assessment must be

viewed in the context of dynamic economies, so it is inappropriate to assume a static

approach that reduces employment in one sector while ignoring growth or interactions

with other sectors.

Sufficient information is available at the community or community group level for

decision makers to be able to describe the primary risks inherent under each management alternative at the community scale. Such an effort ideally would include a

systematic effort to identify the perceptions of community residents regarding likely

impacts to their community. In the absence of this, public comments could be used

as a proxy for community concerns, although this should not be viewed as a substitute for more valid, reliable methods of data collection. Over the next few years,

Forest Service social scientists and economists (working with local, state, private,

and other Federal scientists, stakeholders, and managers) will seek improved ways

to translate forest policy and management changes into impacts on communities.

5. The wood products sector has experienced the greatest decline of all economic sectors in the 1990s. What are the implications of closure of the last

pulp mill in southeast Alaska for the wood products industry?

Mill closures, especially the recent closure of the KPC mill in Ketchikan, exert a strong

and continuing influence on the economic viability of logging firms and the remaining

mills in the region, as well as on the profitability of the timber sale program. In one

sense, the mill closures mean less competition for raw materials among remaining

65
processors and thus could benefit their operations. Closure of the KPC mill eliminated

the region’s major market outlet for mill residues, the sale of which constituted an

important part of sawmill revenues, especially in peak years for pulp and wood chip

prices.

The KPC mill also consumed a large quantity of lower grade logs. Historically, slightly

over half of all timber harvested on the Tongass was used in the production of wood

chips and pulp. In addition to utility grade logs, large proportions of number 3 and 4

saw logs and even a small proportion of number 2 saw logs were chipped and pulped

rather than sawn. With the closure of the pulp mill, one of the major challenges for

local sawmills is either to increase their efficiency in log use (and thereby minimize

the generation of residues) or find new markets for their residues and reject materials.

For the forest sector in general, the major challenge will be to find suitable markets

for the large volumes of lower grade material that are interspersed with the relatively

smaller volumes of higher valued saw logs. Private timber owners can either export

these materials or leave them in the woods, while National Forest timber harvested

must be removed and processed locally.

A number of different possibilities for processing lower grade material as well as

value-added processing of higher grades have been examined by government and

private industry, but all such proposals must overcome the high cost of labor and

other inputs prevalent in southeast Alaska. Successful projects need to identify feasible products that rely on the specific characteristics of southeast Alaska timber,

rather than attempt to compete directly with other, lower cost, regions and countries

in the production of commodity goods. The production of music board from Sitka

spruce is a good example of using high-value materials; market niches for lower value

materials will continue to be explored. Ending of the long-term contracts also should

open the market for smaller companies and entrepreneurs who position themselves

to take advantage of industry changes.

From the standpoint of the timber industry, another need is to establish a stable timber supply. Current uncertainty related to the Tongass planning process and the possibility of litigation on current and future sales has purportedly dampened the enthusiasm of local lenders to provide capital for wood products operations. Completion of

the plan revision may eliminate much of this uncertainty regarding future supply.

Nevertheless, it must be recognized that the plan does not constitute a guarantee,

and that individual firms are expected, and even required, to compete in the purchase

of timber for harvest and processing. The Tongass is not the only source of timber in

the region. Private ownerships provide roughly half of the total harvest volumes,

another consideration for southeast Alaska mills.

6. What strategies seem to have the greatest potential for addressing ongoing

socioeconomic concerns regarding management of the Tongass?

Past experience suggests that once a land management plan is signed, the issues

debated during its development do not go away. Many of the debates over resource

allocation are grounded in differences in human values—values that tend to endure

over time. Recognizing that controversy will continue during implementation and providing a way for it to be dealt with constructively over time (instead of again and

again, project by project) through an existing or new institution is one effective way to

66
channel this debate to productive ends. A suggested component of this institutional

arrangement is an ongoing mechanism for local resident involvement. Processes such

as ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale (Regional Ecosystem Office 1995)

have been used in the Pacific Northwest to solicit local knowledge for use in resource

inventories.

In southeast Alaska, the proposed collaborative stewardship strategy, an attempt to

coordinate ongoing activities much more closely with individual communities in southeast Alaska, could go a long way toward meshing local economic concerns and

needs with forest management. Another strategy would be to enact a social and economic monitoring plan that measures, at the community and larger scales, social and

economic indicators that reflect community health and resiliency and have meaning

for community residents (Richardson 1993). The adaptive approach of ecosystem

management provides mechanisms for adjusting management as new socioeconomic

and biophysical information is collected.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the following for their reviews of draft versions of this report:

Kristen Tromble, Alaska Department of Labor; Richard Haynes and Terry Shaw,

Pacific Northwest Research Station; and the Northwest Scientific Association (for

coordinating peer reviews).

References Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 1995. Summary data on limited

fisheries, permit holders, and permit fee schedules. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1992. Local government

revenues and expenditures in smaller rural Alaskan communities, 1985-1989.

Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1996. DCRA community

database. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. [No date]. Community

financial assistance FY 96 annual report. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Education. 1996. Public school enrollments. Juneau, AK:

Office of Data Management.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1991. Alaska population

overview, 1991 estimates. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1995. Alaska population

overview, 1995 estimates. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1996a. Employment and

income databases. Juneau, AK.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis. 1996b. Residency analysis

of Alaska’s workers by firm—1994. Juneau, AK. 75 p.

Alaska Marine Highway System. 1995. Personal communication. 1591 Glacier,

Juneau, AK 99801.

Alaska Visitor Association. 1992. Destination Alaska: strategies for the visitor

industry. Juneau, AK.

67
Alves, W. 1979. Residents and resources: findings of the Alaska public survey on

the importance of natural resources to the quality of life in southeast Alaska: a

report for the USDA Forest Service, Region 10. Anchorage, AK: Institute of Social

and Economic Research, University of Alaska.

Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment Team. 1995. Report to Congress:

anadromous fish habitat assessment. R10-MB-279. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Alaska Region.

[Irregular pagination].

Ashton, P.G.; Pickens, J.B. 1995. Employment diversity and economic performance

in small, resource-dependent communities near western National Forests. Society

and Natural Resources. 8: 231-241.

Attaran, M. 1986. Industrial diversity and economic performance in U.S. areas.

Annals of Regional Science. 20(2): 44-55.

Betts, M.F.; Wolfe, R.J. 1992. Commercialization of fisheries and the subsistence

economies of the Alaska Tlingit. Society and Natural Resources. 5: 277-295.

Boucher, J. 1994. Low August jobless rate belies winter worries. Alaska Economic

Trends. 14(11): 9-12.

Boucher, J. 1996. April jobless rate drops to 7.5%. Alaska Economic Trends. 16(7):

17-20.

Brooks, D.; Haynes, R. 1994. Timber products output and timber harvests in Alaska:

projections for 1992-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-334. Portland OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Bundtzen, T.K.; Swainbank, R.C.; Clough, A.H. [and others]. [No date]. Alaska’s

mineral industry 1995. Spec. Rep. 50. Juneau, AK: State of Alaska, Division of

Geological and Geophysical Surveys.

City of Wrangell. 1996. Overall economic development plan. Wrangell, AK.

Force, J. E.; Fosdeck, D.; Machlis, G.E. 1995. Monitoring social indicators for

ecosystem management. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown];

report submitted to Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

Order # 43-0E00-5-5269.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and

others]. [Irregular pagination].

Fried, N. 1996. Alaska seafood processing—a growing job source? Alaska Economic

Trends. 16(3): 1-8.

Glass, R.J.; Muth, R.M.; More, T.A.; Kruse, J. 1995. Assessing developmental

impacts on subsistence fishing: complications attributable to a mixed economic

system. Society and Natural Resources. 8: 431-442.

Hadland, J. 1996. Nonresidents working in Alaska—1994. Juneau, AK: [Publisher

unknown]; report prepared by Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis

Section. 22 p.

68
Harris, C.; Brown, G.; McLaughlin, B. 1996. Rural communities in the inland

Northwest. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife, and

Range Sciences; final report parts 1 and 2; submitted to the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA. 340 p.

Hoover, E. M.; Giarratani, F. 1984. An introduction to regional economics. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf. 444 p.

Juneau Airport Manager’s Office. 1995. Personal communication. City and

Borough of Juneau, 155 S. Seward St., Juneau, AK.

Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau. 1995. Personal communication.

369 S. Franklin, Juneau, AK 99801.

Kruse, J.; Frazier, R. 1988. Reports to the communities of southeast Alaska:

Tongass resource use cooperative survey. Anchorage, AK: Institute of Social and

Economic Research, University of Alaska–Anchorage. One report per community.

Kruse, J.A.; Muth, R.M. 1990. Subsistence use of renewable resources by rural

southeast Alaska residents. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; University of Alaska–Anchorage; final report under

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service–University of Alaska cooperative

agreement PNW 88-553. 160 p.

Lane, T. 1994. City and Borough of Sitka. Alaska Economic Trends. 14(3): 5-8.

McDowell Group. 1989. Alaska seafood industry study—a technical report: an

economic profile of the seafood industry in Alaska. Juneau, AK.

McDowell Group. 1991. Alaska’s visitor industry: an economic profile. Juneau, AK;

report prepared for Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and

Economic Development.

McDowell Group. 1992. Direct revenues to the State of Alaska from the visitor

industry. Juneau, AK; report prepared for the Alaska Visitors Association.

McDowell Group. 1993a. Alaska’s visitor patterns, opinions, and planning. Juneau,

AK; report prepared for Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and

Economic Development.

McDowell Group. 1993b. Alaska visitor arrivals. Juneau, AK; report prepared for

Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development.

McDowell Group. 1994. Alaska visitor expenditures fall/winter 1993-94. Juneau, AK;

report prepared for Alaska Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and

Economic Development.

McDowell Group. 1995. The timber industry’s role in the economy of southeast

Alaska. Juneau, AK; report prepared for the Alaska Forest Association.

McDowell Group. 1997. 25 years of progress: the economic impact of ANCSA

corporations on southeast Alaska. Juneau, AK; report prepared for Sealaska

Corporation, July 1997, 48 p.

Miernyk, W.H. 1965. The elements of input-output analysis. New York: Random

House. 156 p.

Mills, B. 1997. Mayors return from D.C. Juneau Empire. March 26: 1. Juneau, AK.

69
Morse, Kathleen. 1992. Personal communication. Results of 1992 IMPLAN analysis.

Regional economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska

Region, Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

Muth, R.M. 1989. Community stability as a social structure: the role of subsistence

uses of natural resources in southeast Alaska. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch,

W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural

resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 400 p.

Nakazawa, Anthony; Goldman, George. 1991. Subsistence on Federal public lands

in Alaska: some economic impacts of four management alternatives. Arctic Issues

Digest. Fairbanks: University of Alaska—Fairbanks; October: 2-7.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale:

Federal guide for watershed analysis. Version 2.2, rev. Aug. 1995. Portland, OR:

[Publisher unknown]. Available from: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623,

Portland, OR 97208.

Richardson, C.W. 1993. An analysis of the socioeconomic effects of Bureau of Land

Management resource management plans in western Oregon. Seattle, WA:

Institute for Resources in Society, University of Washington; report prepared for

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State

Office, Portland, OR. 171 p.

Roppel, P. 1983. Southeast Alaska—a pictorial history. Norfolk/Virginia Beach, VA:

The Donning Company.

Shannon, C.E; Weaver, W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication.

Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.

Smith, T.M. 1996. Letter dated June 3 to Phil Janik, Regional Forester, USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region. On file with: Regional Forester’s Office, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK, 99802.

Society of American Foresters. 1989. Report of the Society of American Foresters

national task force on community stability. Resour. Pol. Ser. Bethesda, MD.

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N. 1992. Social aspects of new perspectives in forestry: a

problem analysis. Pinchot Institute for Conservation Monograph Series. Milford,

PA: Grey Towers Press.

Swainbank, R.C.; Bundtzen, T.K.; Clough, A.H.; Henning, M.W. 1997. Alaska’s

mineral industry 1996: a summary. Inf. Circ. 42. Juneau, AK: State of Alaska,

Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.

Tainter, Joseph A. 1996. Cultural conflict and sustainable development: managing

subsistence hunting in Alaska. Paper presented at annual conference of the

International Boreal Forest Research Association; 1996 Aug. 19-23; St.

Petersburg, Russia. 11 p.

Taylor, C.; Winter, S; Alward, G; Siverts, E.. 1993. Micro IMPLAN user’s guide.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Tromble, K. 1996. Timber debate burns through southeast. Alaska Economic Trends

16(9): 17, 20.

70
Tromble, K. 1997. Will mining rescue southeast’s economy? Alaska Economic

Trends. 17(5): 15-20.

Tromble, K.; Boucher, J. 1995. The city of Wrangell. Alaska Economic Trends.

15(8): 5-8.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1996. Regional economic information system,

1969-94. [Place of publication unknown].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 census of

population, social, and economic characteristics of Alaska. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996. Statistical abstract

of the United States: 1996. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Mendenhall Glacier visitor

center counts. On file with: Juneau Ranger District, 8465 Old Dairy Rd., Juneau,

AK, 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996a. Timber supply and

demand, 1995. Report to Congress, ANILCA Section 706(a). Juneau, AK: Alaska

Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996b. Tongass land

management plan revision revised supplement to the draft environmental impact

statement. R10-MB-314a. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Tongass land management

plan revision final environmental impact statement. R10-MB-338b. Juneau, AK:

Alaska Region.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 92-203. Alaska Native Claims Settlement

Act [ANCSA] of 1971. Act of Dec. 18, 1971. 85 Stat. 688 (codified as amended at

43 USC 1601-1628) .

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 96-487. Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act [ANILCA] of 1980. Act of Dec. 2, 1980. 16 U.S.C. 3210.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 104-134. Omnibus Consolidated

Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Act of April 26, 1996. 110 Stat.

1321-182.

Walters, L. 1997. Personal communication. Research analyst, Alaska Department of

Community and Regional Affairs, 150 3d St., Juneau, AK 99801.

Wolfe, Robert. 1989. Myths: What have you heard? Alaska Fish and Game. 21(6):

16-19.

Wolfe, Robert G.; Bosworth, Robert G. 1994. Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 update.

Report on file: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence,

1255 W. 8th St., Juneau, AK 99801.

Wolfe, Robert G.; Walker, Robert J. 1987. Subsistence economies in Alaska:

productivity, geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropology. 24(2):

56-81.

71
Appendix 1:

Employment by

Sector and

Community Group

Table 14—Baranof community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 46 87 39 75 -17 563

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 0 0 0 0 — —

Transportation and

public utilities 0 0 0 0 — —

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 7 13 13 25 82 3116

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 0 0 0 0 — —

Totalb 53 100 51 100 -4 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 46 87 39 75 -17 1990

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

72
Table 15—Central Prince of Wales community group employment by sector,

1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 47 5 68 6 44 41

Total manufacturing 329 34 180 17 -45 50

Retail trade 151 16 205 19 36 13

Wholesale trade 8 1 12 1 43 -22

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 39 4 35 3 -9 -9

Services 104 11 114 11 10 -41

Transportation and

public utilities 69 7 138 13 99 66

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 5 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 32 3 45 4 40 -22

Other government 186 19 261 25 40 -15

Totalb 970 100 1,059 100 9 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 312 32 117 11 -63 206

Sawmills 0 0 20 2 — 143

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 17 2 42 4 155 -12

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 99 10 123 12 24 17

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

73
Table 16—Chatham Strait community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 100 30 112 34 12 202

Retail trade 23 7 23 7 0 -58

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 19 6 21 6 13 74

Services 27 8 28 9 2 -53

Transportation and

public utilities 2 1 5 2 150 -79

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 —- —

Federal Government 9 3 3 1 -66 -84

Other government 151 46 133 41 -12 42

Totalb 331 100 324 100 -2 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 89 27 112 34 26 854

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 19 6 21 7 10 -34

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

74
Table 17—Cleveland Peninsula community group employment by sector,

1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 0 0 0 0 — —

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 22 100 14 100 -38 447

Transportation and

public utilities 0 0 0 0 — —

Agriculture, forestry,and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 0 0 0 0 — —

Totalb 22 100 14 100 -38 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 22 100 14 100 -38 911

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

75
Table 18—Gustavus community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 3 3 3 2 0 -56

Total manufacturing 2 1 4 2 130 -79

Retail trade 6 5 9 6 64 -66

Wholesale trade 9 7 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 59 48 96 60 62 229

Transportation and

public utilities 7 6 18 11 148 42

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 37 30 27 17 -27 210

Other government 0 0 2 1 — -96

Totalb 123 100 159 100 29 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 2 1 4 2 130 -46

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 59 48 97 61 65 519

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

76
Table 19—Haines community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 39 4 57 7 47 59

Total manufacturing 225 25 105 13 -54 16

Retail trade 163 18 159 20 -2 17

Wholesale trade 5 1 1 0 -90 -95

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 17 2 17 2 -3 -42

Services 101 11 143 18 42 -1

Transportation and

public utilities 169 19 149 19 -12 139

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 9 1 11 1 26 -74

Other government 163 18 150 19 -8 -34

Totalb 891 100 791 100 -11 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 10 1 100 -64

Sawmills 140 16 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 82 9 90 11 9 152

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 101 11 131 17 30 67

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

77
Table 20—Hydaburg community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 0 0 0 0 — —

Retail trade 7 9 9 14 30 -19

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 14 19 9 14 -39 290

Services 4 5 4 6 0 -69

Transportation and

public utilities 10 13 4 6 -61 -22

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 42 55 37 60 -12 108

Totalb 76 100 61 100 -20 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

78
Table 21—Hyder community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 3 8 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 0 0 0 0 — —

Retail trade 4 11 7 33 95 93

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 14 46 13 64 -8 250

Transportation and

public utilities 8 27 0 0 — —

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 2 7 1 3 -72 -49

Other government 0 0 0 0 — —

Totalb 31 100 21 100 -33 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 9 28 8 37 -12 275

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

79
Table 22—Juneau community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 72 1 187 1 158 122

Construction 410 3 626 4 53 -13

Total manufacturing 145 1 325 2 124 -82

Retail trade 2,041 14 2,735 17 34 1

Wholesale trade 194 1 180 1 -7 -18

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 494 3 673 4 36 16

Services 2,323 16 3,010 19 30 4

Transportation and

public utilities 910 6 1,072 7 18 -13

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 59 0 74 0 27 -39

Federal Government 1,406 10 908 6 -35 5

Other government 6,081 43 5,985 38 -2 32

Totalb 14,133 100 15,775 100 12 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 80 1 — -86

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 25 0 59 0 139 -92

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 1,170 8 1,505 10 29 -4

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

80
Table 23—Kake community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 3 1 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 123 43 47 17 -62 46

Retail trade 25 9 17 6 -31 -65

Wholesale trade 2 1 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 17 6 85 30 400 722

Services 16 5 18 6 17 -65

Transportation and

public utilities 7 2 14 5 102 -37

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 20 7 16 6 -19 654

Federal Government 2 1 2 1 -8 -87

Other government 69 24 82 29 18 1

Totalb 284 100 282 100 -1 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 123 43 47 17 -62 361

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

81
Table 24—Ketchikan City community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 1 0 1 0 113 -97

Construction 317 4 431 5 36 20

Total manufacturing 1,936 25 1,483 19 -23 65

Retail trade 1,166 15 1,389 18 19 2

Wholesale trade 270 3 224 3 -17 102

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 290 4 319 4 10 9

Services 1,375 18 1,428 18 4 -1

Transportation and

public utilities 638 8 766 10 20 23

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 29 0 87 1 200 44

Federal Government 288 4 300 4 4 -31

Other government 1,518 19 1,483 19 -2 -35

Totalb 7,827 100 7,911 100 1 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 829 11 375 5 -55 31

Sawmills 98 1 126 2 28 103

Pulp mills 501 6 505 6 1 334

Seafood processing 442 6 405 5 -9 14

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 678 9 647 8 -4 -17

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

82
Table 25—Kuiu Island community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 77 91 4 45 -95 298

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 0 0 1 10 — 644

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 0 0 0 0 — —

Transportation and

public utilities 0 0 0 0 — —

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 1 1 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 7 8 4 44 -43 54

Totalb 85 100 9 100 -90 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 77 91 4 45 -95 1,156

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

83
Table 26—Metlakatla community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 8 1 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 116 20 127 23 9 102

Retail trade 53 9 52 10 -2 -45

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 4 1 5 1 18 -76

Services 6 1 7 1 15 -93

Transportation and

public utilities 57 10 24 4 -59 -45

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 24 4 10 2 -60 -69

Other government 321 54 326 59 2 106

Totalb 590 100 550 100 -7 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 16 3 0 0 — —

Sawmills 100 17 96 17 -4 2,129

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 31 6 100 25

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 8 1 20 4 136 -64

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

84
Table 27—North Chichagof community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 368 62 277 49 -25 331

Retail trade 34 6 75 13 119 -23

Wholesale trade 4 1 5 1 17 -41

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 23 4 0 0 — —

Services 18 3 26 5 46 -75

Transportation and

public utilities 24 4 45 8 89 1

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 2 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 29 5 20 4 -30 -36

Other government 92 15 117 21 27 -28

Totalb 594 99 565 100 -5 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 139 23 139 25 0 580

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 229 38 139 25 -40 445

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 30 5 33 6 10 -42

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

85
Table 28—North Prince of Wales community group employment by sector,

1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 20 4 15 3 -21 -24

Total manufacturing 280 55 262 59 -6 416

Retail trade 22 4 22 5 -1 -72

Wholesale trade 5 1 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 6 1 1 0 -83 -94

Services 32 6 23 5 -27 -72

Transportation and

public utilities 44 9 5 1 -89 -86

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 5 1 12 3 157 251

Federal Government 65 13 64 14 -1 162

Other government 33 6 42 9 27 -67

Totalb 510 100 447 100 -12 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 245 48 243 54 -1 1,409

Sawmills 24 5 14 3 -43 286

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 9 2 4 1 -63 -83

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 6 1 19 4 220 -58

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

86
Table 29—Petersburg community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 30 2 60 4 99 -16

Total manufacturing 351 25 467 30 33 163

Retail trade 231 17 263 17 14 -2

Wholesale trade 4 0 8 1 98 -64

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 29 2 25 2 -14 -57

Services 192 14 166 11 -14 -42

Transportation and

public utilities 60 4 67 4 12 -45

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 20 1 17 1 -12 45

Federal Government 147 11 144 9 -2 68

Other government 330 24 339 22 3 -25

Totalb 1,394 100 1,555 100 12 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 70 5 12 1 -83 -78

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 260 19 430 28 65 514

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 130 9 100 6 -23 -35

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

87
Table 30—Revillagigedo community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 0 0 23 84 — 635

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 0 0 0 0 — —

Transportation and

public utilities 0 0 5 16 — 109

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 0 0 0 0 — —

Totalb 0 100 28 100 — —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 23 84 — 2,220

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

88
Table 31—Sitka community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 236 6 225 6 -5 31

Total manufacturing 702 17 286 8 -59 -33

Retail trade 612 15 721 19 18 12

Wholesale trade 76 2 57 2 -25 9

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 77 2 79 2 3 -43

Services 997 25 1,026 27 3 49

Transportation and

public utilities 295 7 261 7 -12 -12

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 39 1 32 1 -18 9

Federal Government 259 6 265 7 2 28

Other government 764 19 813 22 6 -25

Totalb 4,057 100 3,765 100 -7 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 2 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 402 10 14 0 -97 -75

Seafood processing 278 7 227 6 -18 34

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 360 9 390 10 8 5

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

89
Table 32—Skagway community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 29 5 — 6

Total manufacturing 4 1 14 2 280 -79

Retail trade 102 20 173 29 70 67

Wholesale trade 1 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 7 1 8 1 5 -66

Services 76 15 168 28 122 53

Transportation and

public utilities 175 34 62 10 -64 32

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 1 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 35 7 57 10 65 74

Other government 108 21 90 15 -17 -48

Totalb 509 100 602 100 18 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 73 14 211 35 190 254

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

90
Table 33—Southeast Prince of Wales community group employment by sector,

1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 0 0 — —

Total manufacturing 0 0 0 0 — —

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 1 12 1 3 0 84

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 0 0 38 97 — 433

Transportation and

public utilities 7 88 0 0 — —

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 0 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 0 0 0 0 — —

Totalb 8 100 39 100 369 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 0 0 — —

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 0 0 — —

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 0 38 97 — 885

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

91
Table 34—Stephens Passage community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 268 80 0 0 — —

Construction 0 0 26 54 — 1,094

Total manufacturing 62 18 5 11 -92 -5

Retail trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Wholesale trade 0 0 0 0 — —

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 0 0 0 0 — —

Services 0 0 0 0 — —

Transportation and

public utilities 0 0 15 32 — 306

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 4 1 0 0 — —

Federal Government 0 0 0 0 — —

Other government 0 0 1 3 — -90

Totalb 333 100 48 100 -86 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 61 18 3 6 -95 70

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 1 0 2 5 200 5

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 0 00 0— —

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

92
Table 35—Wrangell City community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 17 2 53 7 206 43

Total manufacturing 239 27 117 14 -51 27

Retail trade 153 17 162 20 6 16

Wholesale trade 6 1 4 1 -29 -63

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 18 2 13 2 -26 -56

Services 73 8 66 8 -10 -56

Transportation and

public utilities 118 13 83 10 -30 30

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 13 1 19 2 53 209

Federal Government 49 6 57 7 16 27

Other government 197 22 239 29 21 2

Totalb 883 100 813 100 -8 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 0 0 1 0 — -98

Sawmills 162 18 21 3 -87 225

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 60 7 83 10 38 127

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 77 9 74 9 -4 -8

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

93
Table 36—Yakutat community group employment by sector, 1990-95

1990 1995 1990-95 Share of SE

Sector employment employment change Alaska totala

No. of jobs Percent No. of jobs - - - - - - Percent − − − − −

Mining 0 0 0 0 — —

Construction 5 2 14 3 202 -28

Total manufacturing 45 21 140 33 213 194

Retail trade 30 14 39 9 31 -46

Wholesale trade 0 0 1 0 — -90

Financial, insurance, and

real estate 8 4 14 3 67 -12

Services 6 12 73 17 179 -5

Transportation and

public utilities 28 13 36 9 28 10

Agriculture, forestry, and

fish services 1 0 0 0 — —

Federal Government 20 9 26 6 30 11

Other government 55 25 77 18 41 -36

Totalb 217 100 419 100 93 —

TLMP relevant sectors:

Logging 37 17 68 16 86 353

Sawmills 0 0 0 0 — —

Pulp mills 0 0 0 0 — —

Seafood processing 0 0 72 17 — 282

Lodging, restaurant, and

recreationc 28 13 61 14 114 46

— = not applicable.

a Share relative to southeast Alaska total employment.

b Full- and part-time employment. Excludes proprietors and self-employed.

c This measure does not directly reflect recreation- and tourism-related employment, but is included as an

indicator of trends and relative concentrations of recreation- and tourism-dependent employment.

Sources: Alaska Department of Labor 1996a, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 1996.

94
Appendix 2: Per

Capita Revenues

and Expenditures

by Community

95
96
97
98
99
100
101
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
Allen, Stewart D.; Robertson, Guy; Schaefers, Julie. 1998. Economies in transition: an assessment of trends relevant to management of the Tongass National

Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-417. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw,

Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the

Tongass land management plan revision).

This assessment focuses on the regional and community economies of southeast

Alaska. A mixed economy composed of subsistence harvest and cash income characterizes the economies of most of the region’s rural communities. Although the share

of natural resource-based sectors relative to total employment has remained fairly

consistent over the past 10 years, the mix of industries within that share is shifting,

with substantial declines in the wood products sector and substantial increases in

the recreation-tourism sector. Regional trends are reflected very differently across

boroughs, and even more so across the many small communities of southeast Alaska;

analysis at diverse scales was needed to accurately portray economic and social

conditions and trends.

Keywords: Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska, economic trends, employment,

subsistence, communities.

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 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call (800) 245-6340 (voice), or (202) 720-1127 (TDD).

USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label