Appendix

⬚ figure

THIS 1929 FORD TRUCK MADE MANY TRIPS THROUGH GIRDWOOD VALLEY HAULING MINERS AND SUPPLIES BETWEEN CROW CREEK AND THE TINY SETTLEMENT ALONG TURNAGAIN ARM. TODAY, IT IS PART OF THE PRESERVED CROW CREEK MINE, AN HISTORIC AND ATTRACTIVE RECREATION AREA.

Girdwood Area Survey

The Girdwood area survey was conducted in January 1993 by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Municipality of Anchorage. The survey contained twelve questions relating to residence, place of employment, most liked features and most important problems of the Girdwood area, opinions about future resort expansion proposals and the main reasons for those opinions, and attendance at an October 1992 resort information seminar held in Girdwood. The remaining questions related to the sex, age, and main occupation of respondents.

Approximately 1,700 survey forms were mailed to all Girdwood property owners, plus additional persons on the Department of Natural Resource mailing list who had expressed an interest in the area. A total of 247 completed surveys was received, representing a respectable 14.5 percent return rate.

RESIDENCE

A high proportion of Girdwood property owners do not live in the community. Permanent residents, seasonal residents and visitors tend to hold different opinions about community development. As a result, a key question in the January 1993 survey asked respondents if their main affiliation in the Girdwood area was as primary residents, secondary residents or "other". Those claiming primary residence live in Girdwood either year-round or for most of the year. Persons claiming secondary residence typically live in Anchorage and spend weekends in Girdwood, especially in the winter months. The "other" category includes persons who own vacant lots in Girdwood, those who visit the community but who do not own property there, and other interested persons who were on the Department of Natural Resources mailing list.

Of the 247 respondents, 92 persons (37.2 percent) claimed primary residence in Girdwood, 111 (44.9 percent) had second homes in the community and 44 (17.8 percent) fell into the "other" category. (See Table 13.) Excluding the "other" group, the proportion claiming primary (45.3 percent) and secondary (54.7 percent) residence is approximately the same as the proportion of occupied (42.6 percent) and vacant (57.4 percent) units counted in Girdwood by the 1990

Census. In other words, the ratio between permanent and seasonal residents is reflected in the survey. To a limited extent, the “other” category reflects day users of the Girdwood area.

EMPLOYMENT

The Girdwood Area Survey contained two questions relating to employment. Respondents were asked where they worked and what was their main occupation. The results of both questions were analyzed separately and in terms of the residence of respondents.

Place of Work. Of the 92 Girdwood residents surveyed, 39 (42.4 percent) said they worked in Girdwood and another 9 (9.8 percent) said they worked in both Girdwood and Anchorage. (See Table 14.) Twenty-five people (27.2 percent) said they worked in Anchorage and 8 (12 percent) said they worked in other locations such as the North Slope and Prince William Sound. Another 8 persons (8.7 percent) were either retired or not presently employed, or did not answer the question.

Excluding persons outside the labor force or for whom information was not available, 46.4 percent of the Girdwood residents who were employed commuted to Anchorage, while another 10.7 percent (i.e., those who worked in both Anchorage and Girdwood) commuted to work at least part of the time. By contrast, only one respondent listing Girdwood as a secondary residence claimed to work in the community.

The survey results were compared with those from the 1990 Census. The 1990 Census reported that the mean travel time to work for Girdwood residents was 27.8 minutes. Given an average travel time to Anchorage of 50 minutes to 1 hour, together with some travel time allowance for persons working locally, the Census indicated that slightly less than 50 percent of Girdwood residents who are employed commute daily to Anchorage. Thus, the Census results and the 1993 Girdwood Area Survey results are consistent.

Occupation. People were asked to list their main occupation as part of the Girdwood Area Survey. All told, a high proportion (61.5 percent) of respondents listed professional, technical and managerial occupations. (See Table 15.) An even higher proportion of residents with second homes in Girdwood (77.5 percent) cited professional, technical and managerial occupations. This is not surprising since persons with the financial capacity to afford second homes are typically associated with such occupations.

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Note: “Other” places worked by Girdwood residents included North Slope Borough (4); remote Alaska locations (1); Girdwood/Bush (1); Prince William Sound (2); Seward (1); Portage (1); and out-of-town (1).

An analysis of Girdwood respondents indicated that 43.5 percent of respondents were engaged in the professional, technical and managerial occupation category. The next largest group (15.2 percent) was involved in service occupations, followed by 7.6 percent each in clerical/sales and in miscellaneous occupations. Another 13.3 percent either was not in the labor force or did not answer the question.

Although Girdwood undoubtedly has a high proportion of persons in professional, technical and managerial occupations, it is believed that the survey probably overstates their relative significance. Almost two-thirds (65.2 percent) of the Girdwood surveys were answered by males. If the ratio of male to female respondents had been closer to the 55.9 to 44.1 percent ratio identified by the 1990 Census, it is probable that a higher proportion of respondents would have been engaged in service and in clerical/sales occupations.

MOST LIKED FEATURE OF GIRDWOOD AREA

Respondents were asked to list what they liked most about the Girdwood area. Overall, the community's small-town atmosphere was listed the most frequently (34.4 percent), followed by skiing and other outdoor recreation opportunities (27.5 percent) and the natural environment (17.4 percent). (See Table 16.)

An analysis of responses by residence showed significant differences. The small-town atmosphere was listed first by almost two-thirds (64.1 percent) of Girdwood residents, followed by the natural environment (13 percent). Skiing and outdoor recreation opportunities (44.1 percent) were listed first by those with second residences in Girdwood, followed by the community's small-town atmosphere (19.8 percent), the natural environment (16.2 percent) and distance from Anchorage (10.8 percent). The "other" category listed skiing and other outdoor recreation opportunities first (31.8 percent), followed closely by the natural environment (29.5 percent). The small-town atmosphere was not particularly important to most people in this group.

The divergence of opinion among the three groups is not surprising, given the different reasons for their interest in the Girdwood area. Girdwood residents obviously see their existing small-town lifestyle as a major reason for remaining in the community.

Those who have invested in recreation homes in Girdwood place their highest value on skiing and other outdoor recreation opportunities. This group also values Girdwood's small-town

Table 15 Main Occupation of Respondents (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

lifestyle, in part because it offers an escape from Anchorage. The "other" group, which presumably spends less time in Girdwood, values skiing and outdoor recreation opportunities and the natural environment almost equally, but gives a much lower value to the community's small-town lifestyle.

MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM IN THE GIRDWOOD AREA

When asked to list the most important problem in the Girdwood area today, respondents gave a wide variety of responses. Overall, the most frequently cited response was community growth and change (19.4 percent), followed by inadequate roads (13.8 percent), a lack of affordable housing (8.1 percent) and inadequate utilities (8.1 percent). Other problems cited included a need for improved skiing and recreation amenities, planning and zoning issues, and public safety problems. (See Table 17.)

A review of problems listed by place of residence indicated some differences. Community growth and change was listed first by all groups, although most strongly by Girdwood residents (25 percent). Other problems listed by local residents were affordable housing (13 percent), roads (12 percent), public safety (9.8 percent), and a lack of local control (7.6 percent).

After community growth and change (16.2 percent), persons with second residences in Girdwood listed roads (14.4 percent), a need for improved skiing and recreation amenities (10.8 percent), and inadequate utilities (9.9 percent) as the most important problem in the community. In terms of utilities, this group most often cited the lack of natural gas services as the main problem.

Respondents in the "other" category ranked community growth and change, roads, and planning and zoning issues equally (15.9 percent) as the most serious problems in the Girdwood area, followed by inadequate utilities (13.6 percent). This group ranked Girdwood's water and sewer systems as the most deficient utilities.

Table 16 Most Liked Feature of Girdwood Area (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 17 Most Important Problem of the Girdwood Area (by percentage)

Most Important Problem of the Girdwood Area (by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

RESORT DEVELOPMENT OPINIONS Respondents were asked to indicate if they had favorable, unfavorable or mixed feelings about proposals to expand resort development in the Girdwood area beyond the expansion then being undertaken by the Alyeska Resort. Overall, almost 56 percent (55.9 percent) said they favored such development. Another 30.8 percent held mixed opinions, and 12.1 percent said they were opposed. Only three people claimed to hold no opinion on the subject. (See Table 18.)

A review of responses by residence showed significant differences. Whereas 71.2 percent of persons with second homes in Girdwood and almost two-thirds (63.6 percent) of the “other” group favored additional resort development, only one-third (33.7 percent) of Girdwood residents gave this response. The difference is not surprising, given the primary interest in skiing of persons with second homes in Girdwood versus the greater focus on community issues by local residents.

Further analysis of reasons for favorable responses indicated that improved skiing and recreation amenities was the primary reason cited by persons with second homes in Girdwood, followed by economic development and increased tourism and recreation. (See Table 19.) On the other hand, Girdwood residents who favored additional resort development most often cited economic development as the primary reason for their support.

The greatest proportion of permanent Girdwood residents (41.3 percent) said they had mixed feelings about additional resort development in the Girdwood valley area. When asked the reason for their “mixed” opinion, local residents most often said that they favored upgraded recreation opportunities but they feared accompanying growth and change. (See Table 20.) The same reason was also most often cited by persons with mixed feelings who either had second homes in Girdwood or fell into the “other” category.

Table 18 Opinions about Future Resort Expansion Proposals (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 19 Reasons for Favorable Resort Development Opinions (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Relatively few people interviewed (12.1 percent) held unfavorable opinions about additional resort development beyond the recently completed Seibu expansion. Although the proportion of Girdwood residents holding such opinions (23.9 percent) was higher than those with second homes in the community and the "other" category (4.5 percent and 6.8 percent respectively), more local people held mixed or favorable opinions. Concerns about growth and overcrowded conditions were most often cited as the main reason for opposing further resort expansion. (See Table 21.)

RESORT INFORMATION SEMINAR ATTENDANCE

During October 1992, the Department of Natural Resources and the Municipality of Anchorage co-sponsored a Resort Information Seminar in Girdwood which featured presentations on destination resort development by knowledgeable representatives of Whistler, British Columbia.

A significant proportion of Girdwood residents surveyed (40.2 percent) said they had attended at least part of the Resort Information Seminar. (See Table 22.) In addition, one individual stated that he had viewed tapes of the seminar. This indicates that a large share of local people are relatively well informed about the implications of resort development.

AGE AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

As part of the survey, questions were asked about the age and sex of respondents, primarily to see if different groups of people answered particular questions in different ways.

Overall, a very high proportion of surveys was answered by males (70 percent). (See Table 23.) Although this proportion was lower for Girdwood residents (65.2 percent), it was still not consistent with the male-to-female ratio for the community.

In terms of age, most respondents were in their 40's. (See Table 24.) The median age of Girdwood respondents was 41.46 versus 47.59 for secondary residents and 45.36 for persons in the "other" category. The older age of secondary residents probably reflects the longer time needed to accumulate the income necessary to acquire a second home.

Table 20 Reasons for Unfavorable Resort Development Opinions (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 21 Reasons for Mixed Resort Development Opinions (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 22 Resort Information Seminar Attendance (by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 23

Gender of Respondents

(by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Table 24

Age of Respondents

(by percentage)

(by number)

Source: Girdwood Area Survey, January 1993

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Summary of Girdwood Vision Consensus Building Forum

The Girdwood Board of Supervisors and the Four Valleys Community School Board co-sponsored two consensus building workshops on Saturday January 16 and 23, 1993. The workshops took place in the Girdwood School gymnasium, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.. Each workshop was attended by approximately 30 people.

The purpose of the workshops was to provide a forum for residents and property owners to begin developing a consensus and a vision of those qualities of life considered essential to the community.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1993. Workshop participants brainstormed answers to four questions. Each participant was asked to rank his/her most important priorities. The four questions and the answers received are listed on pages 111–117.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 23, 1993. Workshop participants ranked the answers to three questions from the January workshop. These rankings are shown on pages 115–117.

Participants then developed a summary statement for each of these three questions. These summary statements are as follows:

Question A. People live in Girdwood because of its unique Alaska small town atmosphere and attributes which make it an excellent place to raise a family. These attributes include: a diverse, tolerant and caring community with a strong sense of volunteerism, involvement, and easy access to local government officials. Other important small town attributes include intimacy, a slower pace of life, safety, and excellent primary education.

Girdwood has a pristine and beautiful wilderness setting which is close to, yet removed from, the Anchorage metropolitan area and encompasses a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities surrounding a ski resort.

Question B. People's priorities for improving Girdwood include increased local political autonomy, particularly local control of the planning and zoning process. There is a desire to see development of a multi-purpose community center, which may include both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, a planned town center and improved, expanded and managed trails, an industrial park and a recycling center. People want access to a natural gas utility and rail service to Anchorage. There is a desire for better communication with the Alyeska Resort management.

Question C. Girdwood residents are concerned about the problems brought about by rapid growth, which includes loss of the unique small town atmosphere, increased noise and air pollution and other environmental impacts. They are also concerned about not having enough local autonomy, control, and zoning enforcement, as well as a lack of affordable housing and the cost of public facilities and services.

A local newspaper article which summarizes the results of both workshops is reprinted on pages 118–119.

QUESTION A: Four-part question:

• What are the qualities of Girdwood that determine its character as a community?
• Why do you live in Girdwood?
• What do you like most about Girdwood?
• Identify the values of the Girdwood lifestyle that are essential to why you live here.

COMMENTS ON QUESTION A: ____________________________________________________________________

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

QUESTION B: What do you think needs to be done to improve Girdwood?

COMMENTS ON QUESTION B:

QUESTION C: As Girdwood grows and develops as a community, what are the major concerns that need to be addressed?

COMMENTS ON QUESTION C: __________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

QUESTION D: Share your expanded vision of what the community should be in ten, twenty and fifty years when today’s children are seated as the adults in charge of decision-making and dealing with the problems we have created.

COMMENTS ON QUESTION D: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GIRDWOOD VISION CONSENSUS BUILDING FORUM RESULTS

Question A: What do you like most about Girdwood? (Choose the five most important things and rank them on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most important and 1 the least important).

Question B: What do you think needs to be done to improve Girdwood? (Choose the five most important things and rank them on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most important and 1 the least important).

Question C: As Girdwood grows and develops as a community, what are the major concerns that need to be addressed? (Please rank every item on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most important and 1 the least important).

LOOK TO THE

Future

Consensus Building Workshop Review

By: Diane Powers

Saturday, January 16, 1993 was the first Girdwood Vision Consensus Building Forum. All in all it went very well—the Board of Supervisors & the Four Valleys Community School did a great job of organizing. The attendance was not impressive, but the information received was and will be very useful and worthwhile. The purpose of the workshop was to get a vision of what the community would like to see happen in the future of the valley. There is approximately 24,000 acres that is being appropriated by the state from the National Forest, 1,000 of that will be acquired by the Municipality of Anchorage. With all this new land (Winner/Glacier Creek) becoming available, there is a need to update the Turnagain Arm comprehensive plan. The information that is being gathered at these forums will be very useful in determining the direction the valley should take.

The meeting was opened by Tim Bennett and Sam Daniel facilitated the meeting. Ed Fogels, Project Manager of the Turnagain Arm Management Plan, and Tom Nelson, Project Manager of the Turnagain Arm Comprehensive Plan Update gave some background information and how it relates to these meetings.

After the opening, everyone broke into groups to brainstorm 4 important questions:

1. Why do you live in Girdwood? What do you like most about Girdwood? Identify the values of the Girdwood lifestyle that are essential to why you live here?
2. What do you think needs to be done to improve Girdwood?
3. As Girdwood grows and develops as a community, what are the major concerns that need to be addressed?
4. Share your expanded vision of what the community should be in 10, 20, & 50 years when todays children are seated as the adults in charge of decision making, dealing with the problems we have created.

The ideas generated were used to create a questionnaire in which people were asked to prioritize the answers. At the January 23rd forum, participants generated statements that summarized the major issues identified within each of the topics addressed.

Following is a list of the ideas generated by the first three questions, and their respective summary statements. The top 5 issues identified are listed by number-#1 being top priority. They are not intended to be inclusive and are reflective of the thinking of a small sample of the community.

Question A: What do you like most about Girdwood?

#1 Small town lifestyle #2 Scenic beauty #3 Low pollution levels #4 Wilderness setting #5 Recreational environment/opportunities

Ski resort town Employment/economic opportunities Convenient to but separate from metro area Like the people Availability of good public services Relatively low taxes Access to political leadership Personal security/safety Large tracts of unpopulated land "Strong" community Girdwood-based for profit community development corporation

<u>Summary Statement #1.</u> People live in Girdwood because of its unique Alaskan small town atmosphere and attributes which makes it an excellent place to raise a family. These attributes include: a diverse, tolerant and caring community with a strong sense of volunteerism, involvement, and easy access to local government officials. Other important small town attributes include intimacy, slower pace of life, safety and excellent primary education.

It has a pristine and beautiful wilderness setting which is close to, yet removed from, the Anchorage metropolitan area and encompasses a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities surrounding a ski resort.

Question B: What do you think needs to be done to improve Girdwood?

#1 Local control of planning & zoning process #2 Multi-purpose community center #3 Improved recreation facilities #4 Planned town center #5a Natural gas availability #5b Greater Political autonomy

Natural Environment: Ban hunting/trapping in Valley Develop local gravel supply Do not develop local gravel supply Improve air quality Economy and Population: More jobs Closer relationship with Seibu Improved atmosphere for additional businesses, e.g. banks Land Use: Affordable multi-family housing Possibility of more Planned Unit Developments Planned subdivisions with utilities and ingress/egress Increased minimum lot sizes for residences Industrial park Community Facilities and Utilities: Increased police services Improved fire protection services Improved animal control services Local high school Cemetery Campground/RV park Improved/expanded trails Upgraded/expanded water utilities Upgraded/expanded sewer facilities Small hydro-electric power development Upgraded solid waste services Recycling Junk clean-up Transportation: Improved roads/drainage Alternate access to Resort Mass transit in Valley Improved pedestrian access Rail service to Anchorage Local Government Building/architectural controls

Summary Statement #2. People's priorities for improving Girdwood include increased local political autonomy, particularly local control of the planning and zoning process. There is a desire to see development of a multi-purpose community center, which may include both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities, a planned town center and improved, expanded and managed trails, an industrial park and a recycling center. People want access to a natural gas utility and rail service to Anchorage. There is a desire for better communication with the Alyeska Resort management.

Question C: As Girdwood grows and develops as a community, what are the major concerns that need to be addressed?

#1 Loss of small town atmosphere #2 Air pollution #3a Noise pollution #3b Rapid growth #4 Local control/autonomy #5 Zoning enforcement

Economy and Population: Company town Involvement of local businesses in economic growth Impacts on property values Transient community problems Encouraging development Land Use: Affordable housing Resort employee housing Commercial development on prime land Community Facilities and Utilities: Crime, Fire protection, Emergency medical services, Schools, Water, Sewer, Solid waste disposal/litter Transportation: Local roads, Parking, Mass transit Local Government: Infrastructure costs

Summary Statement #3. Girdwood residents are concerned about the problems brought about by rapid growth which includes loss of unique small town atmosphere, increased noise and air pollution and other environmental impacts. They are also concerned about not having enough local autonomy, control and zoning enforcement as well as a lack of affordable housing and the cost of public facilities and services.

If there are ideas you have that weren't addressed, please let the Turnagain Arm Management Plan Advisory Board Members know your thoughts. Contact Tim Bennett, Tom Yeager, Bill Schwartz, or Diane Powers. You can write to them c/o: Girdwood Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 345, Girdwood, AK 99587.

Selected List of References

Alaska Department of Transportation and Pubic Facilities and Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Assessment and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Seward Highway: Bird Point to Girdwood, F-031-2(50), Anchorage, 1991.

Albrecht, Arnold J., Demand and Opportunities for Alpine Skiing on the Anchorage District Chugach National Forest Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, 1982.

Arthur I. Mears, Inc., Anchorage Snow Avalanche Zoning Analysis, Municipality of Anchorage, 1982.

Blanchet, Dave, Climatic Evaluation of Potential Winter Sports Development Sites on the Chugach National Forest. Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, 1986.

Blanchet, Dave, Evaluation of Winter Sports Sites on the Chugach National Forest for Alpine Skiing Potential. Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, 1986.

Brabets, Timothy P. and Roy L. Glass, Summary of Water Resources Data for the Girdwood-Alyeska Area, Alaska, U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Anchorage Municipality, 1988.

Carberry, Michael, and Donna Lane, Patterns of the Past: An Inventory of Anchorage's Historic Resources, Anchorage, 1986.

Carrick, Stan, and Mary A. Maurer, Preliminary Water Resource Assessment of the Girdwood Area, Alaska (Draft), State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, 1993.

Combellick, Rodney A., "The Penultimate Great Earthquake in Southcentral Alaska: Evidence from a Buried Forest near Girdwood," Short Notes on Alaskan Geology, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, 1992.

Daniels, Marianne L., and Toni McPhearson (eds.), Alyeska Chronicle - Girdwood Historical Times, Volume 1, Seibu Alaska, Inc., D.B.A. Alyeska Resort, 1981.

David Hamre Associates, Glacier Valley Resort: A Conceptual View of Resort Development Near Girdwood, Alaska.

David Hamre Associates, Glacier Valley Concept Plan, Four-Season International Destination Resort, Report 1: Resort Concept Plan (Draft), Anchorage, 1990.

Davidson, Dean F., An Assessment of the Demand and Opportunities for Nordic Skiing on the Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, 1985.

Davidson, Dean F., Kenai Road Corridor Soil Survey, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, 1989.

Dorward, Sherry, Design for Mountain Communities: A Landscape and Architectural Guide, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990.

Fesler, Doug, and Jill Fredston, Art Mears, Snow Avalanche & Mass Wasting Hazard Analysis, Glacier/Winner Creek Area, Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, 1993.

Firth, William R., “Can Golf and Housing Get Along?”, Urban Land, Washington, D.C., 1990.

Flood Insurance Study, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, Anchorage Division, Volume 1 of 2, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

Flood Plain Information Glacier Creek, Girdwood Alaska, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1969.

Floodway Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, National Flood Insurance Program, September 18, 1987.

Frechione, Jim, Girdwood Gravel Situation, State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land & Water Management, 1986.

Gill, Alison, and Rudi Hartmann, Mountain Resort Development: Proceedings of the Vail Conference, April 18th-21st, 1991, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, 1992.

Grossmann, John, “How Green are these Fairways?”, Audubon, September-October 1990.

Kevin Waring Associates, et al., Girdwood Community Impact Study, Municipality of Anchorage, 1993.

Land Design North, Inc., Master Plan Report: Girdwood Coastal Wetland, Natural and Historic Interpretive Area, Municipality of Anchorage, 1981.

Leonard Lane Associates, Inc., A Socioeconomic Assessment of the Effects of Developing a Winter-sports Site at One of Three Locations in the Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, 1984.

Meredith, R.H. Drew, Harry Measure and Michael Vance of the Resort Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia, Resort Information Seminar, held in Girdwood, Alaska, October 23 & 24, 1992, Volumes 1-4 (video tapes).

Montgomery Watson Associates, Inc., 1993 Anchorage Water Master Plan Update (Draft Report), Municipality of Anchorage, 1994.

Muirhead, Desmond and Guy L. Rando, Golf Course Development and Real Estate, the Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC, 1994.

Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning, Comprehensive Planning Division, Anchorage Park, Greenbelt and Recreation Facility Plan, Volume 3: Turnagain Arm, Anchorage, 1987.

Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning, Turnagain Arm Comprehensive Plan, Anchorage, 1987.

Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning and Department of Public Works, Original Girdwood Townsite: General Conditions and Development Issues Report, Anchorage, October 12, 1987.

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Community Planning and Development, Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan Revision: Concept-approved Draft, Anchorage, January 1994.

Municipality of Anchorage, Department of Planning, Turnagain Arm Comprehensive Plan, Anchorage, 1979.

NGF Consulting, A Feasibility Study for an 18-Hole Golf Course to Be Located in Girdwood, Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, 1992.

NGF Consulting, The Economic Impact of Golf Course Operations on Local, Regional, & National Economies, Jupiter, Florida, 1992.

Nidowicz, Bernard and Dawn R. Reeder, Geotechnical Investigation: Girdwood Borrow Site, Girdwood, Alaska, Harding Lawson Associates, Anchorage, August 1992.

Ott Water Engineers, Inc., Girdwood Sewer Master Plan, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, 1985.

Ott Water Engineers, Inc., Girdwood Golf Course Study Aerial Photograph Interpretive Analysis, Squirrel Cage and North Resort Study Areas, Municipality of Anchorage, 1987.

Redmond, Frank, The Girdwood Mining District, Alaska (A thesis submitted for the degree of BS in Mining Engineering), The Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines, 1932.

Sasaki Associates, Inc., et al., Alyeska Resort Master Plan, Seibu Alaska, Inc., 1987.

Smart, Miles M., Ricardo N. Calvo, Charles H. Peacock, and J. Don Spencer, "Working with Nature for Better Golf Developments," Urban Land, March 1993.

Sno-engineering, Inc., Alyeska Resort Ski Area Master Plan, Bellevue, Washington, 1991.

Sno.engineering, Inc., Evaluation of Alternatives for Year-round Resort Development in the Glacier/Winner Creek Area, Bellevue, Washington, 1993.

"Soils of the Girdwood Area Final Report," used in conjunction with the Anchorage Area Soil Survey Volume 7, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, 1987.

Transport/Pacific Associates and Kevin Waring Associates, Girdwood Rail Service Feasibility Assessment: Final Report, Municipality of Anchorage, 1994.

Turnagain Arm Management Plan for State Lands, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land, Resource Assessment & Development Section, Anchorage, 1994.

Whelan, Tensie (ed.), Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1991.

Zenone, Chester, Geology and Water Resources of the Girdwood-Alyeska Area, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 1974.