Alaska Federal Lands Collaborative Long-Range 

Transportation Plan, 2020-2040 

Dalton Highway Crossing the Yukon River. BLM photo.

Appendices
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Appendices

Appendix A - ANCSA and ANILCA (37 pages)

Appendix B - Visitor Trends Technical Report (32 pages)

Appendix C - 2016 Alaska Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS) (318 pages)

Appendix D - Safety Exploratory Analysis and Baseline Conditions (26 pages) 

Appendix E - Natural Hazards Vulnerability Technical Report (21 pages)

Appendix F - Risk Assessment Workshop (60 pages)

 Table of Contents: Appendix
Appendix A

ANCSA and ANILCA

Sitka National Historical Park. NPS photo.
43 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands 

Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix A 

ANCSA and ANILCA Text 
This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 1 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	

ANCSA Section 17(b) 

ANILCA Title VIII, XI, and XII 

Table of Contents 

ANCSA Section 17(b). 1

TITLE VIII. 3

TITLE XI. 11

TITLE XIII. 19
2 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

ANCSA Section 17(b) 

Sec. 17(b)(1)The Planning Commission shall identify public easements across lands selected by 

Village Corporations and the Regional Corporations and at periodic points along the courses of 

major waterways which are reasonably necessary to guarantee international treaty obligations, 

a full right of public use and access for recreation, hunting, transportation, utilities, docks, and 

other such public uses as the Planning Commission determines to be important. 

(2) In identifying public easements the Planning Commission shall consult with appropriate State 

and Federal agencies, shall review proposed transportation plans, and shall receive and review 

statements and recommendations from interested organizations and individuals on the need for 

and proposed location of public easements: Provided,That any valid existing right recognized by 

this Act shall continue to have whatever right of access as is now provided for under existing law 

and this subsection shall not operate in any way to diminish or limit such right of access. 

(3) Prior to granting any patent under this Act to the Village Corporation and Regional 

Corporations, the Secretary shall consult with the State and the Planning Commission and shall 

reserve such public easements as he determines are necessary. 

Source: http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/lands_realty/17b_easements/17b_ancsa.html 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 3 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

ANILCA TITLE VIII 

SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT AND USE FINDINGS 

FINDINGS 

§801.The Congress fnds and declares that--

(1) the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, 

including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands and by Alaska Natives on Native 

lands is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to nonNative physical, economic, traditional, and social existence; 

(2) the situation in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no practical alternative means are 

available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fsh and wildlife which 

supply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses; 

(3) continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands 

in Alaska is threatened by the increasing population of Alaska, with resultant pressure on 

subsistence resources, by sudden decline in the populations of some wildlife species which are 

crucial subsistence resources, by increased accessibility of remote areas containing subsistence 

resources, and by taking of fsh and wildlife in a manner inconsistent with recognized principles 

of fsh and wildlife management; 

(4) in order to fulfll the policies and purposes of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and 

as a matter of equity, it is necessary for the Congress to invoke its constitutional authority over 

Native affairs and its constitutional authority under the property clause and the commerce clause 

to protect and provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses on the public lands by 

Native and non-Native rural residents; and 

(5) the national interest in the proper regulation, protection and conservation of fsh and 

wildlife on the public lands in Alaska and the continuation of the opportunity for a subsistence 

way of life by residents of rural Alaska require that an administrative structure be established 

for the purpose of enabling rural residents who have personal knowledge of local conditions 

and requirements to have a meaningful role in the management of fsh and wildlife and of 

subsistence uses on the public lands in Alaska. 

POLICY 

§802. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress that--

(1) consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations 

of fsh and wildlife, the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to cause the least adverse 

impact possible on rural residents who depend upon subsistence uses of the resources of such 

lands; consistent with management of fsh and wildlife in accordance with recognized scientifc 

principles and the purposes for each unit established, designated, or expanded by or pursuant 

toTitles II through VII of this Act, the purpose of this title is to provide the opportunity for rural 

residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so; 

(2) nonwasteful subsistence uses of fsh and wildlife and other renewable resources shall 

be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska when 

it is necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the continued viability of a fsh or wildlife 

population or the continuation of subsistence uses of such population, the taking of such 

population for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be given preference on the public lands over 

other consumptive uses; and 
4 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(3) except as otherwise provided by this Act or other Federal laws, Federal land managing 

agencies, in managing subsistence activities on the public lands and in protecting the continued 

viability of all wild renewable resources in Alaska, shall cooperate with adjacent landowners and 

land managers, including Native Corporations, appropriate State and Federal agencies and other 

nations. 

DEFINITIONS 

§803. As used in this Act, the term “subsistence uses” means 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 nonedible byproducts of fsh and wildlife resources taken for personal or family 

consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade. 

For the purposes of this section, the term--

(1) “family” means all persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or any person living 

within the household on a permanent basis; and 

(2) “barter” means the exchange of fsh or wildlife or their parts, taken for subsistence uses--

(A) for other fsh or game or their parts; or 

(B) for other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and 

noncommercial nature. 

PREFERENCE FOR SUBSISTENCE USE 

§804. Except as otherwise provided in this Act and other Federal laws, the taking on public lands 

of fsh and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking 

on such lands of fsh and wildlife for other purposes. Whenever it is necessary to restrict the 

taking of populations of fsh and wildlife on such lands for subsistence uses in order to protect 

the continued viability of such populations, or to continue such uses, such priority shall be 

implemented through appropriate limitations based on the application of the following criteria: 

(1) customary and direct dependence upon the populations as the mainstay of livelihood; 

(2) local residency; and 

(3) the availability of alternative resources. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PARTICIPATION 

§805. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this section, one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary in consultation with the State shall establish--

(1) at least six Alaska subsistence resource regions which taken together, include all public lands. 

The number and boundaries of the regions shall be suffcient to assure that regional differences 

in subsistence uses are adequately accommodated; 

(2) such local advisory committees within each region as he fnds necessary at such time as 

he may determine, after notice and hearing, that the existing State fsh and game advisory 

committees do not adequately perform the functions of the local committee system set forth in 

paragraph (3)(D)(iv) of this subsection; and 

(3) a regional advisory council in each subsistence resource region. Each regional advisory 

council shall be composed of residents of the region and shall have the following authority: 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 5 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(A) the review and evaluation of proposals for regulations policies, management plans, and 

other matters relating to subsistence uses of fsh and wildlife within the region; 

(B) the provision of a forum for the expression of opinions and recommendations by persons 

interested in any matter related to the subsistence uses of fsh and wildlife within the region; 

(C) the encouragement of local and regional participation pursuant to the provisions of this title 

in the decision making process affecting the taking of fsh and wildlife on the public lands within 

the region for subsistence uses; 

(D) the preparation of an annual report to the Secretary which shall contain--

(i) an identifcation of current and anticipated subsistence uses of fsh and wildlife populations 

within the region; 

(ii) an evaluation of current and anticipated subsistence needs for fsh and wildlife populations 

within the region; 

(iii) a recommended strategy for the management of fsh and wildlife populations within the 

region to accommodate such subsistence uses and needs; and 

(iv) recommendations concerning policies, standards guidelines, and regulations to implement 

the strategy.The State fsh and game advisory committees or such local advisory committees 

as the Secretary may establish pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection may provide 

advice to and assist, the regional advisory councils in carrying out the functions set forth in this 

paragraph. 

(b)The Secretary shall assign adequate qualifed staff to the regional advisory councils and make 

timely distribution of all available relevant technical and scientifc support data to the regional 

advisory councils and the State fsh and game advisory committees or such local advisory 

committees as the Secretary may establish pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a). 

(c)The Secretary, in performing his monitoring responsibility pursuant to §806 and in the 

exercise of his closure and other administrative authority over the public lands, shall consider 

the report and recommendations of the regional advisory councils concerning the taking of 

fsh and wildlife on the public lands within their respective regions for subsistence uses.The 

Secretary may choose not to follow any recommendation which he determines is not supported 

by substantial evidence, violates recognized principles of fsh and wildlife conservation, or would 

be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs. If a recommendation is not adopted by 

the Secretary, he shall set forth the factual basis and the reasons for his decision. 

(d)The Secretary shall not implement subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section if within one 

year from the date of enactment of this Act the State enacts and implements laws of general 

applicability which are consistent with, and which provide for the defnition, preference and 

participation specifed in, §§803, 804, and 805, such laws unless and until repealed, shall 

supersede such sections insofar as such sections govern State responsibility pursuant to this 

title for the taking of fsh and wildlife on the public lands for subsistence uses Laws establishing 

a system of local advisory committees and regional advisory councils consistent with §805 shall 

provide that the State rule making authority shall consider the advice and recommendations 

of the regional councils concerning the taking of fsh and wildlife populations on public 

lands within their respective regions for subsistence uses.The regional councils may present 

recommendations, and the evidence upon which such recommendations are based to the State 

rule making authority during the course of the administrative proceedings of such authority.The 

State rule making authority may choose not to follow any recommendation which it determines 

is not supported by substantial evidence presented during the course of its administrative 

proceedings, violates recognized principles of fsh and wildlife conservation or would be 
6 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

detrimental to the satisfaction of rural subsistence needs. If a recommendation is not adopted by 

the State rule making authority, such authority shall set forth the factual basis and the reasons 

for its decision. 

(e)(1)The Secretary shall reimburse the State, from funds appropriated to the Department of the 

Interior for such purposes, for reasonable costs relating to the establishment and operation of 

the regional advisory councils established by the State in accordance with subsection (d) and the 

operation of the State fsh and game advisory committees so long as such committees are not 

superseded by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a). Such reimbursement 

may not exceed 50 per centum of such costs in any fscal year. Such costs shall be verifed in a 

statement which the Secretary determines to be adequate and accurate. Sums paid under this 

subsection shall be in addition to any grants, payments, or other sums to which the State is 

entitled from appropriations to the Department of the Interior. 

(2)Total payments to the State under this subsection shall not exceed the sum of $5,000,000 in 

any one fscal year.The Secretary shall advise the Congress at least once in every fve years as to 

whether or not the maximum payments specifed in this subsection are adequate to ensure the 

effectiveness of the program established by the State to provide the preference for subsistence 

uses of fsh and wildlife set forth in §804. 

FEDERAL MONITORING 

§806.The Secretary shall monitor the provisions by the State of the subsistence preference set 

forth in §804 and shall advise the State and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and on 

Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Energy 

and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works of the Senate annually and at such 

other times as he deems necessary of his views on the effectiveness of the implementation of 

this title including the State’s provision of such preference, any exercise of his closure or other 

administrative authority to protect subsistence resources or uses, the views of the State, and any 

recommendations he may have. 

JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT 

§807. (a) Local residents and other persons and organizations aggrieved a failure of the State or 

the Federal Government to provide for the priority for subsistence uses set forth in §804 (or with 

respect to the State as set forth in a State law of general applicability if the State has fulflled 

the requirements of §805(d)) may, upon exhaustion of any State or Federal (as appropriate) 

administrative remedies which may be available, fle a civil action in the United States District 

Court for the District of Alaska to require such actions to be taken as are necessary to provide 

for the priority. In a civil action fled against the State, the Secretary may be joined as a party to 

such action.The court may grant preliminary injunctive relief in any civil action if the granting 

of such relief is appropriate under the facts upon which the action is based. No order granting 

preliminary relief shall be issued until after an opportunity for hearing. In a civil action fled 

against the State, the court shall provide relief, other than preliminary relief, by directing the 

State to submit regulations which satisfy the requirements of §804 when approved by the court, 

such regulations shall be incorporated as part of the fnal judicial order, and such order shall be 

valid only for such period of time as normally provided by State law for the regulations at issue. 

Local residents and other persons and organizations who are prevailing parties in an action fled 

pursuant to this section shall be awarded their costs and attorney’s fees. 

(b) A civil action fled pursuant to this section shall be assigned for hearing at the earliest 

possible date, shall take precedence over other matters pending on the docket of the United 

States district court at that time, and shall be expedited in every way by such court and any 

appellate court. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 7 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(c)This section is the sole Federal judicial remedy created by this title for local residents and 

other residents who, and organizations which, are aggrieved by a failure of the State to provide 

for the priority of subsistence uses set forth in §804. 

PARK AND PARK MONUMENT SUBSISTENCE RESOURCE COMMISSIONS 

§808. (a) Within one year from the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary and the Governor 

shall each appoint three members to a subsistence resources commission for each national 

park or park monument within which subsistence uses are permitted by this Act.The regional 

advisory council established pursuant to §805 which has jurisdiction within the area in which the 

park or park monument is located shall appoint three members to the commission each of whom 

is a member of either the regional advisory council or a local advisory committee within the 

region and also engages in subsistence uses within the park or park monument. Within eighteen 

months from the date of enactment of this Act, each commission shall devise and recommend 

to the Secretary and the Governor a program for subsistence hunting within the park or park 

monument. Such program shall be prepared using technical information and other pertinent 

data assembled or produced by necessary feld studies or investigations conducted jointly or 

separately by the technical and administrative personnel of the State and the Department of 

Interior, information submitted by, and after consultation with the appropriate local advisory 

committees and regional advisory councils, and any testimony received in a public hearing or 

hearings held by the commission prior to preparation of the plan at a convenient location or 

locations in the vicinity of the park or park monument. Each year thereafter. the commission, 

after consultation with the appropriate local committees and regional councils, considering all 

relevant data and holding one or more additional hearings in the vicinity of the park or park 

monument, shall make recommendations to the Secretary and the Governor for any changes in 

the program or its implementation which the commission deems necessary. 

(b)The Secretary shall promptly implement title program and recommendations submitted to 

him by each commission unless he fnds in writing that such program or recommendations 

violates recognized principles of wildlife conservation, threatens the conservation of healthy 

populations of wildlife in the park or park monument, is contrary to the purposes for which the 

park or park monument is established, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence 

needs of local residents. Upon notifcation by the Governor, the Secretary shall take no action on 

a submission of a commission for sixty days during which period he shall consider any proposed 

changes in the program or recommendations submitted by the commission which the Governor 

provides him. 

(c) Pending the implementation of a program under subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary 

shall permit subsistence uses by local residents in accordance with the provisions of this title 

and other applicable Federal and State law. 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 

§809.The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements or otherwise cooperate with other 

Federal agencies, the State. Native Corporations, other appropriate persons and organizations, 

and acting through the Secretary of State, other nations to effectuate the purposes and policies 

of this title. 

SUBSISTENCE AND LAND USE DECISIONS 

§810. (a) In determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, 

occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law authorizing such actions, 

the head of the Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or his designee 

shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs, 

the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives 
8 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

which would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for 

subsistence purposes. No such withdrawal, reservation, ]ease, permit, or other use, occupancy 

or disposition of such lands which would signifcantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected 

until the head of such Federal agency--

(1) gives notice to the appropriate State agency and the appropriate local committees and 

regional councils established pursuant to §805; 

(2) gives notice of, and holds, a hearing in the vicinity of the area involved; and 

(3) determines that--

(A) such a signifcant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound 

management principles for the utilization of the public lands, 

(B) the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other disposition, and 

(C) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence uses and 

resources resulting from such actions. 

(b) If the Secretary is required to prepare an environmental impact statement pursuant to §102(2) 

(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, he shall provide the notice and hearing and include 

the fndings required by subsection (a) as part of such environmental impact statement. 

(c) Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit or impair the ability of the State or any Native 

Corporation to make land selections and receive land conveyances pursuant to the Alaska 

Statehood Act or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

(d) After compliance with the procedural requirements of this section and other applicable law, 

the head of the appropriate Federal agency may manage or dispose of public lands under his 

primary jurisdiction for any of those uses or purposes authorized by this Act or other law. 

ACCESS 

§811. (a)The Secretary shall ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have 

reasonable access to subsistence resources on the public lands. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law the Secretary shall permit on the 

public lands appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other 

means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by local residents, 

subJect to reasonable regulation. 

RESEARCH 

§812.The Secretary, in cooperation with the State and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall 

undertake research on fsh and wildlife and subsistence uses on the public lands, seek data from, 

consult with and make use of, the special knowledge of local residents engaged in subsistence 

uses; and make the results of such research available to the State, the local and regional councils 

established by the Secretary or State pursuant to §805, and other appropriate persons and 

organizations. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 9 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

PERIODIC REPORTS 

§813. Within four years after the date of enactment of this Act and within every three-year period 

thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall prepare and 

submit a report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

on the implementation of this title.The report shall include--

(1) an evaluation of the results of the monitoring undertaken by the Secretary as required by 

§806; 

(2) the status of fsh and wildlife populations on public lands that are subject to subsistence 

uses; 

(3) a description of the nature and extent of subsistence uses and other uses of fsh and wildlife 

on the public lands; 

(4) the role of subsistence uses in the economy and culture of rural Alaska; 

(5) comments on the Secretary’s report by the State, the local advisory councils and regional 

advisory councils established by the Secretary or the State pursuant to §805, and other 

appropriate persons and organizations; 

(6) a description of those actions taken, or which may need to be taken in the future, to permit 

the opportunity for continuation of activities relating to subsistence uses on the public lands; 

(7) such other recommendations the Secretary deems appropriate. A notice of the report shall be 

published in the Federal Register and the report shall be made available to the public. 

REGULATIONS 

§814.The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry 

out his responsibilities under this title. 

LIMITATIONS, SAVINGS CLAUSES 

§815. Nothing in this title shall be construed as--

(1) granting any property right in any fsh or wildlife or other resource of the public lands or as 

permitting the level of subsistence uses of fsh and wildlife within a conservation system unit 

to be inconsistent with the conservation of healthy populations, and within a national park or 

monument to be inconsistent with the conservation of natural and healthy populations, of fsh 

and wildlife. No privilege which may be granted by the State to any individual with respect to 

subsistence uses may be assigned to any other individual; 

(2) permitting any subsistence use of fsh and wildlife on any portion of the public lands 

(whether or not within any conservation system unit) which was permanently closed to such 

uses on January 1, 1978, or enlarging or diminishing the Secretary’s authority to manipulate 

habitat on any portion of the public lands; 

(3) authorizing a restriction on the taking of fsh and wildlife for nonsubsistence uses on 

the public lands (other than national parks and park monuments) unless necessary for the 

conservation of healthy populations of fsh and wildlife, for the reasons set forth in §816, to 

continue subsistence uses of such populations, or pursuant to other applicable law; or 

(4) modifying or repealing the provisions of any Federal law governing the conservation or 

protection of fsh and wildlife, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (80 Stat. 927- 16 U.S.C. 668dd-jj), the National Park Service Organic Act (39 Stat. 535, 16 
10 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, 4), the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1091, 16 U.S.C. 1187), the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (86 

Stat. 1027; 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), the Act entitled “An Act for the Protection of the Bald Eagle”, 

approved June 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 250; 16 U.S.C. 742a-754), the Migratory BirdTreaty Act (40 Stat. 

755;16 U.S.C. 703-711), the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (50 Stat. 917- 16 U.S.C. 669-

669i), the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 331;16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), 

the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (64 Stat. 430; 16 U.S.C. 777-777K), or ally amendments to 

any one or more of such Acts. 

CLOSURE TO SUBSISTENCE USES 

§816. (a) All national parks and park monuments in Alaska shall be closed to the taking of wildlife 

except for subsistence uses to the extent specifcally permitted by this Act. Subsistence uses and 

sport fshing shall be authorized in such areas by the Secretary and carried out in accordance 

with the requirements of this title and other applicable laws of the United States and the State of 

Alaska. 

(b) Except as specifcally provided otherwise by this section, nothing in this title is intended 

to enlarge or diminish the authority of the Secretary to designate areas where, and establish 

periods when, no taking of fsh and wildlife shall be permitted on the public lands for reasons of 

public safety, administration, or to assure the continued viability of a particular fsh or wildlife 

population. Notwithstanding any other provision of tins Act or other law, the Secretary, after 

consultation with the State and adequate notice and public hearing may temporarily close any 

public lands (including those within any conservation system unit), or any portion thereof, to 

subsistence uses of a particular fsh or wildlife population only if necessary for reasons of public 

safety, administration, or to assure the continued viability of such population. If the Secretary 

determines that an emergency situation exists and that extraordinary measures must be taken 

for public safety or to assure the continued viability of a particular fsh or wildlife population, 

the Secretary may immediately close the public lands, or any portion thereof, to the subsistence 

uses of such population and shall publish the reasons justifying the closure in the Federal 

Register. Such emergency closure shall be effective when made, shall not extend for a period 

exceeding sixty days, and may not subsequently be extended unless the Secretary affrmatively 

establishes, after notice and public hearing, that such closure should he extended. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 11 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

ANILCA TITLE XI 

TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY SYSTEMS IN AND ACROSS, AND ACCESS INTO, 

CONSERVATION SYSTEM UNITS 

FINDINGS 

§1101. Congress fnds that--

(a) Alaska’s transportation and utility network is largely undeveloped and the future needs for 

transportation and utility systems in Alaska would best be identifed and provided for through an 

orderly, continuous decision making process involving the State and Federal Governments and 

the public; 

(b) the existing authorities to approve or disapprove application for transportation and utility 

systems through public lands in Alaska are diverse, dissimilar, and, in some cases, absent; and 

(c) to minimize the adverse impacts of siting transportation and utility systems within units 

established or expanded by this Act and to insure the effectiveness of the decision making 

process, a single comprehensive statutory authority for the approval or disapproval of 

applications for such systems must be provided in this Act. 

DEFINITIONS 

§1102. For purposes of this title--

(1)The term “applicable law” means any law of general applicability (other than this title) under 

which any Federal department or agency has jurisdiction to grant any authorization (including 

but not limited to, any right-of-way, permit, license, lease, or certifcate) without which a 

transportation or utility system cannot, in whole or in part, be established or operated. 

(2)The term “applicant” means any public or private person, including, but not limited to, any 

Federal department or agency. 

(3)The term “Federal agency” means any Federal department or agency that has any function or 

duty under applicable law. 

(4)(A)The term “transportation or utility system” means any type of system described in 

subparagraph (B) if any portion of the route of the system will be within any conservation 

system unit, national recreation area, or national conservation area in the State (and the system 

is not one that the department or agency having jurisdiction over the unit or area is establishing 

incident to its management of the unit or area). 

(B)The types of systems to which subparagraph (A) applies are as follows: 

(i) Canals, ditches, fumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, tunnels, and other systems for the 

transportation of water. 
12 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(ii) Pipelines and other systems for the transportation of liquids other than water, including oil, 

natural gas, synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels, and any refned product produced therefrom. 

(iii) Pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems and conveyor belts for the transportation of solid 

materials. 

(iv) Systems for the transmission and distribution of electric energy. 

(v) Systems for transmission or reception of radio, television telephone, telegraph, and other 

electronic signals, and other means of communication. 

(vi) Improved rights-of-way for snow machines, air cushion vehicles, and other all-terrain 

vehicles. 

(vii) Roads, highways, railroads, tunnels, tramways, airports, landing strips, docks, and other 

systems of general transportation. 

Any system described in this subparagraph includes such related structures and facilities (both 

temporary and permanent) along the route of the system as may be minimally necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the system. Such related structures and facilities 

shall be described in the application required by §1104, and shall be approved or disapproved in 

accordance with the procedures set forth in this title. 

EFFECT OF TITLE 

§1103. Except as specifcally provided for in this title, applicable law shall apply with respect to 

the authorization and administration of transportation or utility systems. 

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

§1104. (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any provision of applicable law, no action by 

any Federal agency under applicable law with respect to the approval or disapproval of the 

authorization, in whole or in part, of any transportation or utility system shall have any force or 

effect unless the provisions of this section are complied with. 

(b)(1) CONSOLIDATED APPLICATIONS.--Within one hundred and eighty days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of 

Transportation, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies shall jointly 

prescribe and publish a consolidated application form to be used for applying for the approval 

of each type of transportation or utility system. Each such application form shall be designed 

to elicit such information as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this title and the 

applicable law with respect to the type of system concerned. 

(2) For purposes of this section, the heads of all appropriate Federal agencies, including the 

Secretary ofTransportation, shall share decision-making responsibility in the case of any 

transportation or utility system described in §1102(4)(B)(ii), (iii), or (vii); but with respect to 

any such system for which he does not have programmatic responsibility, the Secretary of 

Transportation shall provide to the other Federal agencies concerned such planning and other 

assistance as may be appropriate. 

(c) FILING.--Each applicant for the approval of any transportation or utility system shall fle on 

the same day an application with each appropriate Federal agency.The applicant shall utilize the 

consolidated form prescribed under subsection (b) for the type of transportation or utility system 

concerned. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 13 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(d) AGENCY NOTICE.--(1) Within sixty days after the receipt of an application fled pursuant to 

subsection (c), the head of each Federal agency with whom the application was fled shall inform 

the applicant in writing that, on its face--

(A) the application appears to contain the information required by this title and applicable law 

insofar as that agency is concerned; or 

(B) the application does not contain such information. 

(2) Any notice provided under paragraph (1)(B) shall specify what additional information the 

applicant must provide. If the applicant provides additional information, the head of the Federal 

agency must inform the applicant in writing, within thirty days after receipt of such information, 

whether the information is suffcient. 

(e) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.--The draft of any environmental impact statement 

required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with any application 

fled under this section shall be completed, within nine months from the date of fling, by the 

head of the Federal agency assigned lead responsibility for the statement. Any such statement 

shall be jointly prepared by all Federal agencies with which the application was fled under 

subsection (c).The fnal environmental impact statement shall be completed within one year 

from the date of such fling. Such nine-month and one-year periods may be extended for good 

cause by the Federal agency head assigned lead responsibility for the preparation of such 

statement if he determines that additional time is necessary for such preparation, notifes the 

applicant in writing of such determination and publishes notice of such determination, together 

with the reasons therefor, in the Federal Register.The provisions of §304 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 shall apply to each environmental impact statement under 

this subsection in the same manner as such provisions apply to applications relating to the 

public lands referred to in such §304.The Federal agency assigned lead responsibility shall, 

in conjunction with such other Federal agencies before which the application is pending, hold 

public hearings in the District of Columbia and an appropriate location in the State on each draft 

joint environmental impact statement and the views expressed therein shall be considered by all 

Federal agencies concerned before publication of the fnal joint environmental impact statement. 

(f) OTHER VIEWS.--During both the nine-month period, and the succeeding three-month period 

plus any extension thereof provided for in subsection (e), the heads of the Federal agencies 

concerned shall solicit and consider the views of other Federal departments and agencies, the 

Alaska Land Use Council, the State, affected units of local government in the State, and affected 

corporations formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and, after public 

notice, shall receive and consider statements and recommendations regarding the application 

submitted by interested individuals and organizations. 

(g) AGENCY DECISION.--(1) Within four months after the fnal environmental impact statement, 

is published in accordance with subsection (e) with respect to any transportation or utility 

system each Federal agency shall make a decision to approve or disapprove in accordance with 

applicable law, each authorization that applies with respect to the system and that is within the 

jurisdiction of that agency. 

(2)The head of each Federal agency, in making a decision referred to in paragraph (1), shall 

consider, and make detailed fndings supported by substantial evidence, with respect to--

(A) the need for, and economic feasibility of, the transportation or utility system; 

(B) alternative routes and modes of access, including a determination with respect to whether 

there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of the system through 

or within a conservation system unit, national recreation area, or national conservation area and, 
14 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

if not, whether there are alternative routes or modes which would result in fewer or less severe 

adverse impacts upon the conservation system unit; 

(C) the feasibility and impacts of including different transportation or utility systems in the same 

area; 

(D) short- and long-term social, economic, and environmental impacts of national, State, or local 

signifcance, including impacts on fsh and wildlife and their habitat, and on rural, traditional 

lifestyles; 

(E) the impacts, if any, on the national security interests of the United States, that may result 

from approval or denial of the application for a transportation or utility system; 

(F) any impacts that would affect the purposes for which the Federal unit or area concerned was 

established; 

(G) measures which should be instituted to avoid or minimize negative impacts; and 

(H) the short- and long-term public values which may be adversely affected by approval of the 

transportation or utility system versus the short- and long-term public benefts which may accrue 

from such approval. 

STANDARDS FOR GRANTING CERTAIN AUTHORIZATIONS 

§1105. In any case in which there is no applicable law with respect to a transportation or utility 

system, the head of the Federal agency concerned shall, within four months after the date of 

fling of any fnal Environmental Impact Statement, make recommendations for purposes of 

§1106(b), to grant such authorizations as may be necessary to establish such system, in whole or 

in part, within the conservation system unit concerned if he determines that--

(1) such system would be compatible with the purposes for which the unit was established; and 

(2) there is no economically feasible and prudent alternative route for the system. 

AGENCY, PRESIDENTIAL, AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS 

§1106. (a)(1) AGENCY ACTION IN CASES OTHERTHANTHOSE INVOLVING SECTION 1105 OR 

WILDERNESS AREAS.--In the case of any application for the approval of any transportation or 

utility system to which §1105 does not apply or that does not occupy, use, or traverse any area 

within the National Wilderness Preservation System, if, in compliance with §1104--

(A) each Federal agency concerned decides to approve each authorization within its jurisdiction 

with respect to that system then the system shall be deemed to be approved and each such 

agency shall promptly issue, in accordance with applicable law, such rights-of-way, permits, 

licenses leases, certifcates, or other authorizations as are necessary with respect to the 

establishment of the system; or 

(B) one or more Federal agencies decide to disapprove any authorization within its jurisdiction 

with respect, to that system then the system shall be deemed to be disapproved and the 

applicant for the system may appeal the disapproval to the President. 

(2) If an applicant appeals under paragraph (1)(B), the President, within four months after 

receiving the appeal shall decide whether to approve or deny the application.The President shall 

approve the application if he fnds, after consideration of the factors set forth in §1104(g)(2), that 

such approval would be in the public interest and that (1) such system would be compatible 

with the purposes for which the unit was established; and (2) there is no economically feasible 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 15 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

and prudent alternative route for the system. In making a decision, the President shall consider 

any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to §1104(e), comments of the public 

and Federal agencies received during the preparation of such statement, and the fndings and 

recommendations, if any, of each Federal agency that rendered a decision with respect to the 

application.The President’s decision to approve or deny the application shall be published in the 

Federal Register, together with a statement of the reasons for his determination. 

(3) If the President approves an application under paragraph (2), each Federal agency concerned 

shall promptly issue, in accordance with applicable law, such rights-of-way, permits, licenses, 

leases certifcates, or other authorizations as are necessary with respect to the establishment of 

the system. 

(4) If the President denies an application under paragraph (2), the applicant shall be deemed to 

have exhausted his administrative remedies and may fle suit in any appropriate Federal court to 

challenge such decision. 

(b) AGENCY ACTION IN CASES INVOLVING SECTION 1105 OR WILDERNESS AREAS.--(1) In 

the case of any application for the approval of transportation or utility system to which §1105 

applies or that proposes to occupy, use, or traverse any area within the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, each Federal agency concerned shall promptly submit to the President 

notifcation whether the agency tentatively approved or disapproved each authorization within 

its jurisdiction that applies with respect to the system. Such notifcation shall be accompanied by 

a statement of the reasons and fndings supporting the agency position. 

(2) within four months after receiving all notifcation referred to in paragraph (1) and after 

considering such notifcations, any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to 

§1104(e), and the comments of the public and Federal agencies received during the preparation 

of such Statement, the President shall decide whether or not the application for the system 

concerned should be approved. If the President denies an application the applicant shall be 

deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies, and may fle suit in any appropriate 

Federal court to challenge such decision. If the President approves the application, he shall 

submit to Congress his recommendation for approval of the transportation or utility system 

covered, whereupon the Congress shall consider the application as provided in subsection (c). 

The President shall include with his recommendation to Congress--

(A) the application which is the subject of his recommendation; 

(B) a report setting forth in detail the relevant factual background and the reasons for his fndings 

and recommendation; 

(C) the joint environmental impact statement; 

(D) a statement of the conditions and stipulations which would govern the use of the system if 

approved by the Congress. 

(c) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.--(1) No application for any transportation or utility system with 

respect to which the President makes a recommendation for approval under subsection (b) shall 

be approved unless the Senate and House of Representatives approve a resolution described 

in paragraph (4) within the frst period of one hundred and twenty calendar days of continuous 

session of the Congress beginning on the date after the date of receipt by the Senate and House 

of Representatives of such recommendation. 

(2) For purposes of this subsection--

(A) continuity of session of the Congress is broken only by an adjournment sine die; and 
16 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(B) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 

three days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of the one-hundred-and-twenty-day 

calendar period. 

(3)This subsection is enacted by the Congress--

(A) as an exercise of the rule making power of each House of the Congress respectively, 

but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of 

resolutions described by paragraph (6) of this subsection; and it supersedes other rules only to 

the extent that it is inconsistent therewith; and 

(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as 

those relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same 

extent as in the case of any other rule of such House. 

(4) For the purposes of this subsection, the term “resolution” means a joint resolution, the 

resolving clause of which is as follows: “That the House of Representatives and Senate approve 

the application for (triple tab under title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

submitted by the President to the Congress on the frst blank space therein to be flled in with 

the appropriate transportation or utility system and the second blank therein to be flled with 

the date on which the President submits the application to the House of Representatives and the 

Senate. 

(5) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the provisions of §8(d) of the Alaska Natural 

GasTransportation Act shall apply to the consideration of the resolution. 

(6) After an application for a transportation or utility system has been approved under subsection 

1106(a), the appropriate Federal agencies shall issue appropriate authorizations in accordance 

with applicable law. In any case in which an application for a transportation or utility system has 

been approved pursuant to §1106(b) the appropriate Federal agencies shall issue appropriate 

authorizations in accordance with title V of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act or other 

applicable law. After issuance pursuant to this subsection, the appropriate land managing 

agency shall administer the right-of-way in accordance with relevant management authorities of 

the land managing agency and title V of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act. 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

§1107. (a)TERMS AND CONDITIONS.--The Secretary, or the Secretary of Agriculture where 

national forest wilderness is involved shall include in any right-of-way issued pursuant to an 

application under this title, terms and conditions which shall include, but not be limited to--

(1) requirements to insure that, to the maximum extent feasible the right-of-way is used in a 

manner compatible with the purposes for which the affected conservation system unit, national 

recreation area, or national conservation area was established or is managed; 

(2) requirements for restoration, revegatation, and curtailment of erosion of the surface of the 

land; 

(3) requirements to insure that activities in connection with the right-of-way will not violate 

applicable air and water quality standards and related facility siting standards established 

pursuant to law; 

(4) requirements, including the minimum necessary width, designed to control or prevent--

(A) damage to the environment (including damage to fsh and wildlife habitat); 

(B) damage to public or private property; and 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 17 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(C) hazards to public health and safety; 

(5) requirements to protect the interests of individuals living in the general area of the right-ofway who rely on the fsh, wildlife and biotic resources of the area for subsistence purposes; and 

(6) requirements to employ measures to avoid or minimize adverse environmental, social or 

economic impacts. 

(b) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.--Any transportation or utility system approved 

pursuant to this title which occupies, uses, or traverses any area within the boundaries of a unit 

of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall be subject to such conditions as may be 

necessary to assure that the stream fow of, and transportation on, such river are not interfered 

with or impeded, and that the transportation or utility system is located and constructed in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

(c) PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAYS.--In the case of a pipeline described in §28(a) of the Minerals 

Leasing Act of 1920, a right-of-way issued pursuant to this title shall be issued in the same 

manner as a right-of-way is granted under §28, and the provisions of subsections (c) through (j), 

(l) through (q), and (u) through (y) of such §28 shall apply to rights-of-way issued pursuant to 

this title. 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

§1108. No court shall have jurisdiction to grant any injunctive relief lasting longer than ninety 

days against any action pursuant to this title except in conjunction with a fnal judgment entered 

in a case involving an action pursuant to this title. 

VALID EXISTING RIGHTS 

§1109. Nothing in this title shall be construed to adversely affect any valid existing right of 

access. 

SPECIAL ACCESS AND ACCESS TO INHOLDINGS 

§1110. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, the Secretary shall 

permit, on conservation system units national recreation areas, and national conservation 

areas, and those public lands designated as wilderness study, the use of snowmachines (during 

periods of adequate snow cover, or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and scenic rivers), 

motorboats, airplanes, and non-motorized surface transportation methods for traditional 

activities (where such activities are permitted by this Act or other law) and for travel to and from 

villages and homesites. Such use shall be subject to reasonable regulations by the Secretary to 

protect the natural and other values of the conservation system units, national recreation areas, 

and national conservation areas, and shall not be prohibited unless, after notice and hearing in 

the vicinity of the affected unit or area, the Secretary fnds that such use would be detrimental to 

the resource values of the unit or area. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting 

the use of other methods of transportation for such travel and activities on conservation system 

lands where such use is permitted by this Act or other law. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act or other law, in any case in which State 

owned or privately owned land, including subsurface rights of such owners underlying public 

lands, or a valid mining claim or other valid occupancy is within or is effectively surrounded by 

one or more conservation system units, national recreation areas, national conservation areas, 

or those public lands designated as wilderness study, the State or private owner or occupier 

shall be given by the Secretary such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate and feasible 

access for economic and other purposes to the concerned land by such State or private owner or 
18 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

occupier and their successors in interest. Such rights shall be subject to reasonable regulations 

issued by the Secretary to protect the natural and other values of such lands. 

TEMPORARY ACCESS 

§1111. (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law the 

Secretary shall authorize and permit temporary access by the State or a private landowner to 

or across any conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, 

the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska or those public lands designated as wilderness study or 

managed to maintain the wilderness character or potential thereof, in order to permit the State 

or private landowner access to its land for purposes of survey geophysical, exploratory, or other 

temporary uses thereof whenever he determines such access will not result in permanent harm 

to the resources of such unit, area, Reserve or lands. 

(b) STIPULATIONS AND CONDITIONS.--In providing temporary access pursuant to subsection 

(a), the Secretary may include such stipulations and conditions he deems necessary to insure 

that the private use of public lands is accomplished in a manner that is not inconsistent with the 

purposes for which the public lands are reserved and which insures that no permanent harm will 

result to the resources of the unit, area, Reserve or lands. 

NORTH SLOPE HAUL ROAD 

§1112. (a) IN GENERAL.--So long as that section of the North Slope Haul Road referred to in 

subsection (c) is closed to public use, but not including regulated local traffc north of the 

Yukon River, regulated industrial traffc and regulated high occupancy buses, such regulation 

to occur under State law, except that the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary 

ofTransportation, and the Governor of Alaska shall agree on the number of vehicles and 

seasonality of use, such section shall be free from any and all restrictions contained in title 23, 

United States Code, as amended or supplemented, or in any regulations thereunder. Prior to 

executing an agreement pursuant to this subsection, the Secretary and the Governor of Alaska 

shall consult with the head of any unit of local government which encompasses lands located 

adjacent to the route of the North Slope Haul Road.The State of Alaska shall have the authority 

to limit access, impose restrictions and impose tolls, notwithstanding any provision of Federal 

law. 

(b) RELEASE.--The removal of restrictions shall not be conditioned upon repayment by the State 

of Alaska to theTreasurer of the United States of any Federal-aid highway funds paid on account 

of the section of highway described in subsection (c), and the obligation of the State of Alaska 

to repay these amounts is hereby released so long as the road remains closed as set forth in 

subsection (a). 

(c) APPLICATION OF SECTION.--The provisions of this section shall apply to that section of the 

North Slope Haul Road, which extends from the southern terminus of theYukon River Bridge to 

the northern terminus of the Road at Prudhoe Bay. 

STIKINE RIVER REGION 

§1113. Congress fnds that there is a need to study the effect of Government and this Act upon 

the ability of the Government of Canada to obtain access in the Stikine River region of southeast 

Alaska. Accordingly, within fve years from the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall 

consult with the Government of Canada and shall submit a report to the Congress containing 

his fndings and recommendations concerning the need, if any, to provide for such access. 

Such report shall include, among other things, an analysis of the need may result from various 

forms of access including, but not limited to, a road along the Stikine and Iskut Rivers, or other 

alternative routes should such access be permitted. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 19 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

ANILCA TITLE XIII 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 

MANAGEMENT PLANS 

§1301. (a) Within fve years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop 

and transmit to the appropriate Committees of the Congress a conservation and management 

plan for each of the units of the National Park System established or to which additions are made 

by this Act. 

(b) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.--Each plan for a unit established, 

redesignated, or expanded byTitle II shall identify management practices which will carry out 

the policies of this Act and will accomplish the purposes for which the concerned National Park 

System unit was established or expanded and shall include at least the following: 

(1) Maps indicating areas of particular importance as to wilderness, natural, historical, wildlife, 

cultural, archeological, paleotological, geological, recreational, and similar resources and also 

indicating the areas into which such unit will be divided for administrative purposes. 

(2) A description of the programs and methods that will be employed to manage fsh and wildlife 

resources and habitats, cultural, geological, recreational, and wilderness resources, and how 

each conservation system unit will contribute to overall resources management goals of that 

region. Such programs should include research, protection, restoration, development, and 

interpretation as appropriate. 

(3) A description of any areas of potential or proposed development, indicating types of visitor 

services and facilities to be provided, the estimated costs of such services and facilities, and 

whether or not such services and facilities could and should be provided outside the boundaries 

of such unit. 

(4) A plan for access to, and circulation within, such unit, indicating the type and location of 

transportation routes and facilities, if any. 

(5) A description of the programs and methods which the Secretary plans to use for the purposes 

of (A) encouraging the recognition and protection of the culture and history of the individuals 

residing, on the date of the enactment of this Act, in such unit and areas in the vicinity of such 

unit, and (B) providing and encouraging employment of such individuals. 

(6) A plan for acquiring land with respect to such unit including proposed modifcations in the 

boundaries of such unit. 

(7) A description (A) of privately owned areas, if any, which are within such unit, (B) of activities 

carried out in, or proposed for such areas, (C) of the present and potential effects of such 

activities on such unit, (D) of the purposes for which such areas are used, and (E) of methods 

(such as cooperative agreements and issuance or enforcement of regulations) of controlling the 

use of such activities to carry out the policies of this Act and the purposes for which such unit is 

established or expanded. 

(8) A plan indicating the relationship between the management of such unit and activities being 

carried out in, or proposed for, surrounding areas and also indicating cooperative agreements 

which could and should be entered into for the purpose of improving such management. 
20 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(c) CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS.--In developing, preparing, and revising a plan under this 

section the Secretary shall take into consideration at least the following factors: 

(1)The specifc purposes for which the concerned conservation system unit was established or 

expanded. 

(2) Protection and preservation of the ecological, environmental, wildlife, cultural, historical, 

archeological, geological, recreational, wilderness, and scenic character of the concerned unit 

and of areas in the vicinity of such unit. 

(3) Providing opportunities for Alaska Natives residing in the concerned unit and areas adjacent 

to such unit to continue performing in such unit activities which they have traditionally or 

historically performed in such unit. 

(4) Activities being carried out in areas adjacent to, or surrounded by, the concerned unit. 

(d) HEARING AND PARTICIPATION.--In developing, preparing, and revising a plan under this 

section the Secretary shall hold at least one public hearing in the vicinity of the concerned 

conservation unit, hold at least one public hearing in a metropolitan area of Alaska, and, to the 

extent practicable, permit the following persons to participate in the development, preparation, 

and revision of such plan: 

(1)The Alaska Land Use Council and offcials of Federal agencies whose activities will be 

signifcantly affected by implementation of such plan. 

(2) Offcials of the State and of political subdivisions of the State whose activities will be 

signifcantly affected by implementation of such plan. 

(3) Offcials of Native Corporations which will be signifcantly affected by implementation of such 

plan. 

(4) Concerned local, State, and National organizations and interested individuals. 

LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

§1302. (a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, 

the Secretary is authorized, consistent with other applicable law in order to carry out the 

purposes of this Act, to acquire by purchase, donation, exchange, or otherwise any lands within 

the boundaries of any conservation system unit other than National Forest Wilderness. 

(b) RESTRICTIONS.--Lands located within the boundaries of a conservation system unit which 

are owned by--

(A) the State or a political subdivision of the State; 

(B) a Native Corporation or Native Group which has Natives as a majority of its stockholders; 

(C) the actual occupant of a tract, title to the surface estate of which was on, before, or after 

the date of enactment of this Act conveyed to such occupant pursuant to §14(c)(1) and §149(h) 

(5) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, unless the Secretary determines that the tract is 

no longer occupied for the purpose described in §14(c)(1) or §14(h)(5) for which the tract was 

conveyed and that activities on the tract are or will be detrimental to the purposes of the unit in 

which the tract is located; or 

(D) a spouse or lineal descendant of the actual occupant of a tract described in subparagraph 

(C), unless the Secretary determines that activities on the tract are or will be detrimental to the 

purposes of the unit in which the tract is located--
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 21 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

may not be acquired by the Secretary without the consent of the owner. 

(c) EXCHANGES.--Lands located within the boundaries of a conservation system unit (other than 

National Forest Wilderness) which are owned by persons or entities other than those described 

in subsection (b) of this section shall not be acquired by the Secretary without the consent of the 

owner unless prior to fnal judgment on the value of the acquired land, the owner, after being 

offered appropriate land of similar characteristics and like value (if such land is available from 

public lands located outside the boundaries of any conservation system unit), chooses not to 

accept the exchange. In identifying public lands for exchange pursuant to this subsection, the 

Secretary shall consult with the Alaska Land Use Council. 

(d) IMPROVED PROPERTY.--No improved property shall be acquired under subsection (a) without 

the consent of the owner unless the Secretary frst determines that such acquisition is necessary 

to the purposes for which the concerned conservation system unit was established or expanded. 

(e) RETAINED RIGHTS.--The owner of an improved property on the for himself, his heirs and 

assigns, a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential 

or recreational purposes, as the case may be, for a defnite term of not more than twenty-fve 

years, or in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner or the death of his spouse, 

whichever is later.The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. Unless the property is wholly 

or partially donated, the Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the owner’s 

interest in the property on the date of its acquisition, less the fair market value on that date of 

the right retained by the owner. A right retained by the owner pursuant to this section shall be 

subject to termination by the Secretary upon his determination that such right is being exercised 

in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, and it shall terminate by operation of law 

upon notifcation by the Secretary to the holder of the right of such determination and tendering 

to him the amount equal to the fair market value of that portion which remains unexpired. 

(f) DEFINITION.--For the purposes of this section, the term “Improved property” means--

(1) a detached single family dwelling, the construction of which was begun before January 1, 

1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “dwelling”), together with the land on which the dwelling is 

situated to the extent that such land--

(A) is in the same ownership as the dwelling or is Federal land on which entry was legal and 

proper, and 

(B) is designated by the Secretary to be necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the 

sole purpose of noncommercial residential use, together with any structures necessary to the 

dwelling which are situated on the land so designated, or 

(2) property developed for noncommercial recreational uses together with any structures 

accessory thereto which were so used on or before January 1, 1980, to the extent that entry onto 

such property was legal and proper. 

In determining when and to what extent a property is to be considered an “improved property”, 

the Secretary shall take into consideration the manner of use of such buildings and lands prior 

to January 1 1980, and shall designate such lands as are reasonably necessary for the continued 

enjoyment of the property in the same manner and to the same extent as existed before such 

date. 

(g) CONSIDERATION OF HARDSHIP.--The Secretary shall give prompt and careful consideration 

to any offer made by the owner of any property within a ConserVation system unit to sell such. 

property. if such owner notifes the Secretary that the continued ownership is causing, or would 

result in, undue hardship. 
22 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(h) EXCHANGE AUTHORITY.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in acquiring lands 

for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to exchange lands (including lands 

within conservation system units and within the National Forest System) or interests therein 

(including Native selection rights) with the corporations organized by the Native Groups, Village 

Corporations, Regional Corporations, and the Urban Corporations, and other municipalities 

and corporations or individuals, the State (acting free of the restrictions of §6(i) of the Alaska 

Statehood Act), or any Federal agency. Exchanges shall be on the basis of equal value, and either 

party to the exchange may pay or accept cash in order to equalize the value of the property 

exchanged, except that if the parties agree to an exchange and the Secretary determines it is in 

the public interest, such exchanges may be made for other than equal value. 

(i)(1)The Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation or exchange, lands (A) which are 

contiguous to any conservation system unit established or expanded by this Act, and (B) which 

are owned or validly selected by the State of Alaska. 

(2) Any such lands so acquired shall become a part of such conservation system unit. 

USE OF CABINS AND OTHER SITES OF OCCUPANCY ON CONSERVATION SYSTEM UNITS 

§1303. (a) IMPROVED PROPERTY ON NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM LANDS.--

(1) On public lands within the boundaries of any unit of the National Park System created or 

enlarged by this Act, cabins or other structures existing prior to December 18, 1973, may be 

occupied and used by the claimant to these structures pursuant to a renewable, nontransferable 

permit. Such use and occupancy shall be for terms of fve years each: Provided,That the claimant 

of the structure by application: 

(A) Reasonably demonstrates by affdavit, bill of sale or other documentation, proof of 

possessory interest or right of occupancy in the cabin or structure; 

(B) Submits a sketch or photograph of the cabin or structure and a map showing its geographic 

location; 

(C) Agrees to vacate the cabin and to remove all personal property from the cabin or structure 

upon expiration of the permit; and 

(D) Acknowledges in the permit that the applicant has no interest in the real property on which 

the cabin or structure is located. 

(2) On public lands within the boundaries of any unit of the National Park System created or 

enlarged by this Act, cabins or other structures, the occupancy or use of which commenced 

between December 18, 1973, and December 1, 1978, may be used and occupied by the claimant 

of such structure pursuant to a nontransferable, nonrenewable permit. Such use and occupancy 

shall be for a maximum term of one year: Provided, however,That the claimant, by application: 

(A) Reasonably demonstrates by affdavit, bill of sale, or other documentation proof of 

possessory interest or right of occupancy in the cabin or structure; 

(B) Submits a sketch or photograph of the cabin or structure and a map showing its geographic 

location; 

(C) Agrees to vacate the cabin or structure and to remove all personal property from it upon 

expiration of the permit; and 

(D) Acknowledges in the permit that the applicant has no legal interest in the real property on 

which the cabin or structure is located. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 23 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

The Secretary may, on a case by case basis, subject to reasonable regulations, extend such 

permit term beyond one year for such reasons as the Secretary deems equitable and just. 

(3) Cabins or other structures not under permit as specifed herein shall be used only for offcial 

government business: Provided, however,That during emergencies involving the safety of 

human life or where designated for public use by the Secretary, these cabins may be used by the 

general public. 

(4)The Secretary may issue a permit under such conditions as he may prescribe for the 

temporary use, occupancy, construction and maintenance of new cabins or other structures 

if he determines that the use is necessary to reasonably accommodate subsistence uses or is 

otherwise authorized by law. 

(b) IMPROVED PROPERTY ON OTHER UNITS OR AREAS ESTABLISHED OR EXPANDED BYTHIS 

ACT.--The following conditions shall apply regarding the construction, use and occupancy of 

cabins and related structures on Federal lands within conservation system units or areas not 

provided for in subsection (a) of this section: 

(1)The construction of new cabins is prohibited except as may be authorized pursuant to a 

nontransferable, fve-year special use permit issued by the Secretary. Such special use permit 

shall only be issued upon a determination that the proposed use construction, and maintenance 

of a cabin is compatible with the purposes for which the unit or area was established and 

that the use of the cabin is either directly related to the administration of the unit or area or is 

necessary to provide for a continuation of an ongoing activity or use otherwise allowed within 

the unit or area where the permit applicant has no reasonable alternative site for constructing a 

cabin. No special use permit shall be issued to authorize the construction of a cabin for private 

recreational use. 

(2)Traditional and customary uses of existing cabins and related structures on Federal lands 

within a unit or area may be and allowed to continue in accordance with a nontransferable, 

renewable fve-year special use permit issued by the Secretary. Such special use permit shall be 

issued only upon a determination that the traditional and customary uses are compatible with 

the purposes for which the unit or area was established. No special use permits shall be issued 

to authorize the use of an existing cabin constructed for private recreational use. 

(3) No special use permit shall be issued under subsections (b)(1) or (2) unless the permit 

applicant: 

(A) In the case of existing cabins or structures, reasonably demonstrates by affdavit, bill of sale 

or other documentation, proof of possessory interests or right of occupancy in the cabin or 

structure; 

(B) Submits a sketch or photograph of the existing or proposed cabin or structure and a map 

showing its geographic location; 

(C) Agrees to vacate the cabin or structure and remove within a reasonable time period 

established by the Secretary, all personal property from it upon nonrenewal or revocation of the 

permit; and 

(D) Acknowledges in the permit application that the applicant has no interest in the real property 

on which the cabin or structure is located or will be constructed. 

(4)The United States shall retain ownership of all new cabins and related structures on Federal 

lands within a unit or area specifed in this subsection, and no proprietary rights or privileges 

shall be conveyed through the issuance of the special use permit authorized by paragraphs (1) or 

(2) of this subsection. Cabins or other structures not under permit shall be used only for offcial 

Government business: Provided, however,That during emergencies involving the safety of 
24 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

human life or where designated for public use by the unit or area manager, such cabins may be 

used by the general public. 

(c) PERMITSTO BE RENEWED FOR LIFE OF CLAIMANT AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY.--

(1) Whenever issuance of a nontransferable renewable fve year special use permit is authorized 

by subsections (a) or (b) of this section, said permit shall be renewed every fve years until the 

death of the last immediate family member of the claimant residing in the cabin or structure, 

or unless the Secretary has revoked the special use permit in accordance with the criteria 

established in this section. 

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary, after notice and hearing, 

may revoke a permit provided for in this section if he determines, on the basis of substantial 

evidence in the administrative record as a whole, that the use under the permit is causing or 

may cause signifcant detriment to the principal purposes for which the unit was established. 

(d) EXISTING CABIN LEASES OR PERMITS.--Nothing in this Act shall preclude the renewal or 

continuation of valid leases or permits in effect on the date of enactment of this Act for cabins, 

homesites, or similar structures on Federal lands. Unless the Secretary, or in the case of national 

forest lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, issues specifc fndings following notice and an 

opportunity for the leaseholder or permittee to respond, that renewal or continuation of such 

valid permit or lease constitutes a direct threat to or a signifcant impairment to the purposes 

for which a conservation system unit was established (in the case of a structure located within 

a conservation system unit) or the public domain or national forest (in case of a structure 

located outside conservation system units), he shall renew such valid leases or permits upon 

their expiration in accordance with the provisions of the original lease or permit, subject to such 

reasonable regulations as he may prescribe. Subject to the provisions of the original lease or 

permit, nothing in this Act or subsection shall necessarily preclude the appropriate Secretary 

from transferring such a lease or permit to another person at the election or death of the original 

permittee or leasee. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SITES 

§1304. Notwithstanding any acreage or boundary limitations contained in this Act with respect 

to the Cape Krusenstern National Monument, the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, the 

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, and the Kobuk Valley National Park, the Secretary may 

designate Federal lands or he may acquire by purchase with the consent of the owner, donation, 

or exchange any signifcant archeological or paleontological site in Alaska located outside of the 

boundaries of such areas and containing resources which are closely associated with any such 

area. If any such site is so designated or acquired, it shall be included in and managed as part 

of such area. Not more than seven thousand fve hundred acres of land may be designated or 

acquired under this section for inclusion in any single area. Before designation or acquisition of 

any property in excess of one hundred acres under the provisions of this section, the Secretary 

shall--

(1) submit notice of such proposed designation or acquisition to the appropriate committees of 

the Congress; and 

(2) publish notice of such proposed designation or acquisition in the Federal Register. 

COOPERATIVE INFORMATION/EDUCATION CENTERS 

§1305.The Secretary is authorized in consultation with other Federal agencies, to investigate 

and plan for an information and education center for visitors to Alaska on not to exceed one 

thousand acres of Federal land at a site adjacent to the Alaska Highway, and to investigate 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 25 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

and plan for similar centers in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska. For the purposes of this 

investigation, the Secretary shall seek participation in the program planning and/or operation 

of such centers from appropriate agencies of the State of Alaska, and he is authorized to accept 

contributions of funds, personnel, and planning and program assistance from such State 

agencies, other Federal agencies, and Native representatives.The Secretary of Agriculture is 

authorized to investigate and plan for, in a similar manner, an information and education center 

for visitors to Alaska in either Juneau, Ketchikan, or Sitka, Alaska. No information center shall be 

developed pursuant to investigations and plans conducted under authority of this section unless 

and until such development is specifcally authorized by Congress. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SITES AND VISITOR FACILITIES 

§1306. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--In conformity with the conservation and management plans 

prepared for each unit and the purposes of assuring the preservation, protection, and proper 

management of any conservation system unit, the Secretary may establish sites and visitor 

facilities--

(1) within the unit, if compatible with the purposes for which the unit is established, expanded, 

or designated by this Act, and the other provisions of this Act, or 

(2) outside the boundaries of, and in the vicinity of the unit.To the extent practicable and 

desirable, the Secretary shall attempt to locate such sites and facilities on Native lands in the 

vicinity of the unit. 

(b) AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY.--For the purpose of establishing administrative sites and 

visitor facilities under subsection (a)--

(1) the Secretary and the head of the Federal agency having primary authority over the 

administration of any Federal land which the Secretary determines is suitable for use in carrying 

out such purpose may enter into agreements permitting the Secretary to use such land for such 

purposes; 

(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary under such terms and conditions 

as he determines are reasonable, may lease or acquire by purchase, donation, exchange, or 

any other method (except condemnation) real property (other than Federal land), offce space, 

housing, and other necessary facilities which the Secretary determines to be suitable for carrying 

out such purposes; and 

(3) the Secretary may construct, operate, and maintain such permanent and temporary 

buildings and facilities as he deems appropriate on land which is within, or in the vicinity of, 

any conservation system unit and with respect to which the Secretary has acquired authority 

under this subsection to use the property for the purpose of establishing an administrative site 

or visitor facility under subsection (a), except that the Secretary may not begin construction of 

buildings and facilities on land not owned by the United States until the owner of such land has 

entered into an agreement with the Secretary, the terms of which assure the continued use of 

such buildings and facilities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. 

REVENUE-PRODUCING VISITOR SERVICES 

§1307. (a) CONTINUATION OF EXISTING VISITOR SERVICES.--Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the Secretary, under such terms and conditions as he determines are 

reasonable, shall permit any persons who, on or before January 1, 1979, were engaged in 

adequately providing any type of visitor service within any area established as or added to a 

conservation system unit to continue providing such type of service and similar types of visitor 
26 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

services within such area if such service or services are consistent with the purposes for which 

such unit is established or expanded. 

(b) PREFERENCE.--Notwithstanding provisions of law other than those contained in subsection 

(a), in selecting persons to provide (and in contracting for the provision of) any type of visitor 

service for any conservation system unit, except sport fshing and hunting guiding activities, the 

Secretary--

(1) shall give preference to the Native Corporation which the Secretary determines is most 

directly affected by the establishment or expansion of such unit by or under the provisions of 

this Act; 

(2) shall give preference to persons whom he determines, by rule, are local residents; and 

(3) shall, consistent with the provisions of this section, offer to Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated, 

in cooperation with Village Corporations within the Cook Inlet Region when appropriate, the 

right of frst refusal to provide new revenue producing visitor services within the Kenai National 

Moose Range or that portion of the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve within the boundaries 

of the Cook Inlet Region that right to remain open for a period of ninety days as agreed to in 

paragraph VIII of the document referred to in §12 of the Act of January 2, 1976 (Public Law 94-

204). 

(c) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, the term “visitor service” means any service made 

available for a fee or charge to persons who visit a conservation system unit, including such 

services as providing food, accommodations, transportation, tours, and guides excepting the 

guiding of sport hunting and fshing. Nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of the 

Federal Government or the State of Alaska to license and regulate transportation services. 

LOCAL HIRE 

§1308. (a) PROGRAM.--After consultation with the Offce of Personnel Management, the 

Secretary shall establish a program under which any individual who, by reason of having lived 

or worked in or near a conservation system unit, has special knowledge or expertise concerning 

the natural or cultural resources of such unit and the management thereof (as determined by the 

Secretary) shall be considered for selection for any position within such unit without regard to--

(1) any provision of the civil service laws or regulations thereunder which require minimum 

periods of formal training or experience, 

(2) any such provision which provides an employment preference to any other class of applicant 

in such selection, and 

(3) any numerical limitation on personnel otherwise applicable. 

Individuals appointed under this subsection shall not be taken into account in applying any 

personnel limitation described in paragraph (3). 

(b) REPORTS.--The Secretary shall from time to time prepare and submit to the Congress reports 

indicating the actions taken in carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section 

together with any recommendations for legislation in furtherance of the purposes of this section. 

KLONDIKE GOLD RUSH NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

§1309.The second sentence of subsection (b)(1) of the frst section of the Act entitled “An Act to 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical 

Park in the States of Alaska and Washington, and for other purposes”, approved June 30, 1976 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 27 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(90 Stat. 717), is amended to read as follows: “Lands or interests in lands owned by the State of 

Alaska or any political subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation or exchange, and 

notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 6(i) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (72 Stat. 339, 342), 

commonly known as the Alaska Statehood Act, the State may include the minerals in any such 

transaction.”. 

NAVIGATION AIDS AND OTHER FACILITIES 

§1310 (a) EXISTING FACILITIES.--Within conservation system units established or expanded 

by this Act, reasonable access to, and operation and maintenance of, existing air and water 

navigation aids communications sites and related facilities and existing facilities for weather, 

climate, and fsheries research and monitoring shall be permitted in accordance with the laws 

and regulations applicable to units of such systems, as appropriate. Reasonable access to and 

operation and maintenance of facilities for national defense purposes and related air and water 

navigation aids within or adjacent to such areas shall continue in accordance with the laws and 

regulations governing such facilities notwithstanding any other provision of this Act. Nothing in 

the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to prohibit such access, operation and maintenance within 

wilderness areas designated by this Act. 

(b) NEW FACILITIES.--The establishment, operation, and maintenance within any conservation 

system unit of new air and water navigation aids and related facilities, facilities for national 

defense purposes, and related air and water navigation aids, and facilities for weather, climate, 

and fsheries research and monitoring shall be permitted but only (1) after consultation with the 

Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate, by the head of the Federal department 

or agency undertaking such establishment, operation, or maintenance, and (2) in accordance 

with such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed in order to minimize the adverse 

effects of such activities within such unit. 

SCENIC HIGHWAY STUDY 

§1311. (a) WITHDRAWAL.--Subject to valid existing rights, all public lands within an area, the 

centerline of which is the centerline of the Parks Highway from the entrance to Denali National 

Park to theTalkeetna junction which is one hundred and thirty-six miles south of Cantwell, the 

Denali Highway between Cantwell and Paxson, the Richardson Highway and Edgerton Highway 

between Paxson and Chitina, and the existing road between Chitina and McCarthy (as those 

highways and road are depicted on the offcial maps of the department of transportation of the 

State of Alaska) and the boundaries of which are parallel to the centerline and one mile distant 

therefrom on either side, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under 

the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United States. Nothing 

in this section shall be construed to preclude minor road realignment minor road improvement, 

or the extraction of gravel for such purposes from lands withdrawn or affected by the study 

mandated herein. 

(b) STUDY.--During the three-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall study the desirability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway to consist of 

all or part of the lands described in subsection (a) of this section. In conducting the studies, 

the Secretary, through a study team which includes representatives of the Secretary of 

Transportation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the State, and of 

each Regional Corporation within whose area of operation the lands described in subsection 

(a) are located, shall consider the scenic and recreational values of the lands withdrawn under 

this section, the importance of providing protection to those values, the desirability of providing 

a symbolic and actual physical connection between the national parks in south central Alaska, 

and the desirability of enhancing the experience of persons traveling between those parks by 

motor vehicles. Members of the study team who are not Federal employees shall receive from 
28 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

the Secretary per diem (in lieu of expenses) and travel allowances at the rates provided for 

employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska in grade GS-15. 

(c) COOPERATION NOTICE: HEARINGS.--In conducting the studies required by this section, 

the Secretary shall cooperate with the State and shall consult with each Village Corporation 

within whose area of operation lands described in this section are located and to the maximum 

extent practicable with the owner of any lands adjoining the lands described in subsection (a) 

concerning the desirability of establishing a Denali Scenic Highway.The Secretary, through the 

National Park Service, shall also give such public notice of the study as he deems appropriate, 

including at least publication in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in the 

area or areas of the lands described in subsection (a), and shall hold a public hearing or hearings 

at one or more locations convenient to the areas affected. 

(d) REPORT.--Within three years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

report to the President the results of the studies carried out pursuant to this section together 

with his recommendation as to whether the scenic highway studied should be established and, 

if his recommendation is to establish the scenic highway, the lands described in subsection (a) 

which should be included therein. Such report shall include the views and recommendations of 

all members of the study team.The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendations and those of the Governor of 

Alaska with respect to creation of the scenic highways, together with maps thereof, a defnition 

of boundaries thereof, an estimate of costs, recommendations on administration, and proposed 

legislation to create such a scenic highway, if creation of one is recommended. 

(e) PERIOD OF WITHDRAWAL.--The lands withdrawn under subsection (a) of this section shall 

remain withdrawn until such time as the Congress acts on the President’s recommendation, but 

not to exceed two years after the recommendation is transmitted to the Congress. 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE WHITE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

§1312. (a)The White Mountains National Recreation Area established by this Act shall be 

administered by the Secretary in order to provide for public outdoor recreation use and 

enjoyment and for the conservation of the scenic, scientifc, historic, fsh and wildlife and other 

values contributing to public enjoyment of such area Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 

the Secretary shall administer the recreation area in a manner which in his judgment will best 

provide for (1) public outdoor recreation benefts; (2) conservation of scenic, scientifc, historic, 

fsh and wildlife, and other values contributing to public enjoyment; and (3) such management, 

utilization, and disposal of natural resources and the continuation of such existing uses and 

developments as will promote, or are compatible with, or do not signifcantly impair public 

recreation and conservation of the scenic, scientifc, historic, fsh and wildlife, or other values 

contributing to public enjoyment. In administering the recreation area, the Secretary may utilize 

such statutory authorities available to him for the conservation and management of natural 

resources as he deems appropriate for recreation and preservation purposes and for resource 

development compatible therewith. 

(b)The lands within the recreation area, subject to valid existing rights, are hereby withdrawn 

from State selection under the Alaska Statehood Act or other law, and from location, entry, 

and patent under the United States mining laws.The Secretary under such removal reasonable 

regulations as he deems appropriate, may permit the removal of the nonleasable minerals from 

lands or interests in lands within the recreation area in the manner described by §10 of the Act of 

August 4, 1939, as amended (43 U.S.C. 387), and he may permit the removal of leasable minerals 

from lands or interests in lands within the recreation areas in accordance with the mineral 

leasing laws, if he fnds that such disposition would not have signifcant adverse effects on the 

administration of the recreation areas. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 29 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

(c) All receipts derived from permits and leases issued on lands or interest in lands within the 

recreation area under the mineral leasing laws shall be disposed of as provided in such laws; 

and receipts from the disposition of nonleasable minerals within the recreation area shall be 

disposed of in the same manner as moneys received from the sale of public lands. 

ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PRESERVES 

§1313. A National Preserve in Alaska shall be administered and managed as a unit of the 

National Park System in the same manner as a national park except as otherwise provided in 

this Act and except that the taking of fsh and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, 

and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law 

and regulation. Consistent with the provisions of §816, within national preserves the Secretary 

may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, fshing, trapping, or entry may be 

permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, foral and faunal protection, or public use 

and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribing such restrictions relating to 

hunting, fshing, or trapping shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate 

State agency having responsibility over hunting, fshing, and trapping activities. 

TAKING OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

§1314. (a) Nothing in this Act is intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority 

of the State of Alaska for management of fsh and wildlife on the public lands except as may be 

provided inTitle VIII of this Act, or to amend the Alaska constitution. 

(b) Except as specifcally provided otherwise by this Act, nothing in this Act is intended to 

enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the Secretary over the management of the 

public lands. 

(c)The taking of fsh and wildlife in all conservation system units; and in national conservation 

areas, national recreation areas, and national forests, shall be carried out in accordance with 

the provisions of this Act and other applicable State and Federal law.Those areas designated as 

national parks or national park system monuments in the State shall be closed to the taking of 

fsh and wildlife, except that--

(1) notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary shall administer those units of 

the National Park System and those additions to existing units, established by this Act and which 

permit subsistence uses, to provide an opportunity for the continuance of such uses by local 

rural residents; and 

(2) fshing shall be permitted by the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of this Act and 

other applicable State and Federal law. 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT 

§1315. (a) APPLICATION ONLYTO ALASKA.--The provisions of this section are enacted in 

recognition of the unique conditions in Alaska. Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to expand, diminish, or modify the provisions of the Wilderness Act or the application or 

interpretation of such provisions with respect to lands outside of Alaska. 

(b) AQUACULTURE.--In accordance with the goal of restoring and maintaining fsh production 

in the State of Alaska to optimum sustained yield levels and in a manner which adequately 

assures protection, preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation of the wilderness resource, 

the Secretary of Agriculture may permit fshery research, management, enhancement, and 

rehabilitation activities within national forest wilderness and national forest wilderness study 

areas designated by this Act. Subject to reasonable regulations permanent improvements 
30 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

and facilities such as fshways, fsh weirs, fsh ladders, fsh hatcheries, spawning channels, 

stream clearance, egg planting, and other accepted means of maintaining, enhancing, and 

rehabilitating fsh stocks may be permitted by the Secretary to achieve this objective. Any fsh 

hatchery, fshpass or other aquaculture facility authorized for any such area shall be constructed, 

managed, and operated in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the wilderness character 

of the area. Developments for any such activities shall involve those facilities essential to these 

operations and shall be constructed in such rustic manner as to blend into the natural character 

of the area. Reasonable access solely for the purposes of this subsection, including temporary 

use of motorized equipment, shall be permitted in furtherance of research, management, 

rehabilitation and enhancement activities subject to reasonable regulations as the Secretary 

deems desirable to maintain the wilderness character, water quality, and fsh and wildlife values 

of the area. 

(c) EXISTING CABINS.--Previously existing public use cabins within wilderness designated 

by this Act, may be permitted to continue and may be maintained or replaced subject to such 

restrictions as the Secretary deems necessary to preserve the wilderness character of the area. 

(d) NEW CABINS.--Within wilderness areas designated by this Act the Secretary or the Secretary 

of Agriculture as appropriate, is authorized to construct and maintain a limited number of new 

public use cabins and shelters if such cabins and shelters are necessary for the proteCtion of the 

public health and safety. All such cabins or shelters shall be constructed of materials which blend 

and are compatible with the immediate and surrounding wilderness landscape.The Secretary 

or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate, shall notify the House Committee on Interior and 

Insular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of his intention to 

remove an existing or construct a new public use cabin or shelter. 

(e)TIMBER CONTRACTS.--The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby directed to modify any existing 

national forest timber sale contracts applying to lands designated by this Act as wilderness by 

substituting, to the extent practicable, timber on the other national forest lands approximately 

equal in volume, species, grade, and accessibility for timber or relevant lands within such units. 

(f) BEACH LOG SALVAGE.--Within National Forest wilderness and national forest monuments 

designated by this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may permit or otherwise regulate the 

recovery and salvage of logs from coastlines. 

ALLOWED USES 

§1316. (a) On all public lands where the taking of fsh and wildlife is permitted in accordance 

with the provisions of this Act or other applicable State and Federal law the Secretary shall 

permit subject to reasonable regulation to insure compatibility, the continuance of existing uses, 

and the future establishment, and use, of temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and 

other temporary facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related to such activities. Such 

facilities and equipment shall be constructed, used, and maintained in a manner consistent with 

the protection of the area in which they are located. All new facilities shall be constructed of 

materials which blend with, and are compatible with, the immediately surrounding landscape. 

Upon termination of such activities and uses (but not upon regular or seasonal cessation), such 

structures or facilities shall, upon written request, be removed from the area by the permittee. 

(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Secretary may determine, after adequate 

notice, that the establishment and use of such new facilities or equipment would constitute a 

signifcant expansion of existing facilities or uses which would be detrimental to the purposes 

for which the affected conservation system unit was established, including the wilderness 

character of any wilderness area within such unit, and may thereupon deny such proposed use 

or establishment. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 31 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

GENERAL WILDERNESS REVIEW PROVISION 

§1317. (a) Within fve years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, in 

accordance with the provisions of §3(d) of the Wilderness Act relating to public notice, public 

hearings, and review by State and other agencies, review, as to their suitability or nonsuitability 

for preservation as wilderness, all lands within units of the National Park System and units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska not designated as wilderness by this Act and report 

his fndings to the President. 

(b)The Secretary shall conduct his review, and the President shall advise the United States 

Senate and House of Representatives of his in accordance with the provisions of §3(c) and §(d) 

of the Wilderness Act.The President shall advise the Congress of his recommendations with 

respect to such areas within seven years from the date of enactment of this Act. 

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the administration of any unit of the 

National Park System or unit of National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with this Act or 

other applicable provisions of law unless and until Congress provides otherwise by taking action 

on any Presidential recommendation made pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. 

STATEWIDE CULTURAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

§1318. In furtherance of the national policy set forth in the frst section of the Act entitled “An Act 

to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of 

national signifcance, and for other purposes”, approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666), and in 

furtherance of the need to protect and interpret for the public beneft cultural and archeological 

resources and objects of national signifcance relating to prehistoric and historic human use and 

occupation of lands and waters in Alaska, the Secretary may, upon the application of a Native 

Corporation or Native Group provide advice, assistance, and technical expertise to the applicant 

in the preservation, display, and interpretation of cultural resources without regard as to whether 

title to such resources is in the United States Such assistance may include making available 

personnel to assist m the planning, design, and operation of buildings, facilities and interpretive 

displays for the public and personnel to train individuals in the identifcation, recovery, 

preservation, demonstration, and management of cultural resources. 

EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS 

§1319. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of 

the United States or--

(1) as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water 

on lands within the State of Alaska; 

(2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in 

water resources development or control; or 

(3) as superseding, modifying, or repealing, except as specifcally set forth in this Act, existing 

laws applicable to the various Federal agencies which are authorized to develop or participate in 

the development of water resources or to exercise licensing or regulatory functions in relation 

thereto. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND REVIEWS 

§1320. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, §603 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 shall not apply to any lands in Alaska. However, in carrying out his 

duties under §201 and §202 of such Act and other applicable laws, the Secretary may identify 

areas in Alaska which he determines are suitable as wilderness and may, from time to time, 
32 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

make recommendations to the Congress for inclusion of any such areas in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, pursuant to the provisions of the Wilderness Act. In the 

absence of congressional action relating to any such recommendation of the Secretary, the 

Bureau of Land Management shall manage all such areas which are within its jurisdiction in 

accordance with the applicable land use plans and applicable provisions of law. 

AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION 

§1321. (a)There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 

to carry out the provisions of this Act for fscal years beginning after the fscal year 1980. No 

authority to enter into contracts or to make payments or to expend previously appropriated 

funds under this Act shall be effective except to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in 

advance in appropriation Acts. 

EFFECT ON PRIOR WITHDRAWALS 

§1322. (a)The withdrawals and reservations of the public lands made by Public Land Orders 

No. 5653 of November 16, 1978, 5654 of November 17, 1978, Public Land Orders numbered 

5696 through 5711 inclusive of February 12, 1980, Federal Register Documents No. 34051, 

of December 5, 1978 and No. 79-17803 of June 8, 1979 and Proclamations No. 4611 through 

4627, inclusive, of December 1, 1978 were promulgated to protect these lands from selection, 

appropriation, or disposition prior to the enactment of this Act. As to all lands not within the 

boundaries established by this Act of any conservation system unit, national conservation area, 

national recreation area, or national forest addition, the aforesaid withdrawals and reservations 

are hereby rescinded on the effective date of this Act, and such lands shall be managed by the 

Secretary pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, or in the case of 

lands within a national forest, by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the laws applicable 

to the national forests, unless otherwise specifed by this Act. As to the Federal lands which are 

within the aforesaid boundaries, the aforesaid withdrawals and reservations are, on the effective 

date of this Act, hereby rescinded and superseded by the withdrawals and reservations made 

by this Act. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in any law, the Federal 

lands within the aforesaid boundaries established by this Act shall not be deemed available for 

selection, appropriation, or disposition except as expressly provided by this Act. 

(b)This section shall become effective upon the relinquishment by the State of Alaska of 

selections made on November 14, 1978, pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act which are located 

within the boundaries of conservation system units, national conservation areas, national 

recreation areas, and forest additions, established, designated, or expanded by this Act. 

ACCESS 

§1323. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions 

as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to 

nonfederally owned land within the boundaries of the National Forest System as the Secretary 

deems adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided, 

That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to ingress and egress to or from 

the National Forest System. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the 

Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederally 

owned land surrounded by public lands managed by the Secretary under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-82) as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to 

the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof: Provided,That such owner comply with 

rules and regulations applicable to access across public lands. 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 33 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

YUKON FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AGRICULTURAL USE 

§1324. Nothing in this Act or other existing law shall be construed as necessarily prohibiting 

or mandating the development of agricultural potential within theYukon Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge pursuant to existing law.The permissibility of such development shall be determined 

by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis under existing law. Any such development permitted 

within theYukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge shall be designed and conducted in such a 

manner as to minimize to the maximum extent possible any adverse effects of the natural values 

of the unit. 

TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN KODIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

§1325. Nothing in this Act or the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 668dd) shall be construed as necessarily prohibiting or mandating the construction of the 

Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.The permissibility of 

such development shall be determined by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis under existing 

law. 

FUTURE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS 

§1326. (a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than fve thousand acres, in 

the aggregate, of public lands within the State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance 

with this subsection.To the extent authorized by existing law, the President or the Secretary may 

withdraw public lands in the State of Alaska exceeding fve thousand acres in the aggregate, 

which withdrawal shall not become effective until notice is provided in the Federal Register and 

to both Houses of Congress. Such withdrawal shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint 

resolution of approval within one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been submitted to 

Congress. 

(b) No further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of 

considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national 

conservation areas or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by 

this Act or further Act of Congress. 

ALASKA GAS PIPELINE 

§1327. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any additional requirements in 

connection with the construction and operation of the transportation system designated by the 

President and approved by the Congress pursuant to the Alaska Natural GasTransportation Act 

of 1976 (Public Law 94-586; 90 Stat. 2903), or as imposing any limitations upon the authority of 

the Secretary concerning such system. 

PUBLIC LAND ENTRIES IN ALASKA 

§1328. (a)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, all applications made pursuant to the Acts of June 

1, 1938 (52 Stat. 609), May 3, 1927 (44 Stat. 1364), May 14, 1898 (30 Stat. 413), and March 3, 1891 

(26 Stat. 1097), which were fled with the Department of the Interior within the time provided 

by applicable law, and which describe land in Alaska that was available for entry under the 

aforementioned statutes when such entry occurred, are hereby approved on the one hundred 

and eightieth day following the effective date of this Act except where provided otherwise 

by paragraph (3) or (4) of this subsection, or where the land description of the entry must be 

adjusted pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, in which cases approval pursuant to the 

terms of this subsection shall be effective at the time the adjustment becomes fnal. 
34 Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

(2) Where an application describes land within the boundaries of a unit of the National Park 

System or a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System in theTongass or Chugach National Forests established before the effective 

date of this Act or by this Act, and the described land was not withdrawn pursuant to §11(a)(1) of 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or where an application describes land which has been 

patented or deeded to the State of Alaska or which on or before the date of entry was validly 

selected by tentatively approved, patented, deeded or confrmed to the State of Alaska pursuant 

to applicable law and was not withdrawn pursuant to §11(a)(1)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act from those lands made available for selection by §11(a)(2) of the Act by any 

Native Village certifed as eligible pursuant to §11(b) of such Act, paragraph (1) of this subsection 

and subsection (c) of this section shall not apply and the application shall be adjudicated 

pursuant to the requirements of the Acts referred to in §1328(a)(1) hereof, the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act and other applicable law. 

(3) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and subsection (c) shall not apply and the application shall 

be adjudicated pursuant to the requirements of the Acts referred to in §1328(a)(1) hereof, if on or 

before the one hundred and eightieth day following the effective date of the Act--

(A) a Native Corporation fles a protest with the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) stating 

that the applicant is not entitled to the land described in the application, and said land is 

withdrawn for selection by the corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; 

or 

(B) the State of Alaska fles a protest with the Secretary stating that the land described in the 

application is necessary for access to lands owned by the United States, the State of Alaska, or 

a political subdivision of the State of Alaska, to resources located thereon, or to a public body 

of water regularly employed for transportation purposes, and the protest states with specifcity 

the facts upon which the conclusions concerning access are based and that no reasonable 

alternatives for access exist; or 

(C) a person or entity fles a protest with the Secretary stating that the applicant is not entitled to 

the land described in the application and that said land is the situs of improvements claimed by 

the person or entity; or 

(D) the State of Alaska fles a protest with the Secretary respecting an entry which was made 

prior to a valid selection tentative approval, patent, deed, or confrmation to the State of Alaska 

pursuant to applicable law; or 

(E) regarding public land entries within units of the National Wildlife Refuge System established 

or expanded in this Act, any such entry not properly made under applicable law, or not the 

subject of an application fled within the time required by applicable law, or not properly 

maintained thereafter under applicable law shall be adjudicated pursuant to the Act under which 

the entry was made. 

(4) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and subsection (c) shall not apply to any application which 

was knowingly and voluntarily relinquished by the applicant. 

(b) An applicant may amend the land description contained in his or her application if said 

description designates land other than that which the applicant intended to claim at the time 

of application and if the description as amended describes the land originally intended to be 

claimed. If the application is amended, this section shall operate to approve the application or 

to require its adjudication, as the case may be, with reference to the amended land description 

only: Provided,That the Secretary shall notify the State of Alaska and all interested parties, as 

shown by the records of the Department of the Interior of the intended correction of the entry’s 

location, and any such party shall have until the one hundred and eightieth day following the 

effective date of this Act or sixty days following mailing of the notice, whichever is later, to fle 
Appendix A: ANCSA and ANILCA Text 35 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

with the Department of the Interior a protest as provided in subsection (a)(3) of this section, 

which protest, if timely, shall be deemed fled within one hundred and eighty days of the 

effective date of this Act notwithstanding the actual date of fling: Provided further,That the 

Secretary may require that all applications designating land in a specifc area be amended, if 

at all, prior to a date certain which date shall be calculated to allow for orderly adoption of a 

plan or survey for the specifed area, and the Secretary shall mail notifcation of the fnal date 

for amendment to each affected applicant, and shall provide such other notice as the Secretary 

deems appropriate, at least sixty days prior to said date: Provided further,That no application 

may be amended for location following adoption of a fnal plan of survey which includes the 

location of the entry as described in the application or its location as desired by amendment. 

(c) Where the land described in application (or such an application as adjusted or amended 

pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section), was on that date withdrawn, reserved, 

or classifed for powersite or power-project purposes, notwithstanding such withdrawal, 

reservation, or classifcation the described land shall be deemed vacant, unappropriated, and 

unreserved within the meaning of the Acts referred to in §1328(a)(1) hereof, and, as such, shall 

be subject to adjudication or approval pursuant to the terms of this section: Provided, however, 

That if the described land is included as part of a project licensed under part I of the Federal 

Power Act of June 10, 1920 (41 Stat. 24), as amended, or is presently utilized for purposes 

of generating or transmitting electrical power or for any other project authorized by Act of 

Congress, the foregoing provision shall not apply and the application shall be adjudicated 

pursuant to the appropriate Act: Provided further,That where the applicant commenced 

occupancy of the land after its withdrawal or classifcation for powersite purposes, the entry 

shall be made subject to the right of reentry provided the United States by §24 of the Federal 

Power Act, as amended: Provided further,That any right of reentry reserved in a patent pursuant 

to this section shall expire twenty years after the effective date of this Act if at that time the land 

involved is not subject to a license or an application for a license under part I of the Federal 

Power Act, as amended, or actually utilized or being developed for a purpose authorized by that 

Act, as amended or other Act of Congress. 

(d) Prior to issuing a patent for an entry subject to this section, the Secretary shall identify and 

adjudicate any record entry or application for title to land described in the application other than 

the and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Alaska Statehood Act, or the Act of May 17, 

1906, as amended, which entry or application claims land also described in the application, and 

shall determine whether such entry or application represents a valid existing right to which the 

application is subject. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect rights, if any, acquired 

by actual use of the described land prior to its withdrawal or classifcation, as affecting National 

Forest lands. 
Appendix B

Dalton Highway Crossing the Yukon River. BLM photo.

Visitor Trends Technical Report
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

1

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range

Transportation Plan

Visitation Trends Technical Report

May 2019
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

2

CONTENTS 

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Data Sources and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 3

2.2 National Park Service Clusters...................................................................................................... 4

3 Visitation Trends.................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Seasonal Variation of Visitation Trends........................................................................................ 7

3.2 In-State Visitation.......................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.1 Recreation................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.2 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Out-of-State Visitation.................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.1 Out-of-State Visitation and Economics...................................................................................11

3.3.2 Out-of-State Visitation Characteristics and Demographics....................................................12

3.4 Visitation by Agency....................................................................................................................16

3.4.1 National Park Service (NPS) ....................................................................................................19

3.4.2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM).......................................................................................20

3.4.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) .......................................................................................21

3.4.4 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) .......................................................................................................22

4 Demographic Trends............................................................................................................................23

4.1 Demographics of Alaska..............................................................................................................23

5 Modal Trends.......................................................................................................................................25

5.1 Modes of Travel to Alaska (Out-of-State Visitors) ......................................................................26

5.2 Modes of Travel within Alaska (Out-of-State Visitors) ...............................................................27

6 Activities ..............................................................................................................................................28

7 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................28

8 References...........................................................................................................................................30
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report identifies and describes trends in visitation levels and access to Federal public lands in Alaska

in a framework of indicators that affect those trends. Trends considered in this report include visitation 

by Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA), travel modes, seasonal variations, and types of activities

visitors engage in on Federal public lands in Alaska. The socio-economic indicators that make up the lens 

through which visitation is viewed, include economic indicators, such as unemployment rates, and 

population and demographic trends. The following are findings that this report will expand on: 

• Visitation levels to Federal public lands in Alaska are influenced by trends in out-of-state 

visitation, economic conditions, and shifts in demographics and population. 

• Seasonal variation in visitation levels are consistent between lands managed by various Federal 

public land management agencies as well as visitation to Alaska generally. 

• Visitation levels to Alaska, as well as specific regions of the state, are largely dependent on and 

influenced by the level of access that various transportation modes provide to those areas. 

• Visitation levels to Federal public lands rise when national employment levels rise.

• The largest age-group cohort to visit Alaska are comprised of individuals age 55 and older, and 

the population of the U.S. as a whole is continuing to age.

• Almost all of the most popular activities that out-of-state visitors cite as reasons to visit Alaska 

are activities that can be done on Federal public lands. 

2 INTRODUCTION 

This report supports the update to the 2012 Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 

by providing updated visitation and demographic information for Alaska Federal lands. This report is the 

result of a partnership consisting of National Park Service (NPS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF); and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Lands 

Highway Division (FLHD).

2.1 DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS 

This report relies on data derived from publically available sources. These sources include the State of 

Alaska, U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and the individual FLMAs addressed herein. 

Each FLMA is responsible for collecting and maintaining visitation data on the land it manages. As such, 

each agency employs its own methodology to collect and organize visitation data. Some of the 

differences between datasets pertain to the definition of what constitutes a “visit,” how often an agency 

collects visitation data at any given unit, and the statistical methodology used to estimate total 

visitation. Because of these variations, it is difficult to collate visitation data from all agencies to analyze

common visitation trends across all public lands within Alaska. However, visitation trends can be 

analyzed agency-by-agency. Looking at each FLMA independently, along with data from the Alaska 
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

4

Visitors Statistics Program (AVSP), provides a comprehensive perspective of visitation to Federal public 

lands in Alaska and visitation to Alaska generally.

2.2 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CLUSTERS 

As described in the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, access to Alaska Federal public lands is characterized by 

different users including out-of-state recreational users, in-state recreational users, in-state subsistence 

users, through travelers, and commercial users. Visitation levels to Federal public lands vary significantly 

throughout the state and are heavily influenced by geography and connectivity to the greater statewide 

transportation system. 

NPS categorizes its park units into regions based on both geography and how park units are generally 

accessed. NPS park units are clustered into four categories (Figure 1) which are defined by the following 

characteristics:

• Road Units – Road Units are characterized by high volumes of visitor and user access by 

automobiles and buses. These units are generally located near major Alaska DOT&PF roads and 

receive significant levels of visitation. 

• Cruise Ship Units – Cruise Ship Units are characterized by high visitation levels and users whose 

access originates from cruise ships or ferries. Visitation levels are generally high in these units, 

although, in some cases, travelers on cruise ships may actually never set foot on land within a 

park unit and only view the scenery from the cruise ship. 

• Remote North Units – Remote North Units are characterized by their northern geography, the 

lack of connectivity to the statewide transportation system, and isolation from commercial 

modes of transportation. The primary modes of access to these park units are diverse and can 

range from airplane, ship, snowmachine, off-highway vehicle, train, or by foot. Modes used to 

access Remote North Units vary by season. For example, the primary summer mode of access is 

plane and river boat while the primary winter mode of access is by snowmachine or winter trail. 

Remote North Units generally have low levels of visitation.

• Remote South Units – Like Remote North Units, Remote South Units are characterized by their 

geography, lack of connectivity, low visitation levels, and varied modes of access. 
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

5

Figure 1: NPS Unit Cluster Categories1

NPS park units with higher visitation levels are accessed by heavily traveled statewide or regional 

transportation systems such as roads, ferries, and railroad. The highest levels of visitation among NPS 

park units are in those park units classified as Cruise Ship Units and Road Units, receiving 59 percent and 

36 percent of visitation, respectively (Figure 2). Conversely, park units classified as Remote South Units

and Remote North Units experience significantly less visitation, receiving two percent each, of visitation 

to all NPS managed lands in Alaska. The visitation trends of park units within each of the NPS clusters 

has remained relatively consistent over time as illustrated in Figure 3. 

Due to similarities in geography and access, it is reasonable to assume that land of other FLMAs within 

the geographic boundaries of the four NPS clusters experience similar visitation trends as NPS park units 

in the same cluster.

 

1 Source: Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan, Appendix B, August 2012, Figure 2
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

6

Figure 2: Alaska NPS Visitation by Cluster, 20162

59%

36%

2% 2%

Cruise Ship Road Parks Remote North Remote South

Figure 3: Alaska NPS Visitation by Cluster, 2006 to 20163

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cruise Ship Units Remote North Units

Remote South Units Road Units

 

2 Source: National Park Service (NPS), Visitor Use Statistics 3 Ibid.
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

7

3 VISITATION TRENDS 

Throughout this report, the term “out-of-state visitation” describes visitation to Alaska by individuals 

who reside outside of the State of Alaska and “in-state visitation” describes residents of Alaska visiting 

areas within Alaska. “Federal public lands visitation” is a term used to describe visitation by both out-ofstate and in-state visitors to Federal public lands within Alaska. 

Trends in out-of-state visits have, and will continue to have, significant impacts on the levels of visitation 

and use experienced by many of Alaska’s Federal public lands. The dynamics of visitation, economics,

demographics, population size, travel modes, and activities both today and in the future will impact

access to Alaska Federal public lands and, therefore, FLMA land management strategies. 

3.1 SEASONAL VARIATION OF VISITATION TRENDS 

One of the primary reasons Alaska FLMAs are unique among FLMAs in other portions of the country is 

due to climate. While winter months can be quite harsh, summer months are mild and welcoming. The 

implication of this dynamic is that visitation is not equally distributed over the twelve months of the 

year. Instead, visitation is concentrated to a few months of high visitation activity during the summer 

months of May through September, followed by relatively very little visitation during the winter months. 

This is illustrated in Figure 4 with NPS visitation. NPS is the only FLMA to produce publicly available 

monthly visitation data for Alaska. May through September have the most visitors with July 

(approximately 689,000 visitors) being the peak month for visitation. All other non-summer months 

average approximately 13,800 visitors per month. While specific visitation numbers vary among FLMAs 

(Section 3.4), the trend of high summer visitation and lower winter visitation is assumed across all 

Federal public lands in Alaska. 

Figure 4: Alaska NPS Lands Average4 Monthly Recreation Visits5 (2012-2016)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

 

4 Note: The visitation for each month is an average over five years (2012-2016) 5 Source: National Park Service (NPS), Visitor Use Statistics
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

8

Although much less significant than summer seasonal visitation, the shoulder seasons of spring (late 

March thru mid-May) and autumn (late September thru mid-November) have seen an upswing in 

visitation. This may be due to a range of factors such as more temperate weather or cruise ship 

scheduling. During the winter months, while visitation is low, there are a number of notable attractions 

unique to Alaska that may draw visitors. For example, the aurora borealis (commonly referred to as 

northern lights) are more visible during the darker winter months and large events such as the annual 

Iditarod dog sled race contribute to overall visitation. Furthermore, activities that take advantage of 

winter trails like snowshoeing and cross-country skiing may attract additional visitors as well. 

3.2 IN-STATE VISITATION 

In-state visitation to Alaska Federal public lands is complex both in terms of the diversity of users as well 

as a lack of readily available data sources to quantify access and trends of in-state visitation to Federal

public lands. In-state Federal public lands access is therefore discussed in terms of the two primary 

purposes: recreation usage and subsistence usage. 

3.2.1 Recreation 

The Alaska’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) indicates that 96 percent of all 

in-state respondents to a survey reported that outdoor recreation is important or very important to 

their lifestyle. The study also surveyed Alaska residents to determine preference and opinions about

participation in outdoor activities. Figure 5 includes the top ten outdoor activities in which Alaska 

residents participate by showing the percent of respondents that participate in each activity. Hiking is

the top activity with over 90 percent participation by survey respondents. With the exception of 

“playground/local park,” nine of the top ten activities can be experienced by in-state residents accessing

Federal public lands. It is important to note that while Federal public lands provide visitors with a 

diverse array of experiences, visitors may not be able to experience all of the activities listed in Figure 5

on all types of Federal public lands. 
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

9

Figure 5: Top Ten Outdoor Activities Alaskans Participate In (by Percent)6

71.4%

81.4%

81.5%

82.0%

82.2%

83.3%

83.5%

83.7%

84.1%

90.9%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Beach activities

Biking

Driving/sightseeing

 Playground/local park

Berry picking

Backpacking

Walking the dog

Bird/wildlife viewing

Fishing

Hiking

Percent (%)

3.2.2 Subsistence 

In addition to recreational use of Federal public lands, rural Alaskan populations can, through the 

Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP), utilize Federal public lands for subsistence fishing 

and hunting. Subsistence is a way of life for Alaska’s indigenous population. Passed down from

generations, subsistence is a part of the culture of Alaska and remains the chosen way of life for many 

rural Alaskan populations. According to the Department of Interior, “the state’s rural residents harvest 

about 18,000 tons of wild foods each year – an average of 295 pounds per person,” with fish making up 

more than half the statewide harvest.7 While subsistence use is an important activity occurring on 

Federal public lands, it is not classified as a recreational use and, therefore, recreational visitation to 

Federal public lands described throughout this report does not include subsistence users. In some cases, 

Federal agencies report subsistence user visits in their non-recreational visits, a classification that may 

be inclusive of visits for deliveries, visits for people conducting research, and other similar nonrecreational visits as determined by each Federal land agency. 

3.3 OUT-OF-STATE VISITATION 

The next several sections discuss out-of-state visitation trends and its potential influence on Federal 

public lands access. It is assumed that out-of-state visitation contributes significantly to overall Federal 

public lands visitation, in part because prime destinations sought by out-of-state visitors are often

Alaska’s Federal public lands. Based on the seasonal variation trends in Section 3.1, the majority of outof-state visitation occurs between the summer months of May to September. Therefore, out-of-state 

 

6 Source: State of Alaska, Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreations Plan (SCORP) 

2009 – 2014 7 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP)
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

10

summer visitation (Figure 6) is being used as a proxy to represent out-of-state visitation for the entire 

year when looking at general visitation trends between years.

The following analysis uses data from the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP) VI and VII. AVSP is a 

statewide study conducted periodically, but not annually, for the Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community, and Economic Development. The study includes a visitor survey conducted through short 

in-person interviews of a sample of out-of-state visitors departing all major exit points of the state. 

Out-of-state summer visitation to Alaska in 2016 consisted of 1,857,500 visits, reaching record visitation 

numbers as shown in Figure 6. From 2002 to 2016 visitation to Alaska increased by approximately 46

percent. However, this trend is not purely linear and the effects of the Great Recession is evident in the 

2007 peak and subsequent decline of visitation into 2010. As the economy re-strengthened, the number 

of visitors to Alaska also increased, drawing parallels between overall economic health and visitation to 

Federal public lands in Alaska. Following the Great Recession, visitation to Alaska did not exceed the 

2007 visitation levels until 2015, a full eight years later. Section 3.3.1 looks further at visitation trends 

and unemployment in the U.S. 

Figure 6: Alaska Summer Visitor Volume, 2002 to 20168

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

1,800,000

1,900,000

2,000,000

Visitation data from FLMAs and AVSP in Figure 7 illustrates that out-of-state visitation trends correlate 

with visits to Federal public lands and that visitation trends generally correlate with economic trends. 

This would suggest that one of the primary drivers behind out-of-state visitors coming to Alaska is 

accessing Federal public lands. Figure 7 includes Alaska NPS and BLM visitation as indicators of Federal 

public lands visitation trends, and out-of-state visitation data is provided by the AVSP VI and VII reports. 

NPS and BLM data is used because of the availability of annual visitation from these two Federal public 

lands agencies. Similarities between the data include near parallel trend in visitation from 2002 to 2016. 

The data show an increase in both out-of-state and NPS visitation around 2006-2007, then visitation 

 

8 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 3-3, Chart 3.3; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. III-3, Chart 

3.2
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

11

declined into 2010. BLM visitation shows similar trends but with a peak in visitation and subsequent 

decline occurring a few years earlier. Since 2010, both out-of-state and Federal public land visitation has 

shown modest increases in visitation. 

It is also important to point out that the NPS visitation is much higher than out-of-state visitation in 

Figure 7. One reason for this is that many out-of-state visitors will visit multiple National Parks on a 

single visit. This is especially common for cruise ships (the most popular mode by which out-of-state 

visitors arrive to Alaska Section 5.1), which typically include multiple National Parks in an itinerary. The 

second reason is that NPS visitation captures both in-state and out-of-state visitors.

Figure 7: Out-of-State and Park Visitation9, 2002 to 201610

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Out-of-State Visitation BLM Visitation NPS Recreation Visitation

3.3.1 Out-of-State Visitation and Economics 

Using Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) data on U.S. unemployment as an indicator of economic 

condition, trends in U.S. unemployment from 2002 to 2016 are similar to those for out-of-state 

visitation during those same years. Figure 8 shows a strong correlation between U.S. unemployment 

rates and out-of-state visitation. They have an inverse relationship where when one increases the other 

decreases. For example, when unemployment rates increase, out-of-state visitation decreases. This 

suggests that out-of-state visitors are more likely to visit Alaska when the U.S. economy is healthy, 

either because they have more disposable income for travel or more confidence in the economy. 

 

9 Out-of-state visitation are representative of summer visitation numbers; BLM and NPS numbers are 

representative of both in-state and out-of-state visitation. 10 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 3-3, Chart 3.3; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. III-3, Chart 

3.2; Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Public Land Statistics, Table 4-1, editions 2002 through 2016; National

Park Service (NPS), Visitor Use Statistics
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

12

Figure 8: Percent (%) Change of Alaska Out-of-State Visitation and

U.S. Unemployment Rate (%), 2002 to 201611

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

-10.00 10.0

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Unemployment Rate (%)

% Change in Visitation

Alaska Visitation (% change)

U.S. Unemployment Rate

Trendline - Alaska Visitation (% change)

Trendline - U.S. Unemployment Rate

3.3.2 Out-of-State Visitation Characteristics and Demographics 

AVSP VII reports the age of individuals who visited Alaska during three survey years: 2006, 2011, and 

2016, as illustrated in Figure 9. One important and notable trend is that visitors to Alaska tend to skew 

older. Specifically, the two largest age groups to visit Alaska in all three years are individuals 55 to 64 

years old and age 65 and older. These two age groups represents approximately half of all visitors to 

Alaska. 

Age demographics of the U.S. as a whole tell a similar story: the very age groups who are most likely to 

visit Alaska are growing in population across the U. S. Figure 10 illustrates the change in population by 

age group for the same years which were sampled in AVSP VII. While younger age groups such as 

individuals age 20 through 34 have grown, so too have the ages groups comprised of individuals age 55 

and older. Figure 11 illustrates the change in population for age groups 55 and older, the age range most 

likely to visit Alaska. The chart shows that every age group 55 and older has grown in population since 

2006 drawing parallels between trends in the age of the U.S. population and age of individuals visiting 

Alaska. 

 

11 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 3-3, Chart 3.3; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. III-3, Chart 

3.2; Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), 2002 to 2016 Unemployment Rate
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

13

Figure 9: Alaska Visitor Age, 2006, 2011, and 201612

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and

older

2006 2011 2016

Figure 10: U.S. Population by Age Groups, 2006, 2011, and 201613

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2006 2011 2016

 

12 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 1-8, Table 1.14; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. IV-42, 

Table 4.38

13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 2006, 2011, and 2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

14

Figure 11: U.S. Population Age 55 and Older, 2006, 2011, and 201614

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 or older

2006 2011 2016

Visitors to Alaska come from all over the world, however, the majority of visitors (40 percent) come 

from the western U.S. as illustrated in Figure 12. This is not surprising considering people living in the 

western U.S. have easier access to cruises departing from the Pacific Northwest ports, shorter flights, 

and less distance to drive if traveling by vehicle than other locations within the U.S. Approximately 16 

percent of visitors to Alaska come from outside the U.S. 

The mode of transportation use to get to Alaska is influenced by visitor’s origin as shown in Figure 13. 

Visitors originating from the western U.S. are more likely to travel to Alaska by air than cruise or 

highway/ferry. Visitors from the eastern and southern U.S. are more likely to travel to Alaska by cruise

while visitors from Canada are more likely to travel to Alaska by highway/ferry. Geographic location, 

accessibility to different modes of transportation, and desired travel experience can all influence a 

visitor’s transportation choice. 

 

14 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 2006, 2011, and 2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

15

Figure 12: Alaska Visitor’s Origin, 2006-201615

38%

21%

14%

11%

7%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Western U.S. Southern U.S. Midwestern

U.S.

Eastern U.S. Canada Other

International

Figure 13: Mode of Arrival to Alaska by Visitor’s Origin, 2006-201616

 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Western U.S. Southern U.S. Midwestern

U.S.

Eastern U.S. Canada Other

International

Air Cruise Hwy/Ferry

15Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 7-1, Table 7.1. Notes: Western U.S.: AZ, CA, CO, ID, HI, MT, NV, 

NM, OR, UT, WA, WY; Southern U.S.: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV; Midwestern U.S.: IL, 

IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, OK, SD, WI; Eastern U.S.: CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, DC.

16 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 7-3, Table 7.2
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

16

Visitors to Alaska tend to be highly educated with 88 percent of visitors having pursed education beyond 

high school and 63 percent of visitors having received a bachelor’s degree or higher. Education level of 

visitors may have implications on the choices of activities or locations visited, however, there is not 

enough information to draw specific conclusions at this time. 

Figure 14: Alaska Visitor’s Education Level, 201617

1%

10%

8%

17%

37%

26% Grade 11 or Less

High School Diploma/GED

Associate/Technical Degree

Some College

Graduated from College

Master's/Doctorate

3.4 VISITATION BY AGENCY 

Variations in time periods and types of visits FLMAs use to measure and report visitation do not allow 

for a one-to-one comparison of the different FLMAs on a single chart for comparison. As a result, 

Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 provide an overview of visitation to each FLMA individually. 

There are several challenges FLMAs must contend with to collect visitation data in Alaska. These include 

the sheer acreage of Federal lands in Alaska (Figure 15), the fact that they are spread across the entire 

state (Figure 16), are often integrated into local communities, and are typically in remote locations. As a 

result, monitoring entry at all entrance points is not feasible, and in some cases the reporting FLMA

must incorporate estimates or assumptions to determine visitation counts. FLMA visitation volumes 

across Alaska are reported and summarized in Figure 16. 

 

17 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 7-12, Table 7.11
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

17

Figure 15: Alaska Federal Land Acreage18

5% - USFS

(20 million acres)

13% - NPS

(48 million acres)

19% - FWS

(71 million acres)

21% - BLM

(80 million acres)

42% - All Other

(158 million acres)

 

18 Sources: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Public Land Statistics 2016, p.7; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2016 Annual Report of Lands Data Tables, p. 2, Table 1A; National Park Service (NPS), Public Use Statistics, Park 

Acreage Report for 2017; U.S. Forest Service, About Region webpage
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

18

Figure 16: Visitation by FLMA Units, 2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

19

3.4.1 National Park Service (NPS) 

NPS managed lands are by far the most visited FLMA managed areas in Alaska. However, visitation is not 

spread evenly across NPS park units with three of the fifteen National Parks within Alaska receiving

approximately 73 percent of the visitation. Visitation numbers are based on visitor use counting 

procedures established for each park unit.

19 The top three most visited NPS park units are Klondike Gold 

Rush National Historic Park (36 percent), Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve (19 percent), and Denali

National Park & Preserve (18 percent). Based on the NPS clusters in Section 2.2, Denali National Park is 

located in the Road Cluster while Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve and Klondike Gold Rush National 

Historic Park are located in the Cruise Ship Cluster indicating that access, whether by cruise ship or main 

roadways, plays an important role in total visitation. 

Total visitation is broken down by recreation visits and non-recreation visits in Figure 16. Recreation 

visits include the regular park visitors while non-recreation visits encompass visits for deliveries, to 

conduct research, subsistence users, etc. Non-recreation visits account for approximately 25 percent of 

total visitation.

Figure 17: NPS Alaska Visitation, 2002 to 201620

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

Total Recreation Visits Total Non-Recreation Visits

 

19 NPS visitor use counting procedures accessible through https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park. 20 Source: National Park Service (NPS), Public Use Statistics
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

20

3.4.2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Visitation to BLM managed lands are classified as one of two types of visit: recreation or dispersed. A 

recreation site visit is a visit to BLM lands designated as developed recreation sites containing some 

component of site management. A dispersed area visit constitutes visits to all other BLM lands, which 

while open to recreational use are not specifically managed or developed for recreational use. 

Visitation numbers are from BLM’s Recreation Management Information Systems (RMIS) database 

which relies on BLM offices for collecting and inputting the data. Visitation to dispersed areas, according 

to BLM, are estimates based on local knowledge. 

As illustrated in Figure 18, recreation site visits and dispersed area visits can vary widely and prior to 

2007, the dispersed area visits comprised a majority of the total visits to BLM lands. Recreation visits 

peaked in 2005 and then declined slowly through 2011. Since then, recreation visits have steadily 

increased through 2016 reaching just above the number of recreation visits received in 2005. 

Figure 18: BLM Alaska Visitation, 2002 to 201621

 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Recreation Site Visits Dispersed Areas Visits

21 Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Public Land Statistics, Table 4-1, editions 2002 through 2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

21

3.4.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

The FWS Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) collects visitation annually for each refuge. With the 

exception of 2009 and 2014, there is a general upward trend in visitation to FWS refuges as illustrated in 

Figure 19. The decrease in visitation during 2009 is likely in response to the Great Recession. 

FWS visitation is not spread evenly among the 16 refuges in Alaska. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

accounts for approximately 75 percent of the Alaska FWS refuge visitation. The large proportion of 

visitation to Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is likely due to both its proximity to the City of Anchorage 

and its location just off a major state highway – Sterling Highway, part of Alaska Route 1.

Figure 19: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Alaska Visitation, 2007 to 201622

 

1,250,000

1,300,000

1,350,000

1,400,000

1,450,000

1,500,000

1,550,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Visitation Trendline - Visitation

22 Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) Alaska Visitation Number
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

22

3.4.4 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

The USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) collects data once every five years for each National 

Forest and National Grassland. As a result, visitation can be viewed as a snapshot from a single time 

period rather than with year to year trends as illustrated in Figure 20. The methodology established for 

collecting visitation data for USFS managed lands relies on estimates. Based on the confidence interval 

provided, reported visitation to Chugach National Forest can vary by approximately +/- 30 percent and 

reported visitation to Tongass National Forest can vary by approximately +/- 17 percent. This illustrates 

some of the challenges in obtaining accurate visitation counts when working with large areas of land 

with multiple points of entry. Based on Figure 20, visitation to undeveloped areas is the greatest type of 

visitation in the Alaskan National Forests, followed by day use of developed areas. 

Figure 20: USFS Alaska National Forest Annual Visitation, 2012-201623

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Chugach NF Tongass NFChathamTongass NFJuneau and

Admiralty

National

Monument

Tongass NFKetchikan

Misty, Craig,

and Thorne Bay

Tongass NFSitka and

Hoonah

Tongass NFStikineTongass NFYakutat,

Petersburg,

and Wrangell

Day Use Developed Overnight Use Developed Undeveloped Areas (GFA) Wilderness

 

23 Source: USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Region 10, National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Data 2012 and 2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

23

4 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS 

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS OF ALASKA 

Alaska is the third least populated state with 0.2 percent of the total U. S. population. Over the last 15 

years, from 2002 to 2016, the U.S. population grew by 12.3 percent, while the state of Alaska population 

grew by 15.5 percent. Both the U.S. as a whole and Alaska have seen a positive growth with comparable 

percentages of increase as illustrated in Figure 21. 

Figure 21: U.S. and Alaska Population, 1996-201624

600,000

620,000

640,000

660,000

680,000

700,000

720,000

740,000

760,000

780,000

250,000,000

260,000,000

270,000,000

280,000,000

290,000,000

300,000,000

310,000,000

320,000,000

330,000,000

199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016

Alaska Total Population

U.S. Total Population

U.S. Total Population Alaska Total Population

Alaska tends to have a slightly younger population than the U.S. as a whole with age groups 34 and 

under (the exception being the age group 15 to 19) exceeding the percentages of the U.S. as a whole 

(Figure 22). Meanwhile, the U.S. as a whole has an older population with age groups 65 and over 

exceeding the percentage of these age groups in Alaska. Section 3.3.2 highlighted how visitation to 

Alaska skews toward the older age groups and an increasingly older U.S. Population (Figure 11). 

Understanding how the age demographics in Alaska compare to the U.S. a whole and out-of-state 

visitation can allow for a more holistic planning to meet the needs of both in-state and out-of-state 

current and potential future users.

Figure 23 compares age group volumes between 1996 and 2016 in Alaska. A shift in population age 

distribution is evident. The age groups 20 through 24 and 50 through 85 or older gained population 

while the age groups 35 through 44 lost notable amounts of population. The comparison of age 

demographics from a 20 year time period illustrates the age wave shift. Age affects both visitor’s 

decisions and ability to experience Federal public lands. Understanding trends in age can help FLMAs

plan for experiences that can better meet visitor’s needs and abilities. 

 

24 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 1996-2016
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

24

Figure 22: Alaska and U.S. Population by Age Groups, 2016

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

US AK

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1996 2016

Figure 23: Alaska Population by Age Group, 1996 and 2016

Beyond age distribution, the demographics of Alaska compared to the U.S. as whole are similar in some 

ways but very different in other ways. For example, the number of owner-occupied homes is about the 

same, approximately 63 percent, and employment rates are similar with 68 percent of Alaska in the 

civilian labor force to the U.S.’s 63 percent.

25 The median household income in Alaska is 35 percent 

 

25 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Alaska (V2016)
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

25

higher than the average American household - $72,515 in Alaska to $53,889 for the U.S. as a whole.26

The foreign born population in Alaska (7.4 percent) is approximately half of that of the U. S. (13.2

percent). 27 

Compared to the U.S. as a whole, Alaska has a high proportion of the population that identifies as 

American Indian and Alaska Native. On average, across the U. S., approximately two percent of the 

population identified as American Indian or Alaska Native in 2016. This compares to 18.4 percent in 

Alaska which has implications for the number of potential subsistence users accessing FLMA managed 

lands. A further breakdown of all races, comparing Alaska to the U. S. as a whole are illustrated in Figure 

24 and Figure 25. 

Figure 24: U.S. Population by Race, 201628

77.0%

14.1%

2.0%

6.4% 0.5%

White

Black or African American

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

Figure 25: Alaska Population by Race, 201629

4.9% 67.2%

18.4%

7.7% 1.8%

White

Black or African American

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

5 MODAL TRENDS 

Modes of travel are discussed in two categories: travel to Alaska and travel within Alaska. Modes of 

travel are influencing factors in which Federal public lands are accessed. Understanding travel modes 

also helps explain how changes in out-of-state travel to Alaska affects visitation to FLMA lands of various 

types.

 

26 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Alaska (V2016) 27Ibid.

28 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, 2016 29 Ibid.
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

26

5.1 MODES OF TRAVEL TO ALASKA (OUT-OF-STATE VISITORS) 

Out-of-state travelers to Alaska typically arrive and depart by cruise ship or air, and to a lesser extent by 

highway or ferry. Over the past decade, as shown in Figure 26, cruise ship travel has remained the 

primary form of travel for out-of-state visits to Alaska. Commercial aircraft is also a popular mode of 

transportation for out-of-state visits to Alaska with about two-thirds the number of trips as by cruise 

ship. Travel by highway or ferry to Alaska forms the smallest proportion of the three main

transportation modes utilized by out-of-state visitors to Alaska. Alaska DOT&PF maintains a unique 

highway systems that includes the Alaska Marine Highway System, a ferry system that provides a waterbased extension of the state’s land-based highway system. Overall, Alaska’s geographic location in the 

northwestern corner of North America and distance from population centers outside of the state play an 

important role in visitors’ transportation mode choice in how they travel to Alaska. 

Figure 26: Summer Visitors’ Modes of Transportation to Alaska,

2006 to 201630

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cruise ship Air Highway/Ferry

The onset of the Great Recession in the late 2000s is also evident in the two main modes of visitor 

transportation to Alaska with a decline in air travel in 2009 and decline in cruise ship travel in 2010 and 

2011. 

The general volume of cruise ship travel has considerable visitation impacts to FLMA units that have 

direct access located near ports or that allow cruise ships to maneuver and stage sightseeing activities in 

close proximity to FLMA units (such as Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park). As previously 

illustrated in Figure 2, NPS units served by cruise ship and ferries receive the highest level of visitation.

Changes in operations such as viewing sites from the cruise ship rather than docking at port, changes in 

 

30 Sources: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 3-4, Table 3.2; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. III-4, Table 

3.3
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

27

ports, and duration of time the ship is docked at port may impact both total visitation as well as visitors’ 

modes of transportation between places. 

5.2 MODES OF TRAVEL WITHIN ALASKA (OUT-OF-STATE VISITORS) 

While it is important to understand how visitors arrive to Alaska, it is also important to understand how 

visitors travel between sites once they have arrived. Figure 27 illustrates data provided by AVSP and 

shows the change in popularity of modes of transportation between places in Alaska in five year 

intervals from 2006 through 2016. The reported percentages for each year to do not sum to 100 percent

and may be due to other modes of transportation such as bicycling, walking, or public transportation 

which were not specifically reported in the table. The AVSP also did not include cruise ship as an option 

for travel within the state. There is a noticeable decline in the percentage of visitors utilizing “tour bus or 

van” and “Alaska Railroad” travel modes between communities in 2016 and no other spikes in other the 

travel modes reported to indicate a transition from one travel mode to another. The AVSP report 

indicates that a decrease in cross-gulf cruise ship itineraries and changes in survey language may have 

independently contributed to this significant decline.

Figure 27: Summer Visitors’ Modes of Travel between Communities in Alaska, 

2006, 2011, and 201631

 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Tour bus or

van

Rental

Vehicle

Alaska

Railroad

Air Personal

vehicle

Rental RV State ferry Personal

RV

2006 2011 2016

31 Source: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 4-9, Chart 4.8
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

28

6 ACTIVITIES 

As part of the AVSP VII, Figure 28 shows the top ten activities of people visiting Alaska. Visitors were not 

limited to selecting one primary activity, but could select all the activities in which they participated 

while visiting Alaska. Activity trends remained relatively consistent from 2011 to 2016 with the largest 

shift being a six percent increase of people participating in “hiking/nature walk.” 

Although shopping, a typical tourist activity, holds the top spot of Alaska visitor activities, the remaining

nine visitor activities can all be done in one or more of the FLMA lands in Alaska. This illustrates the 

draw of Alaska’s natural areas to visitors and the importance of cultural, recreational, and nature 

viewing experiences. FLMA lands in Alaska play a significant role in offering visitors the types of activities 

they are looking for when visiting Alaska. 

Figure 28: Top Ten Activities of Visitors to Alaska, 2011 and 201632

Rank Activities 2011 (%) 2016 (%)

1 Shopping 72 75

2 Wildlife viewing 48 45

3 Cultural activities 40 39

4 Day cruises 36 39

5 Hiking/nature walk 28 34

6 Train 36 32

7 City/sightseeing tours 35 31

8 Fishing 19 16

9 Flightseeing 15 13

10 Tramway/gondola 10 13

The ASVP VII report also summarizes the top visitor activities by modes of transportation finding that 

cruise ship visitors are most likely to engage in shopping and opportunities for sightseeing. Those 

traveling by air or highway/ferry are most likely to engage in shopping as their top activity, but included 

more active activities such as hiking/nature walk, fishing, and camping than those traveling by cruise 

ship. 

7 CONCLUSION 

Federal public lands need to be managed due to regular shifts in all aspects that affect them; in 

particular, shifts in users-types, demographics, economic trends, and accessibility are primary drivers 

behind a need to build and maintain a transportation system that works for all users of Federal public 

lands. FLMAs would benefit by monitoring the forces that can cause fluctuations in visitation and userneeds and managing the transportation system accordingly.

The lands managed by FLMAs are for everyone to enjoy, and indeed, Federal public lands in Alaska are 

very popular. While the users themselves are diverse, they can be usefully categorized into three 

 

32 Source: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. 1-7, Chart 1.12
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

29

primary user-types: out-of-state recreational users, in-state recreational users, and in-state subsistence 

users. While there may be some overlap with respect to the needs and expectations each user-type has 

for the transportation system moving them to or through Federal public lands, there may also be quite a 

difference, as each user-type values various aspects of the transportation system differently. Further, 

the needs and expectations of each group are not fixed, and may shift over time. 

While land management itself can help foster a user experience that makes users want to visit again, 

visitation volumes to Federal public lands in Alaska can also be affected by forces outside of the control 

of FLMAs. Shifting demographics, both within the State of Alaska and elsewhere can greatly affect the 

overall volumes of those using Federal public lands as well as the proportions of user-types. With shifts 

in demographics, such as a higher volume of older users or younger users, come shifts in the needs, 

expectations, and priorities of the transportation system. 

National and global economic trends are shown to correlate with visitation volumes by out-of-state 

visitors to Federal public lands in Alaska. As recently as the 2008 economic recession, out-of-state 

visitation to Alaska dropped noticeably and took almost ten years to recover and surpass pre-recession 

levels. While FLMAs cannot affect these macro-economic trends, they can plan for scenarios in which 

the economy ebbs or flows. 

Data shows that land that is more accessible by road or by cruise ships see higher visitation levels than 

those lands without such accessibility, generally those further inland. Changes to either the road 

network that provides access to the lands, or cruise ship operations and schedules have the ability to 

affect visitation levels to Federal public lands in Alaska.

Closely monitoring the factors that cause fluctuations in visitation can help FLMAs manage the 

transportation system more efficiently, but only if the effects of those causes are well understood. Being 

able to identify emerging trends that may affect visitation as early as possible will allow FLMAs to begin 

anticipating and reacting to changes in visitation appropriately.
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

30

8 REFERENCES 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). (2012, March). 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, Summer 2011, prepared by McDowell Group, Inc. Retrieved 

from: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/6/pub/TourismResearch/AVSP/2011and2012/Su

mmer/02%202011AVSP-FullReport.pdf 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED). (2017, May). 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program 7, Summer 2016, prepared by McDowell Group, Inc. Retrieved 

from: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/6/pub/TourismResearch/AVSP/2016/00.%20AVS

P%207%20FULL%20DOCUMENT.pdf?ver=2017-06-06-143654-223 

Alaska Federal Lands, Long Range Transportation Plan. (2012, September). Appendix B, Visitation Trends 

Technical Report, Revised Draft August 2012. Retrieved from: 

http://www.akfedlandslrtp.org/lrtp.html 

State of Alaska, Department of National Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (Alaska 

State Parks). (2009, July). Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreations 

Plan (SCORP) 2009 – 2014. Retrieved from: 

https://recpro.memberclicks.net/assets/Library/SCORPs/ak_scorp_2009.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau, (2016) Quick Facts, Alaska; United States. Retrieved from: 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AK,US

U.S. Census Bureau, (2016) Quick Facts, Vermont; United States. Retrieved from: 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/VT,US

U.S. Census Bureau, (2016) Quick Facts, Wyoming; United States. Retrieved from: 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/WY,US

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2012). ST-EST00INT-AGESEX: 

Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for States and the 

United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 [Data file: st-est00int-agesex.csv]. Retrieved from: 

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/datasets/2000-2010/intercensal/state/ 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2017). Annual Estimates of the 

Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and 

Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 [Data file for U.S. and 

Alaska]. Retrieved from: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk and 

https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2016/PEPAGESEX?slice=GEO~0400000US02 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (n.d.) About the Region. Retrieved January 02, 2018 from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r10/about-region 
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

31

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (Last updated 2017, March). Visitor Use Report, Alaska 

Region (R10), USDA Forest Service, Region 10, National Visitor Use Monitoring Data collected FY 

2010, FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014. [Representative of data available in 2012.]Retrieved 

from: https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (Last updated 2017, September). Visitor Use Report, 

Alaska Region (R10), USDA Forest Service, Region 10, National Visitor Use Monitoring Data 

collected FY 2010, FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, FY 2015, FY 2016, FY 2017, FY 2018. 

[Representative of data available in 2015.] Retrieved from: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Subsistence Management Program (FSMP). Retrieved from: 

https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/ 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). (2017, September). Visitor Use Statistics, 

Park Acreage Report [for 2017]. Retrieved from: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). Visitor Use Statistics, Annual Park 

Recreation Visitation and Visitation by Monthly [Data Files for Aniakchak National Monument, 

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Denali National 

Park, Denali National Preserve, Gates of the Arctic National Park, Glacier Bay National Park, Katmai 

National Park, Kenai Fjords National Park, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Kobuk 

Valley National Park, Lake Clark National Park, Noatak National Preserve, Sitka National Historical 

Park, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve]. Retrieved July 18, 

2017 from: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2017, May). Public Land Statistics 

2016, Volume 201 (BLM/OC/ST-17/001+1165). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/PublicLandStatistics2016.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2016, May). Public Land Statistics 

2015, Volume 200 (BLM/OC/ST-16/003+1165 P-108-5). Retrieved from: https://blmprod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/Public%20Land%20Statistics201

5%20%281%29.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2015, May). Public Land Statistics 

2014, Volume 199 (BLM/OC/ST-15/005+1165 P-108-4). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls2014.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2014, May). Public Land Statistics 

2013, Volume 198 (BLM/OC/ST-14/004+1165 P-108-3). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls2013.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2013, May). Public Land Statistics 

2012, Volume 197 (BLM/OC/ST-13/002+1165 P-108-2). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls2012-web.pdf 
Visitation Trends Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2019

32

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2012, May). Public Land Statistics 

2011, Volume 196 (BLM/OC/ST-12/001+1165 P-108-1). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls2011.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2011, May). Public Land Statistics 

2010, Volume 195 (BLM/OC/ST-11/001+1165). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls10.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2010, May). Public Land Statistics 

2009, Volume 194 (BLM/OC/ST-10/001+1165). Retrieved from: 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls09.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2009, May). Public Land Statistics 

2008, Volume 193 (BLM/OC/ST-09/001+1165). Retrieved from:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls08.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2008, May). Public Land Statistics 

2007, Volume 192 (BLM/OC/ST-08/001+1165). Retrieved from:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls07.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2007, May). Public Land Statistics 

2006, Volume 191 (BLM/BC/ST-07/001+1165). Retrieved from:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls06.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2005, April). Public Land Statistics 

2005, Volume 190 (BLM/BC/ST-06/001+1165). Retrieved from:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls05.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2005, April). Public Land Statistics 

2004, Volume 189 (BLM/BC/ST-05/001+1165). Retrieved from:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls04.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public Land Statistics 2003. 

Retrieved from: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls03.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public Land Statistics 2002. 

Retrieved from: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/pls02.pdf 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017). Refuge Annual Performance Plan 

(RAPP) Alaska Visitation Number [Data file for 2012-2016]. Received electronically July 25, 2017.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016, September). 2016 Annual Lands 

Report Data Tables, Statistical Data Tables for Fish & Wildlife Service Lands. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fws.gov/refuges/land/landreport.html 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). (2017). (Seas) Unemployment Rate (ID 

LNS14000000) [Data file for 2002-2016]. Retrieved from: 

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 
Appendix C

Visitors at Fort Egbert. BLM photo.

2016 Alaska Collaborative Visitor 

Transportation Survey (CVTS)
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Overview 

A survey was administered during summer 2016 at Federal lands in 

Alaska managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and 

US Forest Service (USFS; defined as Federal Land Management 

Agencies [FLMAs]), Alaska Public Lands Information Centers (APLICs), 

an inter-agency visitor center (IAVC), and on the Alaska Marine 

Highway System Ferry. The overall purpose of the survey effort was 

to collect data on visitors’ transportation-related experiences to 

inform FLMAs’ long-range transportation planning. 

The survey consisted of two parts: an onsite survey and a follow-up 

survey. The questions were designed to gather information on the 

following themes: 

 Modes of transportation used 

 Transportation satisfaction 

 Sites visited and activity participation 

 Information sources used and their helpfulness 

 Infrastructure satisfaction and preferences 

 Safety concerns and incidents 

 Suggestions for improving travel 

Methods 

The survey was administered across a large geographic area of 

Alaska at 20 sites (or units), distributed across FLMAs as follows: 

 NPS – 5 sites 

 USFS – 5 sites 

 FWS – 3 sites 

 BLM – 2 sites 

 Multiagency (APLIC & IAVC) – 5 sites 

Within each site, there were several intercept locations, selected 

purposively in order to sample a range of visitor types. Each FLMA 

provided the list of sites and suggestions for specific intercept 

locations within the site. 

The onsite survey was administered via paper or iPad. After the 

onsite survey was completed, the respondent was asked if they 

were willing to participate in the follow-up survey, and were given 

the option of a paper survey or a web-based survey. Residents were 

mailed/emailed the follow-up survey within a week. Non-residents 

were asked when they were leaving Alaska, with the follow-up 

survey mailed/emailed after they left Alaska. 

Results 

Eighty percent of visitors contacted agreed to participate in the 

survey. Two thousand seven hundred ninety-six respondents were 

recreational visitors and 247 were non-recreational visitors (i.e 

working or commuting). Five hundred twenty-nine visitors 

responded to the follow-up survey.

Characteristics of Respondents 

Thirty percent (838) of the recreational onsite surveys were 

completed by residents and 70% (1,958) by non-residents. Of the 

non-residents, 81% were from the United States, but not Alaska. 

California was the most often listed state (14% of non-resident 

visitors from the U.S.) and Canada the most frequently cited country 

(39% of non-U.S. visitors). Of the recreational visitors, onsite 

respondents were evenly split between male and female (51% and 

50%, respectively) with no significant gender differences between 

residents and non-residents. Most residents (99%) were traveling 

independently. Among non-residents, 65% reported traveling 

independently, 20% as part of a pre-purchased package tour, and 

15% both independently and as part of a pre-purchased package 

tour. Forty-two percent of residents were on a day trip. All nonresidents stayed at least one day in Alaska, with 56% staying 3 – 14 

nights and 43% staying 15 or more nights. 

Traveling Companions 

Most visitors were traveling with some combination of family and 

friends (84% and 89% for residents and non-residents, respectively). 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Residents Non-residents All respondents
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Education 

Onsite respondents reported a high education level (i.e., relative to 

the U.S. population as a whole), with 64% indicating a Bachelor’s 

degree or higher. 

1% 10%

4%

14%

8%

32%

32%

Less than high school

High school graduate/GED

Vocational or technical

school certificate

Some college

Associate's

Bachelor's

Graduate degree or

professional degree

Income Level 

Onsite respondents tended to have a relatively high income. Nearly 

two-thirds of respondents live in households that earn $75,000 or 

more in annual household income, and 20% have household family 

incomes of $150,000 or more. Non-residents are more likely than 

residents to be among the highest income group (13% vs. 5%). 

11%

25%

45%

20%

Less than $34,999

$35,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or more

Transportation

Nearly two-thirds of visitors arrived at the site using a private 

vehicle, but residents were significantly more likely to use this form 

of transportation than non-residents (92% vs. 49%, respectively). All 

other forms of transportation used to arrive at the site were used by 

significantly fewer respondents, with notable differences by 

residency for a commercial shuttle and tour bus (non-residents were 

more likely to indicate using those forms of transportation). 

Respondents indicated they were satisfied with their travel 

experience arriving at the site and within the site. In both cases, 

roughly two-thirds (62% and 65%, respectively) rated the experience 

as “excellent,” and nearly one-third (32% and 30%, respectively) 

rated it as “good.”

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Private

vehicle

Foot Tour bus Cruise ship AHMS

ferry

Transportation used to arrive at site

Transportation used within site

Infrastructure 

Respondents were presented with 10 types of transportation/travelrelated infrastructure and were asked if they would like to see 

“less,” “the same,” or “more.” A “no opinion” response option was 

also provided. “No opinion” was a prevalent response, and was

excluded from analysis. Of those expressing a preference, with the 

exception of trails for all-terrain vehicles, the majority of 

respondents preferred the current levels. Infrastructure with 

notable percentages of respondents indicating a preference for 

“more” included: trails for hiking, biking, and horseback riding (46%); 

campgrounds (36%); accessible friendly sites and facilities (34%); 

and directional or wayfinding signs (33%). A plurality of respondents 

(44%) indicated a preference for “less” trails for all-terrain vehicles, 

with 16% indicating a preference for “more.” 

Visitation 

Non-residents were more likely than residents to visit multiple FLMA 

sites during their trip (80% vs. 55%). On average, residents visited 

2.4 FLMA sites and non-residents visited 3.2 FLMA sites. Fifty 

percent of respondents sampled in the Interior also visited FLMA 

sites in southcentral Alaska and 27% visited FLMA sites in southeast 

Alaska. Of those sampled in the Southcentral, 44% visited FLMA sites 

in the Interior, 27% visited FLMA sites in Southeast, and 24% visited 

FLMA sites in the Southwest. Eighteen percent of those sampled in 

the southeast visited FLMA sites in Southcentral and 23% visited 

FLMA sites in the Interior. 
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Information Sources Used to Plan the Trip

Respondents were presented with a list of 15 information sources 

and asked which they used to plan their trip. Websites were the 

most often used information source, with 48% of respondents using 

Federal or State websites and 55% using other websites. Nonresidents were more likely than residents to use most sources, 

including websites (51% vs. 42% for Federal or State websites and 

66% vs. 27% for other websites), word of mouth (49% vs 38%), travel 

guides and books (47% vs. 13%), and brochures or pamphlets (35% 

vs. 15%). The notable exception to this pattern being that residents 

were more likely than non-residents to use previous visits as an 

information source (53% vs. 25%). 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Residents Non-residents All respondents

Safety Issues Researched

Thirty-five percent of respondents reported researching safety 

issues prior to their trip. Non-residents were significantly more likely 

than residents to do such research (41% vs. 20%). 

If respondents indicated they researched safety measures, they 

were asked to explain what safety measures were researched. One 

hundred forty-four respondents provided explanations (20 residents 

and 124 non-residents). Among these respondents, the largest 

category of safety measures researched related to wildlife (83%), 

with 65% of residents and 86% of non-residents indicating they 

researched this issue. Seventeen of the responses related to road 

conditions (4 of 20 residents and 13 of 124 non-residents) and 12 

responses related to communications (4 of 20 residents and 8 of 124 

non-residents). 

Safety Issues Experienced 

When asked if they experienced a safety issue, lack of cell phone 

coverage was the most frequently cited safety issue experienced 

(38% of residents and 40% of non-residents). Other issues included: 

 Wildlife (11% of residents and 14% of non-residents) 

 Bad weather (23% of residents and 14% of non-residents) 

 Poor road conditions (13% of residents and 11% of nonresidents) 

Travel Experience 

Respondents were asked to provide additional feedback on their 

travel experience; 226 respondents (49 residents and 177 nonresidents) provided comments. Thirty-one percent the comments 

expressed satisfaction with the travel experience. Seventy-six 

responses (17 residents and 59 non-residents) related to travel 

and/or transportation. Of these 76 responses, 10 (1 of 17 residents 

and 9 of 59 non-residents) expressed satisfaction with specific travel 

related issues (e.g., “The roads were better than expected,” “The 

Denali Highway was pretty rough but that was to be expected”) and 

66 (16 of 17 residents and 50 of 59 non-residents) provided 

feedback on negative conditions (e.g., “poor road maintenance”).

Citation for this this document: 

Wedin, A., Fix, P. J., Shaw, J., Petersen, K, & Petrella, M. (2018). 

Summary of Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey: Results 

from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey. Project report for the Alaska 

Long-Range Transportation Planning Team. Fairbanks, Alaska: School 

of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Additional information can be found in the full project report: 

Fix, P. J., Wedin, A., Shaw, J., Petersen, K, & Petrella, M. (2017). 

Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey: Results from Summer 

2016 Alaska Survey. Project report for the Alaska Long-Range 

Transportation Planning Team. Fairbanks, Alaska: School of Natural 

Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Interior 

Interior Sites 

Sites sampled in this region were

Denali National Park, Tetlin National 

Wildlife Refuge, Tangle/Swede 

Lakes, White Mountains National 

Recreation Area, APLIC Fairbanks & 

Tok, and the Arctic IAVC. There were 983 onsite and 202 follow-up 

surveys completed in this region. 

Information Sources Used in Planning the Trip 

Interior respondents used a wide variety of information sources in 

planning their trip. Word of mouth was the most prevalent followed 

closely by Federal/State websites and other websites. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Transportation 

Most of the interior respondents arrived at the site by private 

vehicle and traveled within the site by foot. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Private

vehicle

Foot Tour bus Denali VTS

Transportation used to arrive at site

Transportation used within site

Fifty percent of respondents sampled in the Interior also visited sites 

in Southcentral Alaska and 27% visited sites in Southeast Alaska. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Interior

Visit Southeast Visit Southcentral

Safety 

Thirty-two percent of the Interior respondents searched for safety 

measures prior to their trip. When asked about safety concerns 

experienced, lack of cell service was their top concern. 

Safety Concerns Experienced 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Infrastructure 

Respondents were presented with 10 types of transportation/travelrelated infrastructure and were asked if they would like to see 

“less,” “the same,” or “more.” A “no opinion” response option was 

also provided. “No opinion” was a common response and was 

excluded from analysis. Of those expressing a preference, with the 

exception of trails for all-terrain vehicles, the majority of 

respondents preferred the current levels. Infrastructure with 

notable percentages of respondents indicating a preference for 

“more” included: trails for hiking, biking, and horseback riding (47%); 

campgrounds (44%); accessible friendly sites and facilities (31%); 

and directional or wayfinding signs (30%). A plurality of respondents 

(41%) indicated a preference for “the same” amount of trails for allterrain vehicles, with 36% indicating a preference for “less” and 23% 

a preference for “more.” 
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Southcentral 

Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula are part of 

this area. Katmai National Park is also 

included in this region. In addition to 

Katmai, key sampling locations included 

Kenai Fjords National Park, Chugach 

National Forest, Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge, the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge visitor center, and the APLIC Anchorage. There were 

926 onsite and 174 follow-up surveys completed in this region. 

Information Sources Used in Planning the Trip 

Southcentral respondents used a wide variety of information 

sources in planning their trip. Other websites was the most 

prevalent followed closely by Federal/State websites and word of 

mouth. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Transportation 

Most of the southcentral respondents arrived at the site by private 

vehicle and traveled within the site by foot. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Private

vehicle

Foot Tour bus Railroad Aircraft

Transportation used to arrive at site

Transportation used within site

Forty-four percent of respondents sampled in Southcentral also 

visited sites in the Interior and 27% visited sites in Southeast Alaska. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Southcentral

Visit Southeast Visit Interior

Safety 

Forty-five percent of the Southcentral respondents searched for 

safety measures prior to their trip. When asked about safety 

concerns experienced, lack of cell service was their top concern. 

Safety Concerns Experienced 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Infrastructure 

Respondents were presented with 10 types of transportation/travelrelated infrastructure and were asked if they would like to see 

“less,” “the same,” or “more.” A “no opinion” response option was 

also provided. “No opinion” was a common response and was 

excluded from analysis. Of those expressing a preference, with the 

exception of trails for all-terrain vehicles, the majority of 

respondents preferred the current levels. Infrastructure with 

notable percentages of respondents indicating a preference for 

“more” included: trails for hiking, biking, and horseback riding (45%); 

campgrounds (31%); accessible friendly sites and facilities (34%); 

and directional or wayfinding signs (34%). A majority of respondents 

(52%) indicated a preference for “less” trails for all-terrain vehicles, 

with 8% indicating a preference for “more.” 
2016 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Southeast 

Sites sampled in this region included 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park, 

Sitka National Historic Park, the Southeast 

Alaska Discovery Center, and several sites 

within the Tongass National Forest: 

Mendenhall Glacier, trails outside of 

Juneau and Ketchikan, Hoonah Ranger 

District, and Prince of Wales Island. There 

were 887 onsite and 153 follow-up surveys completed in this region. 

Information Sources Used in Planning the Trip 

Southeast respondents used a wide variety of information sources in 

planning their trip. Other websites was the most prevalent, followed 

by Federal/State websites and word of mouth. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Transportation

The Southeast respondents arrived at the site primarily by private 

vehicle, foot, or cruise ship, and predominantly traveled within the 

site by foot. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Private

vehicle

Foot Tour bus Cruise

ship

AHMS

ferry

Aircraft

Transportation used to arrive

Transportation used within

Twenty-three percent of respondents sampled in Southeast also 

visited sites in the Interior and 18% visited sites in Southcentral. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Southeast

Visit Southcentral Visit Interior

Safety 

Thirty percent of Southeast respondents searched for safety 

measures prior to their trip. When asked about safety concerns 

experienced, lack of cell service was their top concern. 

Safety Concerns Experienced 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Wildlife

encounter

Bad weather Poor road

conditions

Lack of cell

service

Infrastructure 

Respondents were presented with 10 types of transportation/travelrelated infrastructure and were asked if they would like to see 

“less,” “the same,” or “more.” A “no opinion” response option was 

also provided. “No opinion” was a common response and was 

excluded from analysis. Of those expressing a preference, with the 

exception of trails for all-terrain vehicles, the majority of 

respondents preferred the current levels. Infrastructure with 

notable percentages of respondents indicating a preference for 

“more” included: trails for hiking, biking, and horseback riding (45%); 

campgrounds (29%); accessible friendly sites and facilities (40%); 

and directional or wayfinding signs (36%). A plurality of respondents 

(49%) indicated a preference for “less” trails for all-terrain vehicles, 

with 13% indicating a preference for “more.”
i | P a g e

 Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey: 

Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey 

Peter J Fix1, Alisa Wedin1, Jasmine Shaw1, Karen Petersen1, Margaret 

Petrella2

March 1, 2018 

1

School of Natural Resources and Extension, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

2Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, US Department of Transportation. 
ii | P a g e

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank all the federal lands managers who took the time to assist us with developing a 

sampling schedule and accommodating our onsite needs. The survey crew deserves special thanks for 

sticking with the sampling for the summer, regardless of weather conditions. Charly McConaghy and 

Joshua Benson conducted the sampling in Southeast Alaska; Morgan Piper and John Pullman surveyed in 

Southcentral Alaska; and Trisha Levasseur, Rachel Garcia, and Kendall Elifrits sampled the sites in 

Interior Alaska. Rachel Garcia was critical in designing the iPad survey and assisting with various other 

tasks such as formatting results and coding open-ended responses. Rachel provided valuable assistance 

in editing the report. Tara Callear also provided assistance in editing. Trisha Levasseur was a reliable 

assistant for mailing surveys, entering data, coding open-ended comments, conducting a quality check 

on data entry, and other miscellaneous tasks. Finally, we would like to thank the federal lands visitors 

who took the time to complete the survey. 

Funding provided by Assistance Agreement No. L15AC00209: BLM-AK CESU Alaska Collaborative Visitor 

Transportation Survey. 

For additional information contact: 

Paul Schrooten, National Park Service, Paul_Schrooten@nps.gov 

Randy Goodwin, Bureau of Land Management, rgoodwin@blm.gov 

Amy Thomas, United States Forest Service, aethomas@fs.fed.us 

David Morton, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, David_Morton@fws.gov 

Roxanne Bash, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, 

Roxanne.Bash@dot.gov 

Suggested Citation: 

Fix, P. J., Wedin, A., Shaw, J., Petersen, K, & Petrella, M. (2018). Collaborative Visitor Transportation 

Survey: Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey. Project report for the Alaska Long-Range 

Transportation Planning Team. Fairbanks, Alaska: School of Natural Resources and Extension, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks. 
iii|P a g e

Executive Summary 

Overview		

A survey was administered at Federal lands in Alaska during summer 2016 

to collect data on visitors’ transportation‐related experiences to inform Fed‐

eral Land Management Agencies’ (FLMAs) long range transportation plan‐

ning. Eighty percent of visitors contacted agreed to participate in the survey, 

which consisted of two parts: an onsite survey and a follow‐up survey. Two 

thousand seven hundred ninety‐six respondents were recreational visitors 

and 247 were non‐recreational visitors. Five hundred twenty‐nine visitors 

responded to the follow‐up survey. 

The questions were designed to gather information on the following 

themes: 

 Modes of transportation used

 Transportation satisfaction

 Sites visited and activity participation 

 Information sources used and their helpfulness

 Infrastructure satisfaction and preferences 

 Safety concerns and incidents 

 Suggestions for improving travel 

Methods 

The survey was administered across a large geographic area of Alaska, in‐

cluding 20 sites (or units) distributed across FLMAs as follows: 

 National Park Service (NPS)—5 sites 

 US Forest Service (USFS)—5 sites 

 US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)—3 sites 

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—2 sites 

 Alaska Public Lands Information Centers (APLICs)—4 sites 

 Arctic inter‐agency visitor center (AIVC) 

 In addition, the Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry 

Within each site, there were several intercept locations, selected purposively 

in order to sample a range of visitor types. The onsite survey was adminis‐

tered via paper or iPad. After the onsite survey was completed, the respond‐

ent was asked if they were willing to participate in the follow‐up survey, and 

were given the option of a paper survey or a web‐based survey. Residents 

were mailed/emailed the follow‐up survey within a week. Non‐residents 

were asked when they were leaving Alaska, with the follow‐up survey 

mailed/emailed after they left Alaska. 
iv|P a g e

Characteristics of Respondents 

 Thirty percent (838) of the recreational onsite surveys were completed by residents and 70% (1,958) by non‐residents. Most residents (99%) were trav‐

eling independently. Among non‐residents, 65% reported traveling independently, 20% as part of a pre‐purchased package tour, and 15% both inde‐

pendently and as part of a pre‐purchased package tour. Forty two percent of residents were on a day trip. All non‐residents stayed at least one day in 

Alaska, with 56% staying 3 – 14 nights and 43% staying 15 or more nights. 

 Onsite respondents were evenly split between male and female, with no significant gender differences between residents and non‐residents. With 

respect to race, nearly all respondents identified as white (94%). Four percent identified as Hispanic or Latino.

 Respondents reported high education levels, with 64% indicating a Bachelor’s degree or higher and high income (nearly two‐thirds earning $75,000 or 

more in annual household income, and 20% had household family incomes of $150,000 or more). 

 More than one‐half (56%) were traveling with group members who were 45 to 64 years of age, about one‐third (36%) with group members 65 or 

older, and nearly one‐third (31%) with children aged 18 or younger. Residents were significantly more likely than non‐residents to be traveling with 

children (53% vs. 24%), whereas non‐residents were more likely to be traveling with those aged 65 or older (44% vs. 20%).

Percent Respondents by Travel Companion 

Activities		

 Residents were more likely than non‐residents to engage in camping, fresh water fishing, and berry picking/food gathering, while non‐residents were 

more likely to engage in water travel and salt water fishing.

 Nearly all respondents (88%) reported that they were able to engage in all the activities they had planned. Among those who were not able (12%), key 

reasons included weather (37%) and not enough time (29%). Fewer respondents cited safety concerns (16%), area closures (11%), or rules/regulations 

did not allow for the activity (10%). 

Percent Respondents by Activity 
v|P a g e

Transportation 

 Nearly two‐thirds of visitors arrived at the site using a 

private vehicle, (92% residents vs. 49% non‐residents). 

Non‐residents were more likely to indicate using com‐

mercial shuttle and tour bus than residents. Compared to 

non‐residents, residents were more likely to travel by 

private vehicle, a non‐motorized water mode, bicycle, 

and all‐terrain vehicle (ATV).

 Within the site, a large majority of respondents traveled 

by foot (72%), with one‐quarter also reporting they trav‐

eled by private vehicle (27%). 

Percentage Respondents by Mode of Transportation 

 Across all forms of transportation used during the trip, 

most respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” There were some differences by mode, with respondents indicating higher levels of satisfaction 

with rail, boat, and air travel, and somewhat lower levels of satisfaction with bus and vehicle travel.

 Nearly three‐quarters of respondents indicated that their travel experience was either above their expectations (44%) or significantly above their ex‐

pectations (28%); one‐quarter reported that it met their expectations. Roughly two‐thirds rated the overall travel experience as “excellent” and nearly 

one‐third rated it as “good.” 

 When asked specifically if they had encountered problems making a connection between different modes of transportation, nearly three‐quarters of 

respondents indicated “no” and 12% said “yes” (15% responded not applicable).

Satisfaction with Transportation 

Infrastructure

 Respondents were asked if they would like to see “less,” “the 

same,” or “more” of 10 types of transportation infrastructure. 

“No opinion” was a prevalent response and was excluded from 

analysis. Of those expressing a preference, with the exception of 

trails for all‐terrain vehicles, the majority of respondents (ranging 

from 54% to 81%) preferred the current levels. 

 Eight in ten visitors reported being satisfied or very satisfied with 

infrastructure. 

 Respondents were also asked to rate the extent to which differ‐

ent issues (e.g., traffic congestion, crowding) were a problem. 

Large majorities indicated the issues were not a problem. About 

one‐quarter had a problem with motor vehicle or aircraft sounds 

or too many people at scenic overlooks. 

Satisfaction with Infrastructure 
vi|P a g e

Visitation 

 Among non‐residents, a majority (61%) reported that this was their 

first time visiting Alaska. Among the 39% who had made a previous 

trip in the last ten years, most had either visited Alaska once (40%) or 

two to three times (31%). 

 Non‐residents were more likely than residents to visit multiple FLMA 

sites during their trip (80% vs. 55%). Fifty percent of respondents 

sampled in the Interior also visited FLMA sites in southcentral and 

27% visited FLMA sites in Southeast . Of those sampled in Southcen‐

tral, 44% visited FLMA sites in the Interior, 27% in Southeast, and 

24% in the Southwest. Eighteen percent of those sampled in the 

Southeast visited FLMA sites in Southcentral and 23% in the Interior. 

 BLM sites received much higher resident visitation (84%) than the 

other sites. The FWS and USFS sites were similar (36% and 31% resi‐

dents, respectively), and the NPS had the lowest percent of resident 

visitors (10%). 

Percent Alaska Residents by FLMA Sampled 

Information Sources Used  

 Respondents were asked about electronic devices that they carried 

with them on their trip. Among those who used an electronic 

device, 63% experienced a problem, and nearly all cited a lack of 

Wi‐Fi or internet service (96%). Non‐residents were significantly 

more likely to indicate problems using their electronic devices 

(71% vs. 42%). 

 Websites were the most often used information source to plan 

the trip. Response patterns were similar across residency, but 

there was an uptick in the use of brochures/pamphlets and 

visitor bureaus/information centers. among non‐residents. Resi‐

dents were more likely to rely on previous visits. Overall, 76% of 

respondents reported that they received the information need‐

ed when planning their trip.

 The sources that were most likely to be perceived as very helpful 

included previous visits (78%), Alaska Milepost (70%), package 

tour companies (69%), and visitor bureaus/information centers 

(68%). Nearly all respondents reported that they received the 

information needed (94%) during their trip.

Percent Respondents by Electronic Device Used 

Percent Respondents by Information Source Used to Plan Trip 
vii|P a g e

Safety Issues Researched 

 Thirty‐five percent of respondents reported researching safety issues prior to 

their trip. Non‐residents were significantly more likely than residents to do 

such research (41% vs. 20%).

 If respondents indicated they researched safety measures, they were asked 

to explain what safety measures were researched. One hundred forty‐four 

respondents provided explanations (20 residents and 124 non‐residents). 

Among these, the largest category of safety measures researched related to 

wildlife (83%), with 65% of residents and 86% of non‐residents indicating they 

researched this issue. Seventeen of the responses related to road conditions 

and 12 responses related to communications. 

Percent Respondents by Safety Issue Experienced (n=500) 

Safety Issues Experienced 

 Lack of cell phone coverage was the most frequently cited safety issue experi‐

enced (38% of residents and 40% of non‐residents). 

 Respondents were asked if they had ever experienced a safety incident or 

accident on Federal Lands. Only 3% reported that they had. 

Travel Experience 

 Respondents were asked to provide additional feedback on their travel experience; 226 respondents (49 residents and 177 non‐residents) provided 

comments. Thirty‐one percent (n=70) expressed satisfaction with the travel experience and an additional 18% (n=41) indicated they had no problems. 

 Forty percent (n=90; 19 residents and 71 non‐residents) related to travel and/or transportation. Of these 90 responses, 10 expressed satisfaction with 

specific travel‐related issues (e.g., “The roads were better than expected. The Denali Highway was pretty rough but that was to be expected.” 

 Other transportation/travel‐related comments referenced poor road conditions (n=22), issues related to AMHF (n=14) or public transportation (n=8), 

the cost of transportation (n=8), construction‐related delays (n=5), and signage issues (n=4). 
viii | P a g e

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. x

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................xiii

List of Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................................xiv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................1

Alaska Context ..........................................................................................................................................1

Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in AK ............................................................................2

Methods ........................................................................................................................................................4

Survey Development ................................................................................................................................. 4

Onsite Survey ........................................................................................................................................4

Follow-up Survey...................................................................................................................................5

Sampling ....................................................................................................................................................5

Interior ..................................................................................................................................................5

Southcentral ..........................................................................................................................................6

Southeast ..............................................................................................................................................6

Survey Administration ........................................................................................................................12

Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................14

Results .........................................................................................................................................................15

Final Sample ............................................................................................................................................15

Response Rate .........................................................................................................................................17

Onsite Response Rate by Region and FLMA Type ...............................................................................17

Follow-up Survey................................................................................................................................. 19

Representation of Follow-up Responses ............................................................................................21

Representation of FLMA Visitor Population .......................................................................................21

Results of Non-response Bias Test ......................................................................................................23

Results of Recreational Surveys ..............................................................................................................24

Characteristics of Visitors....................................................................................................................24

Transportation Types and Issues ........................................................................................................43

FLMA Visitation Patterns ....................................................................................................................55

Activity Participation ...........................................................................................................................72

Ability to Do All Activities Planned ......................................................................................................77

Information Sources ............................................................................................................................79

Electronic Devices ...............................................................................................................................87
ix | P a g e

Signage ................................................................................................................................................91

Satisfaction with Infrastructure ..........................................................................................................94

Issues Percieved as Problems .............................................................................................................97

Infrastructure Preferences ................................................................................................................100

Safety Concerns/Issues .....................................................................................................................103

Safety-Related Experiences...............................................................................................................104

Accidents or Safety Incidents ............................................................................................................106

Additional Feedback on Travel Experience .......................................................................................108

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel to/through Federal Lands .................................................109

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................111

Appendix A Letters to FLMAs and Survey Instruments ........................................................................111

Appendix B Comparison of CVTS Data to AVSP Data ............................................................................160

Travel to Regions of the State ...........................................................................................................160

Appendix C Non-response Bias Test .....................................................................................................162

Non-response Bias Test of Onsite Respondents ...............................................................................162

Representation of Follow-Up Survey ................................................................................................165

Appendix D Additional Detailed Analysis ..............................................................................................172

Appendix E Codes for Open Ended Questions ......................................................................................181

Responses to Open-Ended Question: What Services or Activities did You Have Difficulty Accessing?

..........................................................................................................................................................182

Responses to Open-ended Question: What Information was Needed but Not Available? .............192

Responses to Open-Ended Question: What Safety Concerns Did You Research? ............................207

Responses to Open-Ended Question: Please Describe Your Safety Issue ........................................212

Responses to Open-ended Question: Provide Additional Feedback on Your Travel Experience .....221

Responses to Open-ended Question: Suggestions for How Travel to/through Public Lands can be 

Improved ...........................................................................................................................................249

Appendix F Non-Recreational Survey Results .......................................................................................275
x | P a g e

List of Tables 

Table 1. Questions Included on the Various Alaska CVTS Survey versions. ..................................................4

Table 2. Specific Sites Sampled, Targeted Visitors, and Sampling Approach. ..............................................9

Table 3. Final Time Blocks Sampled, by Region and FLMA. ........................................................................15

Table 4. Time Blocks Sampled, by Specific Sample Location. .....................................................................16

Table 5. Onsite Surveys Attempted and completed, by Region and FLMA. ...............................................17

Table 6. Onsite Surveys Attempted and Completed, by Region and Site. ..................................................18

Table 7. Recreation and Follow-up Surveys, by Region and FLMA. ............................................................19

Table 8. Follow-up Surveys, by Region and Sample Site. ............................................................................20

Table 9. Follow-up Survey Status, by Arrival Type. .....................................................................................21

Table 10. Hypothetical Example of Visitor Volume Representation. ..........................................................22

Table 11. Education Level of Respondents. ................................................................................................24

Table 12. Income Level of Respondents. ....................................................................................................25

Table 13. Ethnicity and Race of Respondents. ............................................................................................26

Table 14. Home State of Respondents from the United States, but not Alaska. .......................................27

Table 15. Home Country of Respondents not from the United States. ......................................................28

Table 16. Group Composition of Residents and Non-residents.................................................................. 33

Table 17. Group Size by Respondent Characteristics. ................................................................................34

Table 18. Age Composition of Group, by Residency. ..................................................................................35

Table 19. General Group Composition of CVTS Respondents. ...................................................................36

Table 20. Respondents Traveling Independently or with Tour Group, by Sample Site. .............................37

Table 21. Physical Condition Limiting Access to Services. ..........................................................................39

Table 22. Number of Nights Spent Away from Home. ................................................................................40

Table 23. Residents’ General Use of Transportation on Federal Lands in the Past Year............................43

Table 24. Residents’ General Satisfaction with Transportation Used During the Past Year. .....................44

Table 25. Types of Transportation Used to Arrive at Sample Site. .............................................................46

Table 26. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site. ......................................................47

Table 27. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site, by Tour Group Type. ....................47

Table 28. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site, by FLMA. ......................................47

Table 29. Types of Transportation Used Within Sample Site. ....................................................................48

Table 30. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site. ............................................................49

Table 31. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, by Tour Group Type. ..........................49

Table 32. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, by FLMA. ............................................49

Table 33. Type of Transportation Used During Entire Trip. ........................................................................50

Table 34. Comparison of Travel Experience to Expectations. .....................................................................53

Table 35. Delays or Problems making Connections between Forms of Transportation. ...........................54

Table 36. Residents’ Use of FLMAs in Previous Twelve Months.................................................................55

Table 37. Visitation to Specific FLMAs in Alaska. ........................................................................................61

Table 38. Total Number of Sites Visited. .....................................................................................................62

Table 39. Average Number of Sites Visited, by Residency and Sample Region (limited to total sites < 16).

....................................................................................................................................................................63

Table 40. Sites Selected when Only One Site was Selected as Visited or Planned to Visit. ........................64

Table 41. Average Number of other Regions Visited, by Sample Region. ..................................................65

Table 42. Visitation to Other Regions of Alaska, by Residency and Sample Region. ..................................66

Table 43. Reasons Preventing Site Visitation. .............................................................................................67
xi | P a g e

Table 44. Cross-site Visitation, All Respondents, by Sample Site. ..............................................................69

Table 45. Cross-site Visitation, Non-residents, by Sample Site. ................................................................. 70

Table 46. Next Destination, All Respondents, by Sample Site. ...................................................................71

Table 47. Activity Participation, by Sample Region. ...................................................................................75

Table 48. Activity Participation, by Sample Region, Respondents who Visited Only One Region. .............76

Table 49. Total Number of Activities Listed. ...............................................................................................77

Table 50. Reasons Respondents Were Not Able to do Planned Activities. ................................................79

Table 51. Electronic Devices Used. .............................................................................................................88

Table 52. Adequacy of Signage, by Residency. ...........................................................................................93

Table 53. Satisfaction with Infrastructure, by Residency. ..........................................................................96

Table 54. Issues Perceived as Problems, by Residency. ..............................................................................99

Table 55. Preferences for Infrastructure, by Residency. ..........................................................................102

Table 56. Involvement with a Transportation Accident or Safety Incident. .............................................106

Table 57. Visitation to regions of Alaska: CVTS compared to AVSP. .........................................................160

Table 58. Comparison of CVTS Mode of Travel to Arrive in Alaska to AVSP Exit Mode. ..........................161

Table 59. Mode of Transportation Weights Applied to Data....................................................................161

Table 60. Non-response Test, Travel Mode within Site. ...........................................................................162

Table 61. Non-response Test, Rating of Travel Arriving at Site. ...............................................................162

Table 62. Non-response Test, Activities of Respondents and Non-respondents. ....................................163

Table 63. Non-response Test, Resident Previous Visitation of Site. .........................................................164

Table 64. Non-response Test, Non-residents previous visitation to Alaska. ............................................164

Table 65. Differences between Respondents Agreeing to Follow-up Survey and Respondents Completing 

Follow-up Survey: Group Composition and Demographics. .....................................................................166

Table 66. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Type of Traveler ................................................................................166

Table 67. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Group Composition. ..........................................................................166

Table 68. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Residency. .........................................................................................168

Table 69. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Gender of Respondent. .....................................................................169

Table 70. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Education Level of Respondent. ........................................................169

Table 71. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Income of Respondent. .....................................................................170

Table 72. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Respondent Hispanic or Latino. ........................................................170

Table 73. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those 

Completing the Follow-up Survey: Race of Respondent. .........................................................................171

Table 74. Percent of Respondents with Group Members of Specific Age, by FLMA. ...............................172

Table 75. Site Visitation by Visited, Next Destination, and Other Destinations. ......................................173

Table 76. Activity Participation, by Did on This Trip and Plan to Do on this Trip. ....................................174

Table 77. Types of Transportations Used to Arrive at Site, by Sample Site. .............................................175

Table 78. Types of Transportation Used Within Site, by Sample Site. ......................................................177

Table 79. Rating of Travel Experience Arriving at Site, by Sample Site. ...................................................179

Table 80. Rating of Travel Experience Within Site, by Sample Site. .........................................................180

Table 81. Response Potentially Related to ADA. ......................................................................................182

Table 82. Response Related to a Service or Activity .................................................................................185
xii | P a g e

Table 83. Response Related to a Personal Limitation. ..............................................................................190

Table 84. Information needed but not Available: Basic Local Information. .............................................192

Table 85. Information needed but not Available: Recreation. ................................................................. 194

Table 86. Information needed but not Available: Travel/Transportation Related. ..................................201

Table 87. Information needed but not Available: Communication. .........................................................205

Table 88. Response Describing Safety Concerns Researched. ..................................................................207

Table 89. Responses Describing Safety Issues. .........................................................................................212

Table 90. Additional Feedback on Travel Experiences. .............................................................................221

Table 91. Other Suggestions for Improving Travel to/through Federal Lands. ........................................249

Table 92. Non-Recreation Respondents' State of Residence for Non-residents of Alaska. ......................275

Table 93. Non-Recreational Respondents’ Use of FLMAs in Previous Twelve Months............................275

Table 94. Previous Site Visitation Not Including Today, Non-recreational Residents. .............................276

Table 95. Number of Previous Site Visitations in the Past Year, Non-recreational Residents. ................276

Table 96. Seasonal Residence of Non-recreational Non-residents. ..........................................................276

Table 97. Previous Visitation to Alaska, Non-recreational Non-residents. ...............................................276

Table 98. Number of Previous Visitations to Alaska in the Past 10 Years, Non-recreational Non-Residents.

..................................................................................................................................................................277

Table 99. Types of Transportation Used to Arrive at Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. ........277

Table 100. Types of Transportation Used Within Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. .............278

Table 101. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site Non-recreational Respondents. 278

Table 102. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. ....279

Table 103. Age Composition of Non-recreational Respondents. .............................................................279

Table 104. Gender of Non-recreational Respondents. .............................................................................279

Table 105. Education Level of Non-recreational Respondents. ................................................................279

Table 106. Income Level of Non-recreational Respondents. ....................................................................280

Table 107. Ethnicity and Race of Respondents. ........................................................................................280

Table 108. Non-recreation Respondents' Additional Feedback on Travel Experience. ............................281

Table 109. Non-recreation Respondents' Suggestions for Improvements in Travel/Transportation on 

Alaska Federal Lands. ................................................................................................................................290
xiii | P a g e

List of Figures 

Figure 1. FLMA Units in Alaska. ..................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. FLMA Units Where Sampling Occurred. ......................................................................................12

Figure 3. Residency of Interior Site Recreation Respondents. ...................................................................29

Figure 4. Residency of Southcentral Site Recreation Respondents. ...........................................................30

Figure 5. Residency of Southeast Site Recreation Respondents. ...............................................................31

Figure 6. Residency of Recreation Respondents, by FLMA. ........................................................................32

Figure 7. Ages Present within Groups. ........................................................................................................35

Figure 8. Independent Travelers vs. Pre-purchased Tours, by Agency. ......................................................38

Figure 9. Service or Activity Respondent had Difficulty Accessing, Non-Mutually Exclusive Codes. .........40

Figure 10. Nights Away from Home, by FLMA. ...........................................................................................41

Figure 11. Type of Accommodation, by residency. .....................................................................................42

Figure 12. Non-residents’ Method of Arriving in Alaska.............................................................................45

Figure 13. Satisfaction with Transportation Used During Trip. ..................................................................51

Figure 14. Alaska Residents’ Frequency of Previous Visitation to the Site in the Past Year.......................56

Figure 15. Visitation to sample site in Past 12 Months, by FLMA. ..............................................................57

Figure 16. Frequency of Visitation to Site in Past 12 Months, by FLMA. ....................................................58

Figure 17. Non-residents’ Frequency of Visitation to Alaska in the Last 10 years......................................59

Figure 18. Visitation of Other Regions of Alaska, by Sample Region. .........................................................65

Figure 19. Ability to Visit all the Federal Public Land Sites Planned. ..........................................................67

Figure 20. Activity Participation, All Respondents. .....................................................................................73

Figure 21. Activity Participation, by Residency. ..........................................................................................74

Figure 22. Ability to Do All Activities Planned. ............................................................................................78

Figure 23. Sources of Information used to Plan Trip. .................................................................................80

Figure 24. Information Sources Used to Plan Trip, By Tour Type. ..............................................................81

Figure 25. Major Themes for Information Needed, but Not Available. ......................................................83

Figure 26. Information Sources Used During Trip. ......................................................................................84

Figure 27. Helpfulness of Information Sources, All respondents. ..............................................................86

Figure 28. Received the Type of Information Needed. ...............................................................................87

Figure 29. Electronic Devices: If Used and If Experienced Problems. .........................................................88

Figure 30. Problems with Electronic Devices, Excluding Did Not Use. .......................................................89

Figure 31. Problems Obtaining Information. ..............................................................................................90

Figure 32. Adequacy of Signage, All Respondents. .....................................................................................91

Figure 33. Adequacy of Signage, Excluding "Not Applicable" Responses. ..................................................92

Figure 34. General Satisfaction with Infrastructure, All Respondents........................................................94

Figure 35. Specific Satisfaction with Infrastructure, Excluding "Not Applicable." ......................................95

Figure 36. Perception of Issues as Problems. .............................................................................................97

Figure 37. Issues Perceived as Problems, Excluding No Opinion. ...............................................................98

Figure 38. Preferences for Infrastructure, All Respondents. ....................................................................100

Figure 39. Preferences for Infrastructure, Excluding No Opinion. ............................................................101

Figure 40. Researched Safety Measures. ..................................................................................................103

Figure 41. Experience of Safety Issues. .....................................................................................................105
xiv | P a g e

List of Acronyms 

AMHS ............................................................................................... Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry 

ANILCA ........................................................................... Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

ANCSA ............................................................................................... Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

AIVC ......................................................................................................... Arctic Interagency Visitor Center 

APLIC ............................................................................................. Alaska Public Lands Information Center 

ARSP .................................................................................................... Alaska Residents Statistics Program 

ATV..................................................................................................................................All-terrain Vehicle 

AVSP ......................................................................................................... Alaska Visitor Statistics Program 

BLM ............................................................................................................... Bureau of Land Management 

CG............................................................................................................................................ Campground 

CVTS ....................................................................................... Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

DOT ............................................................................................................. Department of Transportation 

FHWA ....................................................................................................... Federal Highway Administration 

FLMA .................................................................................................... Federal Land Management Agency 

FLPP .......................................................................................................... Federal Lands Planning Program 

FWS ....................................................................................................................... Fish and Wildlife Service 

GPS ..................................................................................................................... Global Positioning System 

LRTP .......................................................................................................... Long Range Transportation Plan

NF ........................................................................................................................................ National Forest 

NHP ........................................................................................................................... National Historic Park 

NP........................................................................................................................................... National Park 

NP&P ................................................................................................................ National Park and Preserve 

NPR .................................................................................................................................. National Preserve 

NPS ............................................................................................................................. National Park Service 

NVUM ........................................................................................................ National Visitor Use Monitoring 

NWR ...................................................................................................................... National Wildlife Refuge 

OMB ..................................................................................................... Office of Management and Budget 

POW .................................................................................................................................... Prince of Wales 

RV................................................................................................................................ Recreational Vehicle 

SC ............................................................................................................................................ Southcentral 

TIP .................................................................................................. Transportation Improvement Program 

USDI ............................................................................................. United State Department of the Interior 

USFS ............................................................................................................... United States Forest Service 

UTV ................................................................................................................................ Utility Task Vehicle 

VTS ................................................................................................................ Visitor Transportation Survey 

WMNRA ................................................................................. White Mountains National Recreation Area
1 | P a g e

Introduction 

Overview 

The Alaska Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS) is being utilized to inform an update to a 

multiagency long range transportation plan (LRTP) for Alaska. This plan brings together Alaska Federal 

Land Management Agencies’ (FLMAs) common strategies for transportation planning while taking the 

individual land management agency’s missions into account, as well as partnering with the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT&PF). The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), United States Forest Service (USFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

National Park Service (NPS) collaborated on this survey. The goal of the survey was to collect user 

experience data on key metrics related to mobility, traveler information, safety, and transportation 

related services and conditions. 

In advance of administering the survey, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe 

Center), in support of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western Federal Lands (WFL) Division, 

assisted in the development of a generic clearance that could be used by FLMAs to streamline the 

process for obtaining approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The key purpose of 

this effort was to encourage FLMAs to collaborate on information collections and to make visitor surveys 

a more feasible part of the transportation planning process. OMB approved the generic clearance on 

November 14, 20141. The Alaska FLMAs utilized the generic clearance, including the pre-approved set of 

transportation related questions (Compendium of Questions) for the Alaska survey, and lessons learned 

from this survey effort will be documented and shared to assist FLMAs in administering future 

collaborative surveys. 

As part of the initial planning efforts for the Alaska survey, each of the participating FLMAs, as well as 

AKDOT&PF and FHWA WFL Highway Division signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 

establish a framework of cooperation among the agencies for conducting the visitor surveys. More 

specifically, the MOU described the need and purpose of the Agreement, the scope of the survey effort 

(including proposed survey sites), project milestones, roles and responsibilities of the different project 

team members, and projected schedule. 

Alaska Context 

Alaska is geographically the largest state at 570,374 square miles. Within its borders lies the tallest 

mountain in North America, Denali at 20,320 feet, and the nation’s largest national park, Wrangell-St. 

Elias at 13.2 million acres (the next three largest parks are in Alaska as well, including Gates of the Arctic, 

Denali, and Katmai). 

Alaska contains significant acreage of federally managed public land. These lands not only provide 

Alaskans with opportunities for subsistence and recreation, but also have resulted in Alaska becoming 

an important tourist destination. Information regarding visitors’ use, attitudes, preferences, etc. can 

help guide management in improving the visitor experience. 

1

 http://volpe-public-lands.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/flma_lrtp_cvts/cvts.htm 
2 | P a g e

Figure 1. FLMA Units in Alaska. 

Map developed by Kendall Elifrits. 

Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in AK 

This section includes a brief description of the lands managed by each of the partner FLMAs. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management manages approximately 72 million acres of land in Alaska. BLM 

has been tasked with transferring lands to the State of Alaska, Alaska Native corporations, and individual 

Alaska Natives. This is the largest land transfer in U.S. history. When the BLM is finished with the land 

transfer they will have transferred over 150 million acres of land. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska, totaling 76,774,229 

acres. The Alaska refuges account for approximately 85% of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 

U.S. Forest Service 

The U.S. Forest Service manages the Chugach National Forest and the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. 

Chugach National Forest is 5.5 million acres that includes portions of Prince William Sound, the Kenai 

Peninsula and the Copper River Delta. Located in Southcentral Alaska, Chugach National Forest is easily 
3 | P a g e

accessible to the Alaska residents in the most populous region of the state. At roughly 17 million acres, 

the Tongass National Forest is the nation’s largest national forest. It encompasses much of Southeast 

Alaska including the Inside Passage. There are two National Monuments, Admiralty Island and Misty 

Fjords within the forest. It contains many remote area public use cabins, hiking trails, campgrounds, and 

visitor centers. 

National Park Service 

The National Park Service manages 15 national parks, historic parks, preserves, and monuments in 

Alaska, encompassing 54 million acres of land in Alaska (and 60% of land managed nationwide by the 

National Park Service). 
4 | P a g e

Methods 

The study utilized an on-site survey with a follow-up survey administered to willing onsite survey 

respondents. 

Survey Development 

Onsite Survey 

The primary target population for the summer 2016 survey was recreational users of federal lands. 

However, it was anticipated that some non-recreational users might be intercepted (e.g., those working 

on or commuting through federal lands), and that it might be useful to obtain their feedback using an 

abbreviated set of questions. As a result, both a recreation and non-recreation survey were developed. 

In addition, there were slight differences in the questions asked of Alaska residents versus nonresidents. The table below summarizes the different questions that were asked across the different 

survey populations. See Appendix A for a copy of the survey. 

Table 1. Questions Included on the Various Alaska CVTS Survey versions. 

Question category Recreation survey Non-recreation survey

Resident Non-resident Resident Non-resident

Home state/country X X

Zip code X X

Seasonal resident of Alaska X X

Past visitation to Alaska X X

Past visitation to site X X

Forms of transportation to arrive in AK X X

Frequency of visits to FLMAs X X

In past 12 months, mode of 

transportation to FLMAs X X

In past 12 months, satisfaction with 

mode of transportation to FLMAs X X

Transportation used to/within site X X X X

Satisfaction with transportation used 

to/within X X X X

Specific FLMAs visited during trip X X

Activities during trip X X

Trip planning & information sources X X

Group composition X X

Demographics X X X X

Travel experience (open-ended) X X

Suggestions for travel on FLMA (openended) X X
5 | P a g e

Follow-up Survey

The follow-up survey was administered only to recreation visitors. The follow-up survey consisted of 26

questions, with the same questions being administered to both residents and non-residents. 

Respondents were asked to consider their entire trip when responding to the questions. Major 

categories of questions included: 

 Length of trip and accommodations used

 Information sources used and helpfulness of those sources (fixed response and open ended) 

 Electronic devices used 

 Feedback on signage (fixed response and open ended) 

 Barriers to reaching sites (fixed response and open ended) 

 Barriers to participation in activities (fixed response and open ended) 

 Transportation used during trip and satisfaction with transportation (fixed response and open 

ended) 

 Evaluation of trip and specific site conditions 

 Preferences for management 

 Safety concerns (fixed response and open ended) 

 Transportation-related accidents on federal public lands in Alaska (fixed response and open 

ended) 

 Evaluation of trip (open ended) 

 Suggestions for how travel can be improved (open ended) 

Sampling 

The CVTS was administered across a large geographic area of Alaska. At the outset, the CVTS team 

determined that it would administer the survey at approximately 20 sites (or units), distributed across 

FLMAs as follows: 

 NPS – 5 sites 

 USFS – 5 sites 

 USFWS – 3 sites 

 BLM – 2 sites 

 Multiagency – 5 sites (4 Alaska Public Lands Information Centers and the Arctic Interagency 

Visitor Center) 

 In addition, surveys were conducted on the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferries. 

Within each site, there would be several intercept locations, selected purposively in order to sample a 

range of visitor types. Each FLMA provided the list of sites and made suggestions for specific intercept 

locations within the site. Some sites provided by the FLMAs were labeled as “dispersed,” in which case 

UAF selected dispersed sites. Because of the dispersed sites, there were more than 20 distinct sample 

sites. 

As Alaska is a very large state, it was divided into three regions. With respect to employees and 

sampling, each region was essentially viewed as a separate study. The regions, along with the sites that 

were sampled, are described below. 

Interior 

The Alaska Range forms the southern boundary of this region. It receives less visitation than the other 

regions. FLMAs sampled in this region were: Denali National Park, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, the 
6 | P a g e

White Mountains National Recreation Area, Tangle Lakes/Swede Lakes Trail, the Fairbanks APLIC, the 

Tok APLIC, and the AIVC. The home base for this region was Fairbanks. The survey sites in this region are 

also connected by roads. The sites, though, are relatively distant from Fairbanks and sampling trips were 

up to five days with the employee camping for several days in a row. 

Southcentral 

This region consists of the Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula area. Katmai National Park is also included in 

this region. In addition to Katmai, key sampling locations included Kenai Fjords National Park, various 

sites in the Chugach National Forest, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge visitor center, and the Anchorage APLIC. Aside from Katmai, this area is connected by 

the road system. Sampling consisted of many day-trips to the sites, with a few overnight trips. 

Southeast 

This region covers the area from Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island north to Skagway and the 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. Survey sites included Ketchikan (the Southeast Alaska 

Discovery Center and FS trailheads), Prince of Wales Island, the Hoonah Ranger District, Sitka National 

Historic Park and surrounding area, Mendenhall Glacier and other Forest Service sites in Juneau, and the 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. This region does not have a road system connecting 

communities. Residents travel throughout the area via the Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry or by 

flying. In this region, we stationed the employees in student housing on the University of Alaska 

Southeast Juneau campus. The employees traveled by ferry, and occasionally air, to the survey sites. The 

employee stayed at the site for up to 9 days (though with two ferry trips on either end, time sampling at 

each of the sites was shorter), staying in either Forest Service bunkhouses or bed and breakfast/hostel 

lodgings. 

A team of two survey aides were assigned to each region. The sites included in this study are 

characterized by large travel distances between sites, prohibiting a completely random sample. Thus, a 

purposeful sample was used. However, the survey team attempted to ensure the data were 

representative through the following considerations in the sample design. 

 Data were gathered at different times throughout the summer to increase representation and 

ensure the sample was not influenced by temporal events such as extreme rain events, smoke 

from wildfires, temporary road closures (e.g., a washout or truck accident on the Dalton 

Highway, road closures due to wildland fire, disabled ferry, etc.). 

 Sites were sampled across various days of the week (i.e., each site contained a mix of weekdays 

and weekend days). Within selected time blocks, sampling occurred across a range of times of 

the day (i.e., sites sampled in the morning, afternoon, and evening). The number of days each 

site was sampled was determined by expected use levels, variation in use across the season, and 

significant events at that site (e.g., salmon fishing on the Russian River, moose hunting in the 

Nome Creek Valley). 

During the days sampled, there was a specific protocol for where and how long to sample, the script to 

follow when contacting potential respondents, and detailed logs regarding contacts to maintain. The 

sampling of visitors to FLMAs varied according to visitor use levels. A description of the different use 

levels is provided, along with the sampling strategy used for each. 
7 | P a g e

 Low use sites: Aside from pulses of visitors, use was sporadic, and there was lots of time to 

prepare between groups. Every group was surveyed at low use sites. 

 Moderate use sites: Many groups were present at once, so it was not possible to sample every 

group. When there was a steady stream of visitors, a new group was sampled as soon as the 

previous group completed their survey. 

 High use sites: The number of visitors at these sites was overwhelming at times (e.g., multiple 

cruise ships in a port). If there were pulses of visitors, the surveyor attempted to sample 

multiple visitors at once. If there was a steady stream of visitors, a new group was sampled as 

soon as the previous group completed their survey. 

Sampling was also tailored, as appropriate, by characteristics of the site or by transportation mode. 

 Private vehicles: There were several sites that were primarily waysides or roadside attractions, 

where visitors would pull up in their vehicle for a short period of time to read an interpretive 

sign, use the restroom, etc. and then leave (in contrast to people returning to a parking lot after 

a hike, ATV ride, etc.). In these situations, surveyors sampled vehicles, following the rules 

prescribed for low, moderate, and high use sites. The locations where this sampling strategy was 

used included: 

o Interior: Nome Creek, Delta Wild and Scenic River Wayside; 

o Southcentral: Turnagain Pass rest areas, potentially other Forest Service sites where 

people pull in; 

o Southeast: Prince of Wales Island. 

 Small tours: Small tours includes vans and small buses (e.g., 14 passenger). Groups were 

identified (e.g., when people got off the bus, they often organized into subgroups for pictures, 

etc.) and sampled according the site use outlined above. 

 Large tours: For full size tour buses, the same procedure as small tours was utilized. However, at 

low use sites, only up to three groups were sampled, so that no single tour bus comprises a 

disproportionate share of the sample for that site. 

 Cruise ships: Various sizes range from intimate, 50 person expedition vessels to 2500 passenger 

mega-ships. Juneau and Ketchikan can have up to 5 cruise ships in port per day, while Sitka and 

Hoonah might have only have 1 or 2 at a time, or none. Some of the sampling took place in 

locations near the ships’ berths and large groups of passengers flooded into the survey area all 

at once. When large groups of passengers flooded the survey area, the surveyor would attempt 

to randomly select groups of visitors to intercept. The surveyor would wait until the group was 

completed with the survey before selecting another group. Because of the large number of 

passengers, only a small proportion of cruise passengers from any one ship were sampled. 

 Campgrounds: Several campgrounds are included in the sample. Although the protocol varied 

slightly depending on whether the campground is associated with some other attraction (i.e., a 

day-use fishing area), in general, the surveyor walked through the campground in the late 

morning or early evening and sampled visitors who were outside of their tent or RV. The survey 

aides distributed the survey throughout the campground, then made a loop to pick up 

completed surveys. 

Table 2 provides a list of the sites sampled, the targeted visitors, and the sampling approach at each site. 

Figure 2 displays the FLMA units where sampling occurred. 
8 | P a g e

In preparation for survey administration, the FLMA Alaska Regional Transportation Coordinators (NPS, 

FWS, FS, BLM) were asked to send a letter announcing the survey effort to each of the units (within their 

FLMA) that were proposed survey sites. The letter described the overall purpose and objective of the 

survey, introduced the survey manager, Dr. Peter Fix of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, and provided 

appropriate contact information if the sites had any questions. 

 

The UAF survey team followed up with phone calls to each site to confirm receipt of the letter, to share 

initial survey plans, and to obtain input on survey logistics (e.g., specific sampling locations, restrictions 

on survey dates, etc.). In addition, the units provided UAF with information on any requirements 

regarding survey administration. Each FLMA had slightly different requirements for obtaining approval 

to conduct surveys. NPS, for example, required that UAF complete a research application via its 

Research Permit and Reporting System (RPRS).2 Overall, most units were extremely cooperative and did 

not have any issues or problems regarding the administration of surveys at their sites. 

 

2

 See https://irma.nps.gov/rprs/
9 | P a g e

Table 2. Specific Sites Sampled, Targeted Visitors, and Sampling Approach. 

Region 

Survey site

Specific sampling locations at site Targeted visitors Site description and sampling approach

Interior

Alaska Public Lands 

Information Center 

(APLIC) Fairbanks

Outside building (required) Cruise Passenger, some Local High use, randomly selected groups to survey.

APLIC Tok Mix of inside and outside the building Non-Resident Independent Traveler One of first or last stops to/from AK. Had to work around hours 

the center was open. Attempted to sample all who stopped.

Arctic Interagency 

Visitor Center 

(AIVC)

3

Inside building, survey administered by 

AIVC employee

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Trained one AIVC staff, who administered survey. Moderate use, 

selected days to sample, attempted to sample most visitors on 

those days. 

Denali National Park 

& Preserve (NP&P)

Visitor Center, Wilderness Access Center, 

Railroad Depot, Savage River Check 

Station

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler, Cruise Passenger

Rotated through 4 sites; most time spent at Visitor Center and 

Bus stop. VC, RRD: high use, randomly selected groups to 

sample. WAC SRCS: Low use, attempted all. Research permit.

Tangle Lakes & Delta 

Wild & Scenic River 

(WSR)4

Tangle Lakes Campground (south side),

Tangle Lakes Waysides (north side), 

Swede Lake Trailhead

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Multi-day trips to the 3 sites; spent time sampling at Swede Lake 

& Delta Wayside; stayed at campground, sampled people using 

the campground. Low use, attempted to survey all visitors. 

Tetlin National 

Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR)

Visitor Center, Deadman Lake and 

Lakeview campgrounds

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

First or last stop to/from AK. Added late in summer. Low use, 

attempted to sample all who stopped at Visitor Center and all at 

campgrounds.

White Mountain 

National Recreation 

Area (WMNRA)

Nome Creek, Cripple Creek Campground, 

Wickersham Dome Trailhead

Local; Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Stationed at Wickersham Dome Trailhead; parked at US 

Creek/Nome Creek Rd. junction; trip to Cripple Creek 

Campground. Moderate use, attempted most visitors.

Table continues 

 

3

 BLM classified as Northern; for sampling purposes, this site was classified as Interior and is listed in the report as Interior. 

4

 BLM classified as Southcentral; for sampling purposes, this site was classified as Interior and is listed in the report as Interior. 
10 | P a g e

Table 2. Continued. 

Region 

Survey site

Specific sampling locations at site Targeted visitors Site description and sampling approach

Southcentral

Alaska Maritime 

NWR

Outside Visitor Center, ferry dock based 

on ferry schedule

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

High use, randomly selected groups to sample.

APLIC Anchorage Outside Visitor Center Non-Resident Independent Traveler, 

some Local

Moderate use, attempted most visitors.

Katmai NP5 Brooks Camp, Lake Camp Boat Launch 

(not sampled)

Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Stayed at campground; sampled visitors waiting for bear viewing 

platform, and other locations at Brooks Camp. High use, but 

could attempt all visitors at staging for Brooks Falls.

Chugach NF Whistle Stop; Begich-Boggs Visitor 

Center; Campgrounds: Bertha Creek, 

Black Bear, Cooper Landing, Granite 

Creek, Quartz Creek, Tenderfoot, 

Williwaw; Trail heads: Canyon Creek, 

Devil’s Creek, Johnson Pass, Primrose, 

Resurrection Pass, Resurrection River; 

Turnagain Pass rest areas

Resident Independent Traveler, Local Rotated around sites, approached visitors at trailheads and 

campgrounds. Low use, attempted to sample all visitors.

FWS Dispersed Skilak Lake Visitor Contact Station;

campgrounds, trailheads, boat launches 

in Skilak Lake Rec. Area and along 

Swanson River Rd; Tustemena Lake

Resident Independent Traveler, Local Rotated around sites; approached visitors at trailheads, 

campgrounds, and boat launches. Mix of Low and Moderate 

use, attempted to sample most visitors.

Kenai Fjords NP Seward Visitor Contact Station,

Exit Glacier Contact Station

Cruise Passenger, Resident & NonResident Independent TravelerSeward: approached visitors entering/exiting Visitor Center; Exit 

Glacier: approached visitors hiking and entering/exiting Visitor 

Center. High use, randomly sampled users. Permit required.

Kenai NWR Kenai Visitor Center in Soldotna Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Outside Visitor Center; approached people visitors using trails 

and those entering Visitor Center. Moderate use, attempted to 

sample most users.

King Salmon Outside airport, Visitor Center next to 

airport

Resident Independent Traveler Approached people entering airport; surveyed at adjacent NPS 

Visitor Center. Low use, attempted to sample all users.

Russian River - FWS Jim’s Landing, Russian River Ferry Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler, Local

Approached visitors putting in taking/out. Moderate use, 

attempted to sample most visitors.

Russian River CG Russian River Campground, trail to falls Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler

Surveyor approached visitors at trailhead; walked through 

campground. Moderate use, attempted to sample most visitors.

Table continues 

Table 2. Continued. 

 

5

 NPS classified as Southwest; for sampling purposes, this site was classified as Southcentral and is listed in the report as Southcentral. 
11 | P a g e

Region 

 Survey site

Specific sampling locations at site Targeted visitors Site description and sampling approach

Southeast

Alaska Marine 

Highway System 

Ferry (AMHS)

On ferry; some on ferry dock Resident & Non-Resident Independent 

Traveler, Local

Roamed ferry, sampled people on ferry. Moderate use, varying 

efforts to sample depending on context (overnight vs day). 

Hoonah Ranger 

District

Cruise ship dock; Icy Strait point Cruise Passenger, Local Sampled at cruise ship dock, sampled at Icy Strait Point. Mix of 

moderate and high use, attempted to sample most visitors.

Juneau Dispersed VC; Parking lot; Nugget Falls; Photo Point 

Observation; Cruise ship dock;

Perseverance Gold Flume Trail

Cruise Passenger, Local Sampled cruise passengers at dock, sampled at trailheads. Dock 

high use, trailheads low use. 

Ketchikan Trails Deer Mtn., Ward Lake, and Rainbird 

trails

Local Sampled at trailheads. Low use, attempted to sample all visitors.

Klondike Gold Rush 

NHP

Cruise Ship Dock

Visitor Center

Trails Orientation Center (Chilkoot Trail)

Cruise Passenger, Resident & NonResident Independent Traveler, LocalRoamed multiple sites, spent time sampling at each site. 

Moderate use, attempted to sample most visitors. Permit 

required.

Mendenhall Glacier VC, Parking lot, Nugget Falls, Photo Point 

Observation /and Cruise ship dock, 

Perseverance Gold Flume Trail

Cruise Passenger, Local Roamed multiple sites, spent time sampling at each site. 

Moderate use, attempted to sample most visitors.

Prince of Wales Seaside Park/Coffman Cove, Beaver Falls, 

El Capitan Cave, Sunnahae Trail, Sarkar 

Boat Launch, Sandy Beach, Falls Creek, 

Gravelly Creek, Sarkar River, Thorne 

River, Whale Pass area

Local Permission denied at Prince of Wales ferry terminal, so sampled 

at other locations. Low use, attempted to sample all users.

Sitka National 

Historic Park

Sitka NHP

Russian Bishop’s House

Did not sample TNF site

Cruise Passenger, Local Split time between NHP and Russian Bishop’s House. Moderate 

use, attempted to sample most visitors.

Southeast Alaska 

Discovery Center

Sampled /and Deer Mtn., Ward Lake, & 

Rainbird trails

Cruise Passenger Outside the center, sometimes could set up a table. High use, 

randomly selected groups to sample.
12 | P a g e

Figure 2. FLMA Units Where Sampling Occurred. 

Map developed by Kendall Elifrits.

Survey Administration 

Respondents were limited to those 18 years of age or older. The surveyor approached the individual or 

group to be sampled, introduced themselves, and read the introductory survey script. Those who 

refused to participate were asked the non-response questions (see next section). When sampling groups 

that have agreed to participate, to provide randomization, the survey aide asked the person with the 

most recent birthday to complete the survey. However, if respondents desired to complete the survey 

as a couple or a group effort (e.g., collaborating on which sites the group visited and which sites they 

intended to visit), the survey aide allowed them to do so. This should not bias results, as questions 

essentially pertained to the group (unless group members traveled to different areas or participated in 

different activities). 

The onsite survey was administered via paper or iPad, depending on the situation. In many situations, 

the paper survey was preferred. Paper surveys were especially appropriate for campgrounds. The iPads, 

though, were more convenient in the Southeast, where surveyors did not have their own vehicle to 

transport paper surveys. When the iPad was primarily used, respondents were always given the option 

of completing the paper version of the survey. 
13 | P a g e

After the survey was completed, the respondent was asked if they were willing to participate in the 

follow-up survey, and were given the option of a mail-back paper survey or a web-based survey. For 

those willing, we recorded the name and mailing or email address, as appropriate, attempting to record 

the name of the person with the most recent birthday. Corresponding to the method of follow-up 

survey chosen by the respondent, the initial email or mail survey was sent within two weeks, with a 

reminder email or postcard after one week, and a second/final reminder email or second mailing of the 

survey after three weeks. 

Non-response bias 

While administering the survey onsite, the UAF survey aide tracked the number of different surveys that 

were administered, including recreation (resident and non-resident) and non-recreation (resident and 

non-resident). The aide recorded observable information for those who were contacted to complete the 

survey, but refused. This information included group size, mode of transportation (e.g., RV, sedan, 

bicycle), whether part of an organized tour, and activity (if possible to observe). Other conditions that 

might have impacted the response were noted (e.g., weather conditions, people in a hurry, etc.). This 

information allowed a comparison of respondents to non-respondents and was critical in assessing 

representation. For example, did FLMA visitors who were mountain biking systematically refuse to 

participate? Was there a lower response rate among those in an organized tour? Did residents refuse to 

participate at a lower or higher rate? 

To further test for nonresponse bias, one or two key questions were selected from the onsite survey and 

asked to visitors who declined to complete the survey. These questions relate to evaluations of 

transportation to public lands (e.g., satisfaction with transportation and activities). 
14 | P a g e

Analysis 

Most analysis consists of frequencies of the response categories and crosstabulations to compare 

frequencies of one variable against categories of another variable, typically comparing responses of 

residents and non-residents, but sometimes comparing responses of independent travelers vs. those on 

a tour, and regions of the state visited. When comparisons were made using crosstabulations, the chisquare test was conducted. The chi-square test results provide conclusions as to whether difference 

among the groups being compared are due to chance (i.e., sampling error) or if there is a “statistical 

difference.” However, when more than two groups are compared, additional testing is required to 

determine which groups differ (referred to as a post hoc test). We used a post hoc test that was 

included in the IBM SPSS Statistics6 software package; results note when that post hoc test was used 

along with the findings. 

In some cases, the mean level of a variable was compared (e.g., total number of activities participated in 

between residents and non-residents). When data allowed means to be compared, a t-test was used as 

the statistical test when two groups were being compared, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 

was used when more than two groups were being compared. ANOVA also required additional testing to 

determine which groups differed. If required, the results note when a post hoc test was utilized and 

which groups differed on the variable being compared. 

In some cases when comparisons were made, the size of a particular group is small. This is problematic, 

as results are not representative of the population (i.e., there is a wide margin of error). Stated 

differently, additional respondents, if different than the previous respondents, could drastically alter the 

results. For this report, we did not show within-group results or comparisons if the group size was less 

than 50. Caution should be used in evaluating results based on a sample size of less than 100, as even 

with 100 responses the margin of error (at the 95% confidence level) would be +/- 10%. 

 

6

IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
15 | P a g e

Results 

Final Sample 

Throughout summer 2016, from May 26 to September 4, 312 time blocks (i.e., a portion of a day when a 

surveyor spent time sampling at a site) were sampled, for approximately 1,840 hours of sampling effort 

(Table 3). As multiple sites were sampled on the same day (either one surveyor surveying multiple sites 

in a day or different surveyors sampling at different sites on the same day), time blocks do not translate 

to unique days. During the sampling period, 102 unique days were sampled, which is every day during 

that period. Effort at individual survey sites varied by use levels (Table 4), as sites with greater use were 

sampled more frequently. 

Table 3. Final Time Blocks Sampled, by Region and FLMA. 

Region1 

 FLMA

Time blocks 

sampled2

Hours 

sampled

Interior 93 565

 BLM 42 295

 FWS3 3 20

 Multi4 32 123

 NPS 16 127

Southcentral 113 672

 FWS 40 253

 Multi5 11 58

 NPS 32 205

 USFS 30 156

Southeast 106 603

 AMHS 15 37

 Multi6 8 37

 NPS 39 255

 USFS 44 199

Grand Total 312 1840

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 

2Time block refers to a period of time when a surveyor spent time sampling at a site. As different sites might have been 

sampled on the same day, time blocks do not equal unique days. 

3This site was Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. It was not initially selected as a sample location but added late in the season, 

which resulted in a low number of days sampled. 

4Alaska Public Lands Information Center Tok and Fairbanks. 

5Alaska Public Lands Information Center Anchorage. 

6Southeast Alaska Discovery Center, Ketchikan.
16 | P a g e

Table 4. Time Blocks Sampled, by Specific Sample Location. 

Region1 

 Specific site

Time blocks

sampled2

Approximate hours 

sampled

Interior 103 565

APLIC Fairbanks 11 37

APLIC Tok 11 44

AIVC 13 42

Denali NP&P 16 127

Tangle Lakes 16 76

Tetlin NWR 3 20

WMNRA3 33 219

Southcentral 120 667

Maritime NWR 13 69

APLIC ANC 8 42

Katmai NP 12 67

Chugach NF 25 139

FWS Dispersed 16 69

Kenai Fjords NP 20 138

Kenai NWR 9 60

King Salmon 3 16

Russian River - FWS4 7 50

Russian River CG 7 17

Southeast 113 603

AMHS Ferry 15 60

Hoonah Ranger District 9 52

Juneau Dispersed 13 89

Ketchikan Trails 11 36

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 22 157

Mendenhall Glacier 7 31

Prince of Wales 11 43

Sitka National Historic Park 17 98

Southeast Alaska Discovery Center 8 37

Grand Total 336 1835

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 

2Time block refers to a period of time when a surveyor spent time sampling at a site. As different sites might have been 

sampled on the same day, time blocks do not equal unique days. On several days multiple locations within a FLMA were 

sampled, thus the totals are higher than in Table 4. 

3Consists of survey sites in the Nome Creek Valley, the Cripple Creek Campground, and Wickersham Dome. 

4Russian River Ferry (crossing on ferry) and Jim’s Landing.
17 | P a g e

Response Rate 

Overall, there were 3,801 contacts. Of those contacts, 3,043 completed the survey, for an 80.1% 

response rate. Of the 3,043 completed surveys, 2,796 (92%) were recreation surveys and 247 were nonrecreation surveys. The overall margin of error for results of the onsite survey was +/-2%, however, the 

margin of error is larger for subgroups of the data. 

Onsite Response Rate by Region and FLMA Type 

The response rate varied slightly across the regions, from a high of 88% in the Interior sample region to a 

low of 72% in the Southeast sample region (Table 5). A few factors might explain this discrepancy. First, 

low use sites tend to have higher response rates; the Interior had several low-use sites. Second, the 

White Mountains National Recreation Area received considerable visitation from Fairbanks residents, 

and they might have been more likely to participate in a survey being administered by “University of 

Alaska Fairbanks.” Third, the Southeast region had two sample sites with low response rate: the Sitka 

National Historical Park and the Southeast Alaska Discovery Center (Table 6). The Southeast Alaska 

Discovery Center was a very high use site and the Sitka National Historic Park had many local visitors 

who were on a relatively focused visit (e.g., walking through after work). 

Table 5. Onsite Surveys Attempted and completed, by Region and FLMA. 

Region1 

 FLMA Contacts

Response 

rate

Completed surveys

All surveys Recreation Non-recreation

Interior 1162 88% 1019 983 36

 BLM 500 90% 452 436 16

 FWS 31 100% 31 30 1

 Multi 266 76% 203 190 13

 NPS 365 91% 333 327 6

Southcentral 1198 82% 983 926 57

 FWS 582 75% 436 404 32

 Multi 90 84% 76 71 5

 NPS 324 86% 278 267 11

 USFS 202 96% 193 184 9

Southeast 1441 72% 1041 887 154

 AMHS 188 94% 177 139 38

 Multi 102 59% 60 55 5

 NPS 618 67% 412 360 52

 USFS 533 74% 392 333 59

Grand Total 3801 80% 3043 2796 247

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 
18 | P a g e

Table 6. Onsite Surveys Attempted and Completed, by Region and Site. 

Region1 

 Specific site

Contacts Response 

rate

Completed surveys

All surveys Recreation Non-recreation

Interior 1162 88% 1019 983 36

APLIC Fairbanks 128 79% 101 98 3

APLIC Tok 87 78% 68 67 1

AIVC 51 67% 34 25 9

Denali NP&P 365 91% 333 327 6

Tangle Lakes 145 100% 145 143 2

Tetlin NWR 31 100% 31 30 1

WMNRA 355 86% 307 293 14

Southcentral 1198 82% 983 926 57

Maritime NWR 257 74% 191 178 13

APLIC Anchorage 79 89% 70 66 4

Katmai NP 99 89% 88 82 6

Chugach NF – Dispersed 123 96% 118 110 8

FWS Dispersed 153 76% 116 106 10

Kenai Fjords NP 225 84% 190 185 5

Kenai NWR 95 74% 70 64 6

King Salmon 11 55% 6 5 1

Russian River - FWS2 77 77% 59 56 3

Russian River CG 79 94% 75 74 1

Southeast 1441 72% 1041 887 154

AMHS 188 94% 177 139 38

Hoonah Ranger District 126 75% 94 81 13

Juneau Dispersed 203 63% 127 110 17

Ketchikan Trails 62 87% 54 45 9

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 327 77% 253 228 25

Mendenhall Glacier 94 80% 75 67 8

Prince of Wales 48 88% 42 30 12

Sitka NHP 291 54% 159 132 27

Southeast Alaska 

Discovery Center 102 59% 60 55 5

Grand Total 3801 80% 3043 2796 247

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 

2Russian River Ferry (crossing on ferry) and Jim’s Landing. 
19 | P a g e

Follow-up Survey 

Of the 2,796 respondents on recreation trips, 1,203 (43%) agreed to participate in the follow-up survey; 

1,068 by email and 135 by mail. Due to occasional delays between the uploading of electronic onsite 

data and when the follow-up surveys were sent, 983 were emailed the electronic follow-up survey and 

134 the mail survey. Ninety-six emails were returned as invalid email addresses, and two mail surveys 

were returned as undeliverable. Of the 887 valid email addresses 454 completed a survey (response rate 

= 51%); 75 of the valid 132 mail survey respondents completed a survey (57%). Overall, 529 follow-up 

surveys were returned, a response rate of 52%. 

Table 7. Recreation and Follow-up Surveys, by Region and FLMA. 

Region1 

 FLMA

Recreation 

surveys

Follow-up 

surveys sent

Completed 

follow-up surveys

Interior 983 454 202

 BLM 437 229 100

 FWS 29 13 8

 Multi 192 68 33

 NPS 325 144 61

Southcentral 926 379 174

 FWS 404 151 63

 Multi 71 26 14

 NPS 267 123 63

 USFS 184 79 34

Southeast 887 284 153

 AMHS 139 59 34

 Multi 55 17 9

 NPS 360 122 62

 USFS 333 86 48

Grand Total 2796 1117 529

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 
20 | P a g e

Table 8. Follow-up Surveys, by Region and Sample Site. 

Region1 

 Specific site

Recreation 

surveys

Follow-up 

surveys sent

Completed 

follow-up surveys

Interior 983 454 202

APLIC Fairbanks 100 46 22

APLIC Tok 67 21 11

AIVC 25 1 0

Denali NP&P 325 144 61

Tangle Lakes 144 68 32

Tetlin NWR 29 13 8

WMNRA 293 161 68

Southcentral 926 379 174

Maritime NWR 178 66 31

APLIC ANC 66 25 14

Katmai NP 82 46 23

Chugach NF – Dispersed 110 51 22

FWS Dispersed 105 42 14

Kenai Fjords NP 185 77 40

Kenai NWR 64 21 10

King Salmon 5 1 0

Russian River - FWS2 57 22 8

Russian River CG 74 28 12

Southeast 887 284 153

AMHS 139 59 34

Hoonah Ranger District 81 20 11

Juneau Dispersed 110 22 10

Ketchikan Trails 45 8 6

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 228 75 39

Mendenhall Glacier 67 23 13

Prince of Wales 30 13 8

Sitka National Historic Park 132 47 23

SE Alaska Discovery Center 55 17 9

Grand Total 2796 1117 529

1Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the interior 

region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 

2Russian River Ferry (crossing on ferry) and Jim’s Landing.
21 | P a g e

Representation of Follow-up Responses 

Overall, 43% of the recreation respondents agreed to participate in the follow-up survey. Although not 

reaching the level of statistical significance, the cruise ship arrival type seemed slightly less likely to 

agree to participate in the follow-up survey, with the airplane arrival type slightly more likely. As for 

completing the follow-up, again while not reaching the level of statistical significance, residents were 

slightly less likely to complete the follow-up survey (Table 9). 

Table 9. Follow-up Survey Status, by Arrival Type. 

Arrival type

 All respondents Those agreeing to follow-up

n

Refused 

follow up

Agreed to follow 

up / n n

1

Did not 

complete Completed2

Resident 838 57% 43% 357 352 60% 40%

Airplane 1000 53% 47% 470 429 48.% 52%

Cruise 558 63% 37% 206 187 51% 49%

Vehicle 318 58% 43% 135 117 52% 48%

AMHS3 46 59% 41% 19 16 38% 63%

Other4 36 56% 44% 16 16 50% 50%

Total 2796 57% 43% 1203 1117 53% 47%

All respondents chi-square = 15.13, p = .010; those agreeing to follow-up chi-square = 13.58, p = .018. 

1Number of follow-up surveys sent to each group. See Follow-up Survey section for an explanation of the follow-up surveys that 

were not sent. 

2The completed percent does not account for the undeliverable email/mail addresses. Thus, the overall response rate is lower 

than the 52% reported in the Follow-up Survey section on page 19. 

3Alaska Marine Highway System. Sample size is small, caution should be used when generalizing results. 

4Notable among the respondent other are 12 respondents who listed train (i.e., White Pass Rail Road) and 5 that listed private 

boat. (For this analysis, the other category includes only the respondents who selected other and were not classified into one of 

the other arrival types.) 

Representation of FLMA Visitor Population 

The intent of this study was to measure patterns of travel to FLMAs and travel-related issues among 

those FLMAs visitors. As such, this survey differs from a survey conducted with the purpose of 

generalizing to a specific location. First, the survey team sampled at multiple sites rather than focusing 

on any one site. Second, and also of concern to a study focusing on a particular site, is whether the data 

accurately represents volumes of different types of users. For example, cruise ship passengers might 

arrive in a pulse, whereas independent travelers might be more spaced across time. That could result in 

cruise passengers being under-represented. For example, if cruise passengers comprise twice the 

visitation as independent travelers, yet they were sampled at the same rate, statistics summarizing 

visitor type would consist of a 17% error (Table 10).
22 | P a g e

Table 10. Hypothetical Example of Visitor Volume Representation. 

Visitor Type

 Actual (hypothetical) Sample

Total visits

Percent of 

visits

Number

sampled

Percent of 

visitors

Cruise 1000 67% 250 50%

Independent 500 33% 250 50%

Total visits 1500 500

To determine the representativeness of CVTS results, several key measures were compared to the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program of the USDA Forest Service7, as well as the Alaska 

Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP)8. 

Residency of CVTS visitors sampled in the Chugach NF was compared to NVUM results from 2013. 

NVUM attempts to estimate visitor volume to specific forests, and also measures demographic 

information. The percentage of visitors from Alaska, the United States (excluding Alaska), and foreign 

countries were within 2.3% for each category. NVUM data for the Tongass were only available for Sitka 

and Hoonah, so no comparisons were made. CVTS data were not weighted based on NVUM data. 

The AVSP comprehensively samples non-residents as they exit the state, and can be taken as population 

data regarding non-resident visitors. For several reasons, comparisons of AVSP to CVTS data are not 

exact: 

 AVSP measured exit mode, CVTS measured arrival mode; 

 AVSP’s scope is limited to non-residents visitors, CVTS included residents; 

 AVSP was not focused exclusively on visitation to federal lands; and 

 AVSP included business travel. 

Despite these differences, the comparison still provides useful insights. When compared to the AVSP 

data, the CVTS may have underrepresented cruise ship passengers and overrepresented visitors 

traveling by private vehicle.9

 As a result, weights were developed and applied to the data, correcting for 

these potential biases. However, additional analysis showed that applying the weights did not have 

much effect on the results. Weighting did impact analysis related to regions visited (because cruise 

passengers are skewed toward the Southeast), but overall it appears cruise ship passengers and nonresidents arriving in a private vehicle were similar with regards to activity participation and 

demographics. For this reason, the decision was made to use unweighted data. In the few cases where 

weighting changed the results of frequencies by more than 5%, the results with weighted data are also 

presented (See Appendix B for more details). 

 

 

7

 https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ 

8

 https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/ded/DEV/TourismDevelopment/TourismResearch.aspx 

9

 At the time of the analysis, the most recent AVSP results (summer of 2016) were not available. The 2011 results 

were used. After analysis was complete, the 2016 results were released. Compared to 2011 data, air travel exit 

mode decreased by 9% and cruise ship increased by 9%. This would have the impact of exacerbating differences 

that are noted in the report. However, given the caveats above, when we note weighted results it is merely for 

consideration as the two study populations are different. Therefore we did not recalculate the weighted results. 
23 | P a g e

Results of Non-response Bias Test 

In a separate analysis, respondents were compared to non-respondents to determine if there were any 

systematic differences between these two groups. The variables used for the comparison included: 

travel mode arriving at site, rating of travel experience arriving at site, activity participation, previous 

site visitation (Alaska residents), previous visitation to Alaska (non-residents), whether with a tour 

group, and group size. This analysis indicated that there was no systematic bias, and the magnitude of 

any differences found were small. Non-response bias does not appear to be an issue, so data were not 

weighted for non-response bias. See Appendix C for complete results of individual comparisons. 
24 | P a g e

Results of Recreational Surveys 

Results are included for both the onsite and follow-up survey, and are arranged by topic (e.g., activities, 

information). The sample size is larger for the onsite survey than for the follow-up survey (2,796 vs. 529, 

respectively). When a table/figure displays results from the follow-up survey, it is noted below the 

respective table/figure (i.e., unless noted, results are from the onsite survey). 

Characteristics of Visitors 

Demographics 

Overall, respondents were evenly split between male and female (50.5% and 49.5%, respectively, n = 

2,757), with no significant differences between residents and non-residents (Chi-square = 3.3, p = .071; 

residents n = 827, nonresidents n = 1,930). 

Respondents reported a high education level (i.e., relative to the US population as a whole), with 64% 

indicating a Bachelor’s degree or higher. While there was a statistically significant difference between 

residents and non-residents, the magnitude of the difference does not appear to be of practical 

significance (Phi = .10; Table 11).

 Table 11. Education Level of Respondents. 

Education Residents Non-residents All respondents

Less than high school 1% 1% 1%

High school graduate/GED 11% 9% 10%

Vocational or technical 

school certificate 3% 4% 4%

Some college 17% 13% 14%

Associate's degree 10% 7% 8%

Bachelor's degree 30% 33% 32%

Graduate degree or 

professional degree (MA, 

MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA) 28% 34% 32%

Residents n = 817, non-residents n = 1921, all respondents n = 2738. Chi-square = 29.29, p <.001. The following categories were 

significantly different at p = .05, as indicated by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction: Some college, Associate’s 

degree, Graduate or professional degree. In this analysis, weighting changed non-resident results by less than 1%.
25 | P a g e

In general, visitors tended to have relatively high income levels. Nearly two-thirds of respondents live in 

households that earn $75,000 or more in annual household income, and 20% have household family 

incomes of $150,000 or more. Non-residents are more likely than residents to be among the highest 

income group (13% vs. 5.4%), but otherwise there is little difference between residents and nonresidents. It should be noted, however, that non-residents had a significantly higher level of nonresponse to this item (23.7% vs. 12.8%), so comparisons should be made with caution. 

Table 12. Income Level of Respondents. 

Income Residents Non-residents All respondents

Less than $24,999 7% 5% 6%

$25,000 - $34,999 6% 4% 5%

$35,000 - $49,999 8% 9% 8%

$50,000 - $74,999 16% 17% 17%

$75,000 - $99,999 22% 20% 21%

$100,000 - $149,999 26% 23% 24%

$150,000 - $199,999 10% 9% 9%

$200,000 or more 5% 13% 11%

Do not wish to answer1 13% 24% 20%

Residents n = 702 (103 did not answer), non-residents n = 1436 (445 did not answer), all n = 2138 (548 did not answer). Chisquare (excluding do not wish to answer) = 32.8, p <.001. The only category significantly different at p = .05, as indicated by the 

post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction, was $200,000 or more. In this analysis weighting changed non-resident results by 

less than 1%. 

1This question had a Do not wish to answer as a response option. The percentages shown in this row are of the overall number 

of respondents. 

The majority of respondents were white (94%) and were non-Hispanic (96%) (Table 13).
26 | P a g e

Table 13. Ethnicity and Race of Respondents. 

Ethnicity 

Race1 Residents 

Nonresidents All 

respondents 

Hispanic or Latino2 4% 3% 4%

Race3

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 7% 2% 3%

Asian 2% 4% 3%

Black or African 

American 1% 1% 1%

Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander 1% 0% 0%

White 93% 95% 94%

1This question followed the US Census Bureau standards for separately asking Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity question, then 

following with a race question. 

2Asked as a separate question, with a yes/no response option. Residents n = 815, non-residents n = 1924, all respondents n = 

2739.

3Asked as a check all that apply question. Residents n = 779, non-residents n = 1858, all respondents n = 2637. 
27 | P a g e

Residency 

Overall, 30% of the recreational visitors were from Alaska, and 70% were non-residents. Among nonresident visitors, 81% (of recreational visitors) were from the United States, with all 50 states 

represented. California, Washington State, Texas, and Florida were the most frequently cited home 

states (Table 14). 

Table 14. Home State of Respondents from the United States, but not Alaska. 

State1

Non-resident 

recreational visitors

California 14%

Washington 7%

Texas 6%

Florida 5%

Colorado 4%

Michigan 4%

Oregon 3%

Arizona 3%

Ohio 3%

Minnesota 3%

Wisconsin 3%

Illinois 3%

Pennsylvania 3%

New York 3%

North Carolina 3%

Utah 3%

Massachusetts 2%

n = 1586; n is the number of respondents from the US, but not Alaska, and that provided there state of residence (i.e., 5 

respondents did not provide a state). States not shown had less than 2% response.

Among foreign visitors (13% of the recreational visitors), Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom 

were the most frequently cited home countries (Table 15).
28 | P a g e

Table 15. Home Country of Respondents not from the United States. 

Country1

 Recreational 

visitor

Canada 40%

Australia 13%

United Kingdom 10%

Germany 8%

Switzerland 4%

New Zealand 3%

France 3%

The Netherlands 3%

n = 367; n is the number of respondents from countries other than the US.

1Countries not shown had less than 1.5% response. For recreational visitors this consisted of Mexico and 32 countries located in 

Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa. 

Residency differed across the sites (Figure 3 to Figure 5). Sites with relatively high resident visitation 

include the White Mountains National Recreation Area and Tangle Lakes, in the Interior; dispersed Fish 

and Wildlife Service and National Forest sites in the Southcentral; and Forest Service sites on Prince of 

Wales Island and outside of Ketchikan. There were differences by FLMAs, with the BLM sites receiving 

much higher resident visitation than the other sites (84%). The FWS and USFS sites were similar (36% 

and 31% residents, respectively), and the NPS had the lowest percent of resident visitors (10%; Figure 6). 
29 | P a g e

7%

7%

7%

11%

36%

78%

88%

93%

93%

93%

89%

64%

22%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tetlin NWR (n=30)

Denali NP&P (n=327)

APLIC Tok (n=67)

APLIC Fairbanks (n=98)

AIVC (n=25)

Tangle Lakes (n=143)

WMNRA (n=293)

Percent of respondents

Residency of Interior Site Respondents

Resident Non-resident

Figure 3. Residency of Interior Site Recreation Respondents. 
30 | P a g e

6%

14%

15%

18%

30%

45%

49%

58%

75%

94%

86%

85%

82%

70%

55%

51%

42%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

APLIC ANC (n=66)

Kenai Fjords NP (n=185)

Katmai NP (n=82)

Maritime NWR (n=178)

Kenai NWR (n=64)

Russian River - FWS (n=56)

Russian River CG (n=74)

Chugach NF (n=110)

FWS Dispersed (n=106)

Perent of respondents

Residency of Southcentral Site Respondents

Residents Non-Residents

Figure 4. Residency of Southcentral Site Recreation Respondents. 

King Salomon airport n = 5, and is not shown. All recreation respondents from the King Salmon Airport were residents. 
31 | P a g e

4%

4%

10%

15%

18%

21%

44%

47%

98%

96%

96%

90%

85%

82%

79%

56%

53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Southeast Alaska Discovery Center

(n=55)

Hoonah Ranger District (n=81)

Klondike Gold Rush National

Historic Park (n=228)

Mendenhall Glacier (n=67)

Juneau Dispersed (n=110)

Sitka National Historic Park (n=132)

Alaska Marine Highway Ferry

(n=139)

Ketchikan Trails (n=45)

Prince of Wales (n=30)

Percent of respondents

Residency of Southeast Site Respondents

Residents Non-residents

Figure 5. Residency of Southeast Site Recreation Respondents. 
32 | P a g e

9%

10%

21%

31%

36%

84%

91%

90%

79%

69%

64%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multi (n=316)

NPS (n=954)

AMH (n=139)

USFS (n=517)

FWS (n=434)

BLM (n=436)

Percent of respondents

Residency of Respondents, by FLMA

Residents Non-residents

Figure 6. Residency of Recreation Respondents, by FLMA. 
33 | P a g e

Group composition 

Overall the majority of respondents were traveling with family (58%), and significantly fewer 

respondents indicated they were traveling with friends (15%), with family and friends (13.1%), or 

traveling alone (11.5%). Non-residents were more likely to indicate they were traveling with family than 

residents, whereas residents were more likely to indicate they were traveling alone (Table 16). It should 

be noted that 64 (25%) of the 196 of the respondent who checked “alone” in the group composition 

question provided a number of groups members in a following question that indicated a group size 

larger than one. 

Table 16. Group Composition of Residents and Non-residents. 

Group composition Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Alone 15% 8% 10%

Family 52% 64% 60%

Friends 16% 14% 15%

Family and friends 16% 11% 12%

Business associates 0% 1% 1%

Other1 1% 3% 2%

Resident n = 825, non-resident n = 1926. Chi-square = 65.9, p < 001. The friends category did not differ, all other categories 

differed in the post hoc test with Bonferroni correction. In this analysis weighting the data did not change responses by more 

than 2%. 

157 respondents provided an explanation of other. Most mentioned Organized Group/Tour (n=25), followed by 

Spouse/Significant other (n = 13). 

On average, group sizes were relatively small, with 80% of respondents being in groups of 4 or less; 

residents tended to be in slightly smaller groups than non-residents (77% vs. 91% in groups of 4 or less, 

respectively). Visitors on pre-packaged tours and traveling with family and friends reported larger group 

sizes (Table 17).
34 | P a g e

Table 17. Group Size by Respondent Characteristics. 

Group composition n Mean Mean.2

Group size1

1 2 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 20 20+

All respondents 2642 3.8 3.4 12% 68% 16% 3% 1%

Resident 801 3.7 3.4 16% 61% 20% 2% 1%

Non-resident 1859 3.8 3.4 10% 71% 14% 3% 1%

Alone2 256 1.6 1.4 75% 21% 2% 2% 0%

Family 1605 3.3 3.2 4% 79% 14% 2% 0%

Friends 385 4 3.3 8% 76% 13% 1% 2%

Family and friends 324 6.9 5.6 3% 46% 38% 8% 5%

Independent 1980 3.3 3.1 14% 69% 15% 2% 1%

Pre-Packaged tour 387 5.6 4.1 5% 65% 20% 6% 4%

Independent & tour 283 4.8 4.3 4% 69% 19% 7% 2%

Mean.2 excludes the 20+ group size. Residency did not differ on mean group size, but the composition of group sizes was 

different at p = .05 as tested by chi-square. For group composition, the means for family and family and friends did not differ; 

all other combinations were different. For the independent vs. tour question, pre-packaged tour and independent & tour did 

not differ.

1Total group size was not directly asked, this variable was the sum of the questions that asked respondents to report the 

number of group members in pre-defined age categories. 

2The group composition question asked with what type of personal group the respondent was traveling. The question asking 

the respondent to list the number of group members in specific age ranges also referenced the personal travel group. There is 

some error among the respondents chosen alone for group size, but indicating group sizes greater than one. 

In general, the age composition of the groups was skewed toward the older age categories (Figure 7). 
35 | P a g e

8%

13%

12%

22%

30%

56%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5 years and under

6 to 12 years old

13 to 18 years old

19 to 29 years old

30 to 44 years old

45 to 64 years old

65 and older

Respondents with Group Members within Specific Age 

Ranges

Percent of respondents

Figure 7. Ages Present within Groups. 

Respondents n = 2701. Bars represent the percentage of respondents. Weighting by arrival mode did not impact results.

Compared to residents, a larger share of the non-resident groups had members who were 65 years of 

age or older (44% vs. 20%). Residents were more likely to include children in their group, as well as 

group members in the 19 to 29 and 30 to 44 age ranges (Table 18).

Table 18. Age Composition of Group, by Residency. 

Group size

Respondents with group 

members in age range

Residents Non-residents

5 years and under 16% 4%

6 - 12 years old 23% 9%

13 - 18 years old 14% 11%

19 - 29 years old 26% 20%

30 - 44 years old 44% 23%

45 - 64 years old 50% 58%

65 or older 20% 44%

Residents n = 807, non-residents n = 1894. Cell entries are the percent of respondents who indicated they had group members 

in that age range. All group sizes differed significantly between residents and non-residents at p = .05. Weighting the data did

influence the non-resident results. See Appendix D for a breakdown by sample site.
36 | P a g e

Overall, three-quarters of respondents reported traveling independently, and 25% said they participated 

in a tour package for at least part of their trip (14% were pre-packaged tour only and 11% did both a 

tour and traveled independently). Almost all resident respondents reported traveling independently 

(99%), whereas 35% of non-residents were traveling with an organized tour. Very few respondents were 

with a school group or other similar organized group (Table 19). 

Table 19. General Group Composition of CVTS Respondents. 

Group characteristic Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

On a package tour1

Independently 99% 65% 75%

Pre-purchased package tour 1% 20% 14%

Independently and package 

tour group 1% 15% 11%

With school group2

Yes 1% 1% 1%

No 99% 99% 99%

Other organized group3

Yes 2% 4% 3%

No 98% 96% 97%

1Residents n = 823, non-residents n = 1945, all respondents n = 2768. Chi-square = 365.8, p < .001. 

2Residents n = 804, non-residents n = 1826, all respondents n = 2630. Chi-square = .63, p =.686. 

3Residents n = 805, non-residents n = 1838, all respondents n = 2643. Chi-square = 9.53, p = .002. 

Regarding independent travelers versus those traveling as part of a pre-purchased tour, there were 

differences among sites, with sites in the Southeast less likely to have independent travelers (Table 20). 

Differences were also evident across agencies with the BLM and FWS consisting of over 90% of 

independent travelers, while the NPS, USFS, and Multi-agency sites ranged from 66% to 58% (Figure 8).
37 | P a g e

Table 20. Respondents Traveling Independently or with Tour Group, by Sample Site. 

Sample region1 

 Sample site2 

n Percent of respondents traveling

Independently

Pre-packaged 

tour

Both

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 97 50% 31% 20%

APLIC Tok 65 89% 5% 6%

Denali National Park 324 65% 23% 12%

Tangle Lakes 142 99% 0% 1%

WMNRA 287 99% 1% 0%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 66 53% 21% 26%

Alaska Maritime NWR 177 83% 8% 9%

Brooks Camp 82 88% 6% 6%

Chugach National Forest 110 95% 4% 2%

FWS Dispersed 105 96% 1% 3%

Kenai Fjords NP 185 90% 3% 7%

Kenai NWR Visitor Center 62 90% 7% 3%

Russian River - FWS 56 96% 0% 4%

Russian River Campground 74 99% 0% 1%

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 139 91% 2% 7%

Hoonah Ranger District 79 13% 48% 39%

Juneau Dispersed 107 37% 40% 22%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 227 52% 33% 16%

Mendenhall Glacier 64 47% 30% 23%

Sitka National Historic Park 132 46% 25% 30%

Southeast Alaska Discovery 

Center 55 24% 47% 29%

1

 Classification of sites into the regions differs from initial CVTS site list. For this report, Tangle Lakes was classified as the 

interior region and Katmai National Park as the southcentral region. 

2Sites with n < 50 are not shown (AIVC, Tetlin, Ketchikan trails, Prince of Wales). 
38 | P a g e

58%

63%

66%

90%

91%

99%

24%

21%

20%

4%

2%

1%

19%

15%

14%

5%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Multi (n=313)

USFS (n=507)

NPS (n=950)

FWS (n=430)

AMHS (n=139)

BLM (n=429)

Percent of respondents

Independent Travelers vs Pre-packaged Tours

Independently Part of pre-purchased package/tour Both

Figure 8. Independent Travelers vs. Pre-purchased Tours, by Agency. 

Chi-square = 331, p <.001. The BLM and FWS differed from the NPS, USFS and Multi on all of the categories. 
39 | P a g e

Accessibility issues 

Eleven percent of respondents indicated they had conditions that limited access to services, with nonresidents almost twice as likely to indicate such a condition (Table 21). 

Table 21. Physical Condition Limiting Access to Services. 

Physical condition limiting 

access to services? Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

Yes 7% 12% 11%

No 93% 88% 89%

Residents n = 805, non-residents n = 1933, all respondents n = 2757. Chi-square = 18.17, p < .001. 

Two hundred eighty-five respondents (51 residents, 234 non-residents) provided a written explanation 

to the open-ended question that asked the respondent what activity or service they had difficulty 

accessing. The responses were coded into three major categories: 

 A service or activity was listed (i.e., that respondent had difficulty accessing); 

 A condition or concern that might fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act was mentioned; 

and 

 A personal condition/limitation, such as age, was listed, but an activity was not listed. 

Several responses mentioned multiple issues (e.g., an ADA concern and activity, an activity and the 

personal limitation that makes accessing that activity difficult, etc.). In these cases, the responses were 

coded in multiple categories. Overall, 67% listed a service or activity they had difficulty accessing, 41% 

listed a personal condition/limitation, and 22% listed a condition that might fall under ADA (Figure 9).

With respect to the responses that had some mention of services or activities (191 responses; 27 

residents, 164 non-residents):

 158 (83%; 23/27 residents, 135/164 non-residents) mentioned difficulty walking or hiking; and 

 16 (8%; 5/27 residents, 11/164 non-residents) mentioned water-based activities. 

For responses that had some mention of personal conditions (117 responses; 24 residents, 93 nonresidents): 

 37 (32%; 8/24 residents, 20/93 non-residents) mentioned issues related to knees, legs, or feet; 

 34 (29%; 3/24 residents, 31/93 non-residents) mentioned mobility specifically or in general; and 

 16 (14%; 2/24 residents, 14/93 non-residents) mentioned age. 

Of the responses that might have implications for ADA (63 responses; 14 residents, 49 non-residents):

 35 (56%; 7/14 residents, 28/49 non-residents) related to difficulty with terrain, stairs, and/or the 

need for ramps/rails; 

 17 (27%; 5/14 residents, 12/49 non-residents) mentioned need for wheelchair access; and 

 2 (3%, both non-residents) related to hearing impairments. 

The responses and their codes are found in Appendix E. The responses in Appendix E are arranged by 

the primary theme (e.g., service or activity, personal condition), the statistics above tally responses 

across all themes (e.g., a response that is primarily categorized under service or activity, might also 

contain a secondary theme of personal limitation). 
40 | P a g e

Figure 9. Service or Activity Respondent had Difficulty Accessing, Non-Mutually Exclusive Codes. 

n = 285.

Accommodations 

A large majority of respondents (89%) spent at least one night away from home on their trip. There 

were large differences between Alaska residents and non-residents. Whereas 42% of residents said they 

were not spending any nights away from home, and 23.2% said they were spending only 1 to 2 nights 

away, essentially all non-residents indicated they were spending the night away from home, and in fact 

more than one-half of non-residents were spending 3 to 14 nights away from home, and an additional 

43% were spending 15+ nights from home (compared to 33% and 1.4%, respectively, for residents; Phi = 

.75; Table 22). 

Table 22. Number of Nights Spent Away from Home. 

Number of 

Nights Away1 Resident Non-resident

All 

respondents

0 (none) 42% 0% 11%

1 – 2 23% 1% 7%

3 – 14 33% 56% 50%

15+ 1% 43% 32%

Residents n = 138, non-residents n = 385, all respondents n = 523. Chi-square = 294, p < .001. All categories differed as indicated 

by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction. 

1Question asked on follow-up survey. The categories listed were the response categories to the question. 

67%

41%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Service or activity listed

Personal limitation listed

Condition that might fall under ADA /

ADA listed

Service or Activity Respondent had Difficulty Accessing 

Percent of respondents
41 | P a g e

Differences in nights spent away from home were evident across the FLMAs where respondents were 

sampled, with BLM having the highest percentage of visitors on day trips (35%; Figure 10).

35%

7%

4%

15%

21%

7%

4%

31%

62%

61%

37%

45%

13%

23%

31%

46%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

BLM (n=100)

USFS (n=81)

NPS (n=185)

FWS (n=68)

Multi (n=55)

Precent of respodents

Nights Away from Home

0 (none) 1-2 3-14 15+

Figure 10. Nights Away from Home, by FLMA. 

Question asked on follow-up survey. AMHS not shown due to small sample size. Chi-square = 138, p <.001. 

There were also differences by residency in the types of accommodations that visitors used. Alaska 

residents were more likely to camp (both RV/trailer and tent camping), while non-residents were more 

likely to use commercial lodging (e.g., hotels, lodges). No residents listed cruise ship as a lodging 

category (Figure 11). 
42 | P a g e

27%

8%

5%

15%

5%

27%

55%

13%

21%

32%

5%

9%

16%

4%

30%

63%

8%

18%

3%

3%

9%

10%

14%

16%

35%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cruise ship

Other accommodations

AMHS Ferry or other boat

Residence of friends or relatives

Backcountry tent camping

Rental lodge or cabin

Hotel, motel, other rented (condo, B&B, etc.)

Campground tent camping

RV/trailer camping

Percent of respondents

Accomodation Type

Residents (n=80) Non-residents (n=380) All respondents (n=460)

Figure 11. Type of Accommodation, by residency. 

Question asked only on the follow-up survey. Categories were not mutually exclusive. Personal seasonal residence was only 

used by 1% of residents and non-residents and is not shown. All categories statistically significant at p = .05, except residence of 

friends or relatives. Cruise ship and other not tested. 
43 | P a g e

Transportation Types and Issues 

Modes of transportation and satisfaction 

Since residents can potentially access FLMA sites on a regular basis, they were asked the frequency with 

which they used different forms of transportation on federal lands in the past year. For each type used, 

they were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction. Private vehicle and foot/hiking were the most 

frequently used forms of transportation (Table 23). Kayak, canoe or raft, bicycle, and cross-country 

skis/snowshoes were used less often, but about 40% used these forms of transportation at least 

occasionally. 

Table 23. Residents’ General Use of Transportation on Federal Lands in the Past Year. 

Mode of Transportation1 Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always

Private vehicle (n=796) 2% 3% 10% 29% 56%

Foot/hiking (n=736) 9% 8% 29% 40% 15%

Kayak, canoe, raft (n=674) 36% 20% 31% 11% 2%

Bicycle (n=679) 42% 16% 22% 18% 3%

Cross country skis, snowshoes (n=677) 46% 13% 21% 16% 3%

Motorboat (n=678) 54% 18% 15% 12% 2%

ATV (n=677) 55% 13% 15% 13% 4%

Commercial aircraft (n=661) 56% 18% 17% 8% 1%

Snow machine (n=658) 60% 14% 13% 9% 4%

AMHS ferry (n=672) 64% 22% 10% 3% 1%

Train (n=649) 74% 21% 5% 1% 1%

Private airplane (n=654) 78% 13% 7% 2% 1%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus (n=655) 79% 16% 4% 1% 1%

Public bus (n=650) 90% 7% 2% 1% 1%

822 responded to at least one mode of transportation. The difference between 822 and each mode's n might represent an 

undercounting of “never”. Eighteen respondents indicated they used other forms of transportation (three indicated more than 

one other form); of those 18, six were related to animals (e.g., horses, dog sleds). 

1Question asked only to resident respondents. 
44 | P a g e

For all forms of transportation, a large majority of residents were satisfied, with roughly one-third being 

very satisfied and another 40% to 50% being satisfied. Satisfaction was highest for non-motorized forms 

of transportation, including foot/hiking, bicycling, cross country skis/snowshoes, and kayak/canoe/raft. 

While no form of transportation stands out as having a high level of dissatisfaction among residents, 

public bus and commercial shuttle had a relatively large percentage of respondents indicating neither 

dissatisfied nor satisfied (Table 24).

Table 24. Residents’ General Satisfaction with Transportation Used During the Past Year.

Mode of Transportation1

Very 

dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither 

satisfied or 

dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Private vehicle (n=708) 1% 2% 10% 49% 39%

ATV (n=265) 2% 4% 16% 49% 29%

Kayak, canoe, raft (n= 70) 2% 2% 10% 46% 41%

Motorboat (n=254) 2% 3% 13% 45% 37%

AMHS ferry (n=203) 3% 3% 14% 43% 37%

Commercial aircraft (n=245) 1% 2% 19% 51% 27%

Private airplane (n=111) 2% 2% 19% 41% 37%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus (n=109) 6% 1% 26% 44% 24%

Public bus (n=53) 4% 4% 36% 40% 17%

Train (n=140) 3% 1% 19% 47% 30%

Snow machine (n=220) 1% 3% 14% 47% 36%

Cross country skis, snowshoes (n=311) 1% 2% 10% 44% 44%

Bicycle (n=345) 1% 3% 11% 40% 46%

Foot/hiking (n=583) 1% 1% 7% 43% 49%

The ns include only those who indicated they used the mode of transportation. 

1Question was asked only to resident respondents. 

Alaska non-residents were asked about the modes of transportation they used to arrive in Alaska. The 

figure below shows both weighted and unweighted data. According to the unweighted data, 54% of 

visitors arrived by airplane, 29% by cruise ship, and 23% by vehicle. Fewer than 5% of respondents used 

any other mode to arrive. When the data are weighted, there is an increase in the proportion arriving by 

cruise ship and a decline in those arriving by vehicle (as previously discussed in the Methods section, the 

Alaska CVTS survey may have underrepresented cruise ship passengers). 
45 | P a g e

2%

5%

3%

10%

46%

54%

4%

4%

4%

23%

29%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AMHS ferry

Bus

Other

Vehicle (car, RV, truck, motorcycle)

Cruise Ship

Airplane (commercial or private)

Percent of respondents

Transportation Mode Used to Arrive in Alaska, Nonresidents 

Percent of non-residents using With weights applied

Figure 12. Non-residents’ Method of Arriving in Alaska. 

n = 1958. Categories were not mutually exclusive, thus they sum to greater than 100%. Weights were based on Alaska Visitor 

Statistic Program data. 
46 | P a g e

In a set of site-specific questions, all visitors were asked about the type of transportation they used to 

arrive at the site. Nearly two-thirds of visitors used a private vehicle, but residents were significantly 

more likely to use this form of transportation than non-residents (92% vs. 49%, respectively). All other 

forms of transportation were used by significantly fewer respondents, with notable differences by 

residency for commercial shuttle and tour bus (non-residents were more likely to indicate using those 

forms of transportation; Table 25). 

Table 25. Types of Transportation Used to Arrive at Sample Site. 

Mode of Transportation1 Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)** v 92% 49% 62%

Foot/Hiking** 10% 16% 14%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus nt 1% 15% 11%

Cruise ship nt ^ 0% 16% 11%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, 

helicopter)** 3% 7% 6%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad** 2% 7% 5%

AMHS ferry** 3% 5% 5%

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys) nt 0% 2% 2%

Private airplane nt 1% 2% 2%

Denali Visitor Transportation System nt 0% 1% 1%

Motorboat 1% 1% 1%

Kayak, canoe, or raft nt 1% 1% 1%

Bicycle nt 2% 1% 1%

Other2 nt 0% 2% 1%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle nt 1% 0% 0%

Residents n = 832, non-residents n = 1911, all respondents n = 2743. *significant difference at p = .10. **significant difference at 

p = .05. nt = no test was conducted due to small number of people selecting that form of transportation, violating the minimum 

cell count of 5 requirement of chi-square. 

v ^ when weights were applied for non-residents private vehicle decreased to 36% (all respondents to 53%) and cruise ship 

increased to 25% (all respondents to 17%). 

1The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 

239 respondents provided an explanation for “other;” public transportation was the most often cited form of transportation 

(n=9). 

See Appendix D for travel to site, by sample site. 

Overall, visitors were very satisfied with their experience traveling to the site, as nearly two-thirds (62%) 

rated the experience as excellent and another third rated it as good (32%). Only 5% indicated their travel 

experience was fair and 1% rated it as poor or very poor. While nearly all residents were satisfied (rating 

of excellent or good) with their travel experience to the site, they were less likely than non-residents to 

give the highest rating of excellent (55% vs. 65%; Table 26). Slight differences existed by tour group type 

(Table 27) and FLMA (Table 28).
47 | P a g e

Table 26. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site. 

Travel rating of 

experience arriving at site Residence of respondent

Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

Excellent 55% 65% 62%

Good 36% 30% 32%

Fair 7% 4% 5%

Poor 1% 1% 1%

Very Poor 0% 0% 0%

Resident n = 831, non-resident n = 1942, all respondents n = 2773. Chi-square = 29.2, p < .001. Results of post hoc test with 

Bonferroni correction revealed residents and non-residents did not differ on the poor and very poor responses. Applying the 

weights for arrival type did not change the results. See Appendix D for a breakout by sample site. 

Table 27. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site, by Tour Group Type. 

Travel rating of 

experience arriving at site Tour group type

Resident 

independent

Non-resident 

independent

Non-resident tour 

only

Excellent 55% 63% 72%

Good 37% 30% 26%

Fair 7% 5% 2%

Poor 1% 1% 0%

Very Poor 0% 0% 0%

Resident independent n = 810, non-resident independent n = 1242, non-resident tour only n = 392. Chi-square = 40.8, p < .001. 

Results of post hoc test with Bonferroni correction revealed all groups differ on the excellent rating, residents differ from the 

non-residents on the good rating, and non-resident tour only differ from the independent travelers on the fair rating.

Table 28. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site, by FLMA. 

Travel rating of 

experience arriving at site FLMA

BLM FWS Multi NPS USFS

Excellent 50% 59% 60% 65% 71%

Good 40% 31% 31% 31% 25%

Fair 7% 8% 8% 3% 4%

Poor 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Very Poor 0% 1% 1% 0%

BLM n = 434, FWS n = 431, Multi n = 310, NPS n = 949, USFS n = 515. Cells with 0% were rounded from less than .5; blank cells 

indicate no respondents selected the response category. Chi-square = 83.7, p < .001. Applying the weights for arrival type did 

not change the results. See Appendix D for a breakout by sample site. 
48 | P a g e

Within the site, 72% of both residents and non-residents traveled by foot/hiking; notable differences 

include water-based travel (both motorized and non-motorized), bicycle, and ATV, with residents more 

likely to select those forms of transportation (Table 29).

Table 29. Types of Transportation Used Within Sample Site. 

Mode of Transportation1 Resident 

Nonresident All 

respondents

Foot/hiking 72% 72% 72%

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, 

RV)**v 31% 26% 27%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus** 3% 12% 9%

Kayak, canoe, or raft** 17% 4% 8%

Denali Visitor Transportation System** 2% 9% 7%

Bicycle** 11% 3% 5%

Other2 nt 2% 6% 5%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle** 11% 1% 4%

Motorboat** 7% 2% 4%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad nt 2% 4% 3%

Public bus (not including shuttles or 

trolleys)nt 2% 2% 2%

AMHS ferry nt 2% 2% 2%

Cruise ship nt 2% 2% 2%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, 

helicopter) nt 2% 2% 2%

Private airplane (includes ultralights) nt 2% 1% 1%

Resident n = 631; non-resident n = 1418. *significant difference at p =.10. **significant difference at p = .05. nt = no test was 

conducted due to small number of people selecting that form of transportation. The number of non-residents who answered 

this question is lower than the number responding to the mode of transportation used to arrive at the site. This might be due to 

not knowing which forms of transportation they would use within the FLMA. 

v Applying weights decreased non-residents’ use of private vehicle to 19% (all respondents to 22%). 

1The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 

2104 respondents provided an explanation of “other.” The most often cited form of transportation was train (n = 33), followed 

by public transportation (n = 16). 

See Appendix D for travel to site by sample site. 

Ratings of transportation experience within the site are very similar to the ratings respondents gave 

about their travel to the site. That is, nearly all respondents gave a rating of “excellent” (65%) or “good”

(30%; Table 30). Responses were similar across tour group types (Table 31) and FLMA (Table 32).
49 | P a g e

Table 30. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site. 

Travel rating within site Residence of respondent

Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

Excellent 63% 66% 65%

Good 30% 31% 30%

Fair 6% 3% 4%

Poor 1% 0% 0%

Very Poor 0% 0%

Resident n = 733 (49 had not traveled within site yet), non-resident n = 1785 (245 had not traveled within site yet), all 

respondents n = 2518. Cells with 0% were rounded from less than .5; blank cells indicate no respondents selected the response 

category. Chi-square = 13.1, p = .011. Results of post hoc test with Bonferroni correction revealed a difference between 

resident and non-resident independent travelers on the fair rating. Applying weights based on arrival type did not impact 

results. See Appendix D for results by sample site.

Table 31. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, by Tour Group Type. 

Travel rating within site Tour group type

Resident 

independent

Non-resident 

independent

Non-resident tour 

only

Excellent 63% 66% 66%

Good 30% 31% 29%

Fair 6% 3% 4%

Poor 1% 0% 0%

Very Poor 0% 0%

Resident independent n = 706, non-resident independent n = 990, non-resident tour only n = 298. Cells with 0% were rounded 

from less than .5; blank cells indicate no respondents selected the response category. Chi-square = 14.2, p = .077. Results of 

post hoc test with Bonferroni correction revealed a difference between resident and non-resident independent travelers on the 

fair rating.

Table 32. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, by FLMA. 

Travel rating of 

experience within site FLMA

BLM FWS Multi NPS USFS

Excellent 61% 65% 66% 67% 67%

Good 31% 29% 32% 29% 29%

Fair 6% 6% 2% 4% 3%

Poor 1% 1% 0% 1%

Very Poor 0% 0%

BLM n = 361, FWS n = 368, Multi n = 235, NPS n = 768, USFS n = 422. Cells with 0% were rounded from less than .5; blank cells 

indicate no respondents selected the response category. Chi-square = 19.6; p = .237. Applying the weights for arrival type did 

not change the results. See Appendix D for analysis by sample site. 
50 | P a g e

The follow-up survey asked respondents about travel modes used during the entire trip. Foot/hiking and 

private vehicle were the most frequently used forms of transportation, however there were differences 

between residents and non-residents. Non-residents were more likely to use rental vehicles, Denali 

Visitor Transportation Services bus, commercial aircraft, and the Alaska and White Pass Railroads. 

Residents were more likely to use private vehicles and ATVs (Table 33).

Table 33. Type of Transportation Used During Entire Trip. 

Type of Transportation Used1

Alaska 

Resident

Non-resident 

of Alaska

All 

respondents

Foot/hiking* 56% 65% 63%

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)** 91% 34% 49%

Rental vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) ** 3% 42% 32%

Boat (motorized)2 ** 8% 37% 30%

Denali Visitor Transportation System (shuttle bus) ** 3% 38% 29%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxis, helicopters) ** 10% 34% 28%

Commercial tour bus nt 3% 34% 26%

Cruise ship nt 2% 34% 26%

Alaska Railroad nt 2% 25% 19%

Kayak, canoe, or raft** 11% 19% 17%

AMHS Ferry ** 8% 18% 15%

Other public bus nt 3% 15% 12%

White Pass Railroad nt 2% 15% 12%

Bicycle 8% 10% 9%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle** 14% 5% 7%

Private airplane (includes ultralights) 2% 5% 4%

Other 3% 4% 4%

Resident n = 133, Non-resident n = 380, All respondents n = 513. *significant difference at p = .10. **significant difference at p = 

.05. nt = no test was conducted due to small number of people selecting that form of transportation. 

1Data are from follow-up survey and asked about transportation used at any point during the trip. Responses are not mutually 

exclusive, thus the columns sum to > 100%. 

2Although cruise ship was intended to be distinct from motorized boat (i.e., with motorized boat referring to a relatively small 

craft), respondents might have interpreted a cruise ship as a motorized boat. 

For each form of transportation used during their trip, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction 

using a five-point scale (very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 

somewhat satisfied, very satisfied). Across all forms of transportation, most respondents were satisfied 

or very satisfied (Figure 13). Respondents were most satisfied with rail, aircraft, and watercraft. The only 

forms of transportation with sufficient sample sizes to compare residents to non-residents were 

foot/hiking and private vehicles. No differences were found for satisfaction levels in foot/hiking; 

residents and non-residents did differ statistically on private vehicle satisfaction ratings, but the 

difference was not of practical significance. 
51 | P a g e

47%

43%

43%

33%

33%

27%

29%

28%

25%

20%

20%

17%

13%

38%

47%

51%

59%

61%

62%

62%

67%

70%

70%

70%

76%

81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other Public Bus n=60

Commercial Tour Bus n=127

Rental Vehicle n=162

AMHS ferry n=78

Private Vehicle n=250

Cruise Ship n=130

Denali Visitor Transportation System n=147

Foot or Hiking n=319

Boat (motorized) n=149

Kayak, Canoe, Raft n=84

Commercial Aircraft n=140

White Pass Railroad n=59

Alaska Railroad n=96

Satisfaction with Transportation

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Figure 13. Satisfaction with Transportation Used During Trip. 

Data from follow-up survey. 
52 | P a g e

Twenty-seven respondents provided an explanation as to why they were dissatisfied with their trip. 

Given the diversity of types of transportation used, themes do not become apparent. However, three 

comments were specific to Denali. Comments are provided below. 

 Alaska seaplanes lost our luggage. Only had four people on the plane...as a result we had to go 

glacier bay without our cameras and heavy coats. 

 As for 9+10: unable to arrange (affordable) charter flights (spoke to 3 operators--one left for 

holiday at the critical week). 

 As stated earlier in this survey, our goal is to ride the motorized trail from Wickersham Trailhead 

to US Creek. As far as can be determined on available maps there is a non-motorized section 

that interrupts the existing trail. 

 At Denali visit the bus was uncomfortable, the windows could not close at back of the bus. we 

could not hear the tourist guide. so noisy! 

 Awful, NPS needs to revisit master plan for Denali. NOT worth visiting currently. And there was 

a lack of information. 

 Bus/shuttle driver was a bit of curmudgeon. He was not friendly, did not seem very happy to 

have a baby aboard. Complained a lot about passengers. 

 Busses were too crowded and cramped; White Pass RR border crossing did not go quick. 

 Closed to UTV. 

 Fairbanks was hard to find. Cruise ship experience had limited on ship activities. Denali shuttle 

windows were extremely hard to open. Buses/vehicles seemed backlogged in Denali. Due to 

lack of bus pull-off spots, we sometimes couldn't stop to see wildlife, yet, we hate to think of the 

area being ruined by widening roads. 

 My friend injured her knee while visiting one of our sites and the ship personnel did not offer 

any help in getting her back to ship. Alaska itself more than lived up to expectations. 

 No problem w/transportation or driver- some passengers very unruly. 

 Not enough guided hiking trails--only in Denali--needed more throughout AK. 

 Not enough trails for 4 wheelers. 

 Park regulations prohibited use. 

 Rain 18 of 19 days in Alaska resulted in some very wet, gray hikes 

 Rental car rates too expensive. 

 Rude(!!) bus drivers in Juneau. Public bus driver uninterested in helping tourist. Public bus didn't 

go to the Mendenhall Glacier, when it easily could have had a stop at the NPS visitor center. 

Does the Mob run Juneau? 

 Some of the roads were in very much need of repair. 

 speed of train...slow; concerned about the overall safety on stretch from Denali to Fairbanks 

(going thru the canyon). 

 The bicycles looked fancy, but were not very good. 

 the cruise very expensive for activities...way too many jewelry stores everywhere...wish towns 

had more to do besides shop and eat. 

 The Dalton Highway is very bad. 

 They screwed up our reservations. 

 Took a flight seeing trip out of lake hood. Pilot talked us into a different flight plan and it was a 

up charge. Once in the air we were told he couldn't fly where we had planned due to the forest 

fire. The we couldn't fly to the glacier out of Eagle River due to the turbulence, so we ended up 

flying over flat land out by big lake, not impressed! Felt we were scammed. Plus, pilot was not at 

the plane on time and had to prep the plane while we watched our time tick away. 
53 | P a g e

 Tour bus to arctic circle seats were hard stiffed and not adjustable, spent 2 hours at restaurant, 

60-90 minutes was enough. 

 We had a wonderful trip, but wished there were more hiking trails, and more hiking trails that 

allow dogs. 

 We took the Wilderness tour in Denali. There were too many buses at all the stops and we were 

rushed from stop to stop. Particularly disappointing was at the turn around point for the tour, 

when we had the best view of Mt Denali. We were given very little time to appreciate what we 

had traveled so far to see. We were rushed back onto the bus in about 15 minutes. Everyone I 

spoke with on the tour expressed the same complaint. 

Travel expectations and problems with connections 

Nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated their trip was either above their expectations (44%) or 

significantly above expectations (28%). The majority of non-residents stated their travel expectations 

were exceeded; residents were essentially split as to whether travel experiences only met versus 

exceeded their expectations (Table 34). That is, approximately eight in ten non-residents indicated that 

the trip was either above or significantly above their expectation (47% and 32%, respectively), 

contrasting with the 50% of residents who felt the same way. As for the 20 respondents who indicated 

the travel experience was below expectations, 15 (4 residents, 11 non-residents) provided an 

explanation. Four of the explanations related to weather, three related to issues with flightseeing 

tours/air shuttles, two related to a lack of wildlife, and two related to regulations (motorized 

restrictions, obtaining permits). 

Table 34. Comparison of Travel Experience to Expectations. 

Comparison to Expectations1 Residents

Nonresidents All 

respondents

Significantly below my expectations 1% 1% 1%

Below my expectations 2% 3% 3%

Met my expectations 47% 18% 25%

Above my expectations 34% 47% 44%

Significantly above my expectations 16% 32% 28%

Residents n = 132, non-residents n = 378, all respondents n = 508. Chi-square = 45.62, p < .001. Significantly below and below 

expectations did not differ by residency as indicated by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction. 

1Data from follow-up survey. 

Fifteen respondents provided an explanation as to why the travel experience fell below their 

expectations. The reasons varied and are provided below. 

 Already stated... 

 Bad weather. 

 Did not see any wildlife, not even roadkill. Saw wildlife in Northern BC, but not in Alaska. Too 

much emphasis on motorized activities. 

 Expected to see more wildlife in Denali park excursion and along the way. It was sad to see so 

few moose, bears, elks [SIC] etc. 

 Explained in previous answers. 
54 | P a g e

 Float plane office was very rude. Pilots were great! 

 Mostly activities were less than expected. TV has a much better depiction of Alaska 

 One of the party became ill and we could not do the things we planned and had to cut the trip 

short. 

 Park regulations didn't allow sufficient number of boating permits for local residents 

 Rain primarily. 

 The party culture in Skagway was not really to my taste - as an alpine/rock climber, I had a lot of 

trouble finding partners. 

 The pen air flight was cancelled and we had to wait 5 hours, without any information in king 

salmon 's airport. 

 We did not get to do all we had planned. I understand we can't control the weather. However, 

that is why it was below my expectations. Two of 3 ports were washouts due to rain. 

 We were unable to locate what we were looking for, either by car or foot. 

 Weather was an issue and lack of things to do in Fairbanks. 

Overall, 12% of respondents had a problem making a transportation connection on their trip. Nonresidents were more likely to have travel situations requiring connections between different forms of 

transportation (i.e., 8% of non-residents indicated not applicable to this question, compared to 34% of 

residents). Among those in which travel connections were applicable, non-residents were more likely to 

have a problem (Table 35). As for the 60 who indicated that they experienced delays or problems 

making connections: 

 18 listed delay with air travel (4 of these specifically mentioned Delta computers); 

 13 experienced delays due to weather; 

 11 related to the AMHS ferry or other water-based transportation delays; 

 7 listed ground transportation (buses, taxis, shuttles) issues; and 

 6 had delays due to road construction or poor road conditions (see Appendix E for the individual 

responses). 

Table 35. Delays or Problems making Connections between Forms of Transportation. 

Any delays or problems making 

connections between forms of 

transportation1 Resident Non-resident 

All 

respondents

Yes2 3% 15% 12%

No 63% 77% 73%

Not applicable 34% 8% 15%

Residents n = 129, non-residents n = 373, all respondents n = 502. Chi-square = 56.6, p < .001. All categories differed as 

indicated by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction. 

1Data from follow-up survey. 

2The difference between residents and non-residents remains when the not applicable is excluded (5% vs. 16%; chi-square = 

7.07, p = .006). 
55 | P a g e

FLMA Visitation Patterns 

General FLMA visitation in past 12 months (residents only) 

Residents were asked how often they used Alaskan federal public lands during the previous twelve 

months, separating responses by summer and winter. Response options included five levels of 

frequency ranging from “never” to “more than once per week,” as well as a “don’t know” option. A 

consistent percentage of respondents stated they “did not know” whether they used a particular public 

land or that they “never” used it (Table 36). For all public lands, use was generally greater in the summer 

months compared to the winter months. Relative to other public lands, users were somewhat more 

likely to regularly use (once a week or more often) national forests, however, in general, there were few 

differences in the use of different federal public lands. 

Table 36. Residents’ Use of FLMAs in Previous Twelve Months. 

Agency

Don't 

know Never

Less 

than 

monthly

About 

once per 

month

About 

once per 

week

More 

than once 

per week

U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management

Winter n = 802 13% 28% 27% 19% 8% 6%

Summer n = 753 11% 13% 21% 28% 17% 9%

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Winter n = 790 14% 32% 28% 16% 4% 5%

Summer n = 747 15% 13% 22% 25% 16% 9%

U.S. National Park Service

Winter n = 803 9% 31% 34% 15% 6% 5%

Summer n = 767 7% 10% 29% 30% 14% 10%

U.S. Forest Service

Winter n = 812 11% 27% 26% 18% 8% 10%

Summer n = 762 10% 12% 20% 26% 17% 15%

There were 838 resident respondents, three completely skipped this question. Of the 835 who responded to at least one FLMA 

in a particular season, some did not respond for particular FLMAs, and hence the n varies by FLMA. The difference between 835 

and each FLMA’s n might represent an undercounting of “never” or “don't know”. 

Questions about winter months were asked first on the survey. This question was asked only to residents. 

Frequency of visitation to survey sites by residents 

As part of the onsite survey, Alaska residents were asked whether they had visited the site before and 

for those who had, how often they had visited in the past year. Of the 829 resident respondents who 

answered this question, 69% indicated they had visited the site before. Among these previous visitors, 

the majority had visited the site either once (28%) or two to three times (30%) in the past 12 months, 

while 22% were heavy users of the site, making more than 10 trips in the last 12 months (Figure 14). 
56 | P a g e

28%

30% 15%

5%

22%

Frequency of Visitation to Sample Site in the 

Past Year, Alaska Residents

1 time 2 - 3 times 4 - 6 times 7 - 10 times More than 10 times

Figure 14. Alaska Residents’ Frequency of Previous Visitation to the Site in the Past Year. 

n=564. Overall, 69% of 827 resident respondents indicated they previously visited the site (i.e., 568 respondents, 4 did not 

indicate how often they visited). 

While FLMAs did not differ on whether respondents had visited before, with all FLMAs relatively close to 

70% (Figure 15), there were differences in how often visitors had visited in the past 12 months. Visitors 

to the BLM-managed areas had fewer respondents visiting 10 or more times in the past 12 months than 

visitors to lands managed by the NPS and USFS (13% vs. 36% and 32%, respectively; Figure 16).
57 | P a g e

37%

33%

32%

27%

63%

67%

68%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NPS (n=93)

FWS (n=155)

BLM (n=363)

USFS (n=162)

Percent of respondents

Visitiation to Sample Site in Previous 12 Months, by FLMA

Have not visited in past 12 months Visited in past 12 months

Figure 15. Visitation to sample site in Past 12 Months, by FLMA. 

Question only asked of residents. Chi-square = 3.2, p = .368. 
58 | P a g e

66%

56%

57%

44%

20%

20%

7%

25%

13%

24%

36%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

BLM (n=244)

FWS (n=104)

NPS (n=58)

USFS (n=117)

Percent of respondents

Frequency of Visitation to Sample Site, by FLMA

1 - 3 times 4 - 10 times > 10 times

Figure 16. Frequency of Visitation to Site in Past 12 Months, by FLMA. 

Question asked visitation in categories of 1 time, 2 – 3 times, 4 – 6 times, 7 – 10 times, and > 10 times. Data were collapsed into 

the ranges shown in the figure. Chi-square = 32.8, p < .001. The post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction revealed the following 

differences. 1 to 3 times: USFS < BLM; 4 to 10 times: NPS < USFS; > 10 times: BLM < NPS & USFS. 
59 | P a g e

Previous visitation to Alaska by non-residents 

When non-residents were asked if they had previously visited Alaska, a majority (61%) had not, while 

39% indicated that they had. Among these previous visitors, 40% had visited one time in the past 10 

years, and approximately 3 of 10 had previously visited 2 to 3 times in the past 10 years (Figure 17).

 

40%

31%

13%

6%

10%

Frequency of Visitation to Alaska in the Past 10 Years, 

Non-residents

1 time 2 - 3 times 4 - 6 times 7 - 10 times More than 10 times

Figure 17. Non-residents’ Frequency of Visitation to Alaska in the Last 10 years. 

n=763. 1956 responded to the question as to whether they previously visited Alaska, and 763 (39%) indicated they had. 

Applying weights for arrival mode did not impact results. 

Site visitation 

As part of the onsite survey, respondents were presented a list of sites and asked to indicate: 

 the site(s) they had already visited, 

 the site they intended to visit next, and 

 other sites they planned to visit during the trip. 

The same list was presented to all respondents regardless of where they were sampled. First it should 

be noted, if a respondent did not check the site at which they were sampled, during data entry and/or 

cleaning, the site was coded as visited (though that might have skewed results toward sample locations). 

In general, visitation patterns follow what would be expected based on various agencies’ use statistics 

(e.g., sites such as the White Mountains National Recreation Area, Tangle Lakes Wild and Scenic River 

having greater resident visitation; national parks and preserves such as Glacier Bay and Denali having 

more non-resident visitation; the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Chugach National Forest being 

approximately equal in terms of residency of visitors; and sites in the north and southwest having lower 

visitation than other regions). Of note, Denali National Park and Preserve was selected most often; this 

might be due to the recognition of Denali NP&P and certainty over whether the site will be visited (as 

opposed to a site like the Chugach National Forest of which visitors who just arrived in Seward might not 

be aware that they are visiting). Visitation levels to several of the sites change when weights for arrival 
60 | P a g e

type were applied (Table 37). It should also be noted that 72 respondents selected 15 or more sites, 

with 41 of those selecting all sites; it would be difficult to visit all the sites in one trip. They might have 

interpreted the question as “ever visited” or “would like to visit.” 

There was also an open-ended “other” federal sites visited/intended to visit question. Although 119 

respondents provided a destination, only 32 were federal lands or would have crossed federal lands 

(Chugach NF = 7, Tongass NF = 5, BLM sites = 5, Klondike Gold Rush NHP = 4). Eighty-seven listed sites 

other than federal public lands; 34 appear to be cruise itineraries, 32 were urban areas in Alaska, 11 

were State sites, 6 were locations in Canada, and 4 were rural areas in Alaska. Those 87 respondents 

might not be aware of what an FLMA is, or might have skipped the instructions regarding federal lands 

in the question. 
61 | P a g e

Table 37. Visitation to Specific FLMAs in Alaska. 

Site Visited + Next Destination + Other Dest.1

Resident Non-resident All respondents

SOUTHEAST REGION

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve** ^ 13% 30% 25%

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park** 9% 27% 22%

Sitka National Historical Park** 12% 16% 15%

Tongass National Forest** ^ 18% 41% 34%

SOUTHCENTRAL REGION

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 12% 12% 12%

Gulkana Wild and Scenic River** 8% 4% 5%

Kenai Fjords National Park** v 21% 34% 30%

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge** v 28% 24% 25%

Chugach National Forest 30% 32% 31%

Campbell Tract (Anchorage) ** 12% 7% 9%

Tangle Lakes and Delta Wild and Scenic River** 23% 4% 10%

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve 12% 10% 11%

SOUTHWEST REGION

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge** 8% 5% 6%

Katmai National Park and Preserve 8% 8% 8%

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve** 6% 3% 4%

INTERIOR REGION

Denali National Park and Preserve** v 26% 52% 44%

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River** 9% 3% 5%

Steese National Conservation Area** 11% 3% 5%

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge 7% 7% 7%

White Mountains National Recreation Area** 36% 4% 14%

NORTHERN REGION

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve** 7% 4% 5%

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve** 5% 1% 2%

Cape Krusenstern National Monument** 4% 1% 2%

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve** 8% 3% 5%

Kobuk Valley National Park** 5% 1% 2%

Noatak National Preserve** 5% 1% 2%

Dalton Highway** 12% 6% 8%

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge** 8% 3% 5%

Residents n = 822, non-residents n = 1931, all respondents n = 2753. 

**Indicates results for residents and non-residents were statistically different at p = .05. 

^ Indicates weighted results increased by a magnitude ≥ 5%. For non-residents, Glacier Bay increased to 35% and Tongass 

National Forest increased to 50%. 

v Indicates weighted results decreased by a magnitude ≥ 5%. For non-residents, Kenai Fjords NP decreased to 29%, Kenai NWR 

to 19%, and Denali to 46%. 

1The question provided respondents the list of sites shown in the table. They were asked to indicate which sites they visited, 

which site was their next destination and which sites were among other destinations they planned to visit. During data entry 

and data cleaning, if the respondent did not check the site at which they were sampled, the surveyor marked that they visited 

that site. That might have increased the representation of the sample sites (e.g., Denali, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) relative 

to the non-sample sites (e.g., Wrangell St. Elias NP&P). 72 respondents checked more than 15 sites, with 41 of those selecting 

all the sites on the list (28 sites). 
62 | P a g e

When examining the number of sites visited, non-residents were more likely than residents to visit 

multiple sites, visitors sampled in the southeast were more likely to visit 2 to 4 sites than visitors 

sampled in other regions, and visitors sampled in the interior and southcentral regions were more likely 

to visit 5 to 9 sites (Table 38).

Table 38. Total Number of Sites Visited. 

Residents n = 821, non-residents n = 1929, Interior n = 962, southcentral n = 921, southeast n = 867, all respondents n = 2750. 

Three who checked “other” sites did not check any of the sites listed on the survey (they were where sampled at APLICs) and 

are excluded. Residency: Chi-square = 428, p < .001. All categories differed as indicated by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni 

correction. Region: (Chi-square test excludes the 15 – 27 and all sites selected categories due to the low n for southeast) Chisquare = 135, p < .001. Interior did not differ from southcentral on the 10 - 15 category, all other region-by-number-of sites 

combinations differed as indicated by the post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction. 

The average number of sites visited for both residents and non-residents differed across the three 

sampling regions (Table 39). When only one site was selected, the Tongass National Forest and White 

Mountains National Recreation were the most often designated sites (Table 40). 

Number of sites 

visited or 

intended to visit By residency By region where intercepted

All 

respondents

Residents

Nonresidents Interior Southcentral Southeast

1 55% 20% 40% 22% 28% 30%

2 thru 4 26% 60% 40% 50% 61% 50%

5 thru 9 10% 18% 15% 21% 10% 16%

10 thru 15 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 2%

15 thru 27 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1%

All sites selected 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 2%
63 | P a g e

Table 39. Average Number of Sites Visited, by Residency and Sample Region (limited to total sites < 16). 

Residence of Region

respondent sampled n

1 Mean2

Resident

Interior 395 2.2

Southcentral 268 2.9

Southeast 112 1.9

Total 775 2.4

Non-resident

Interior 544 3.3

Southcentral 610 3.6

Southeast 749 2.7

Total 1903 3.2

All respondents

Interior 939 2.9

Southcentral 878 3.4

Southeast 861 2.6

Total 2678 3.0

AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as Interior, Katmai was classified as Southcentral. 

All data: Resident vs. non-resident (testing the number of sites visited): t = -7.8, p < .001. Within residents (testing across 

region): Welch = 9.7, p < .001. Post hoc tests indicted Interior Sampling Region was not statistically different from the Southeast 

Sampling Region; all other combinations of sites were statistically different at p = .05. Within non-residents (testing across 

region): Welch = 36.7, p < .001. Post hoc tests indicted Interior Sampling Region was not statistically different from the 

Southcentral Sampling Region; all other combinations of sites were statistically different at p = .05. 

1Exlcudes respondents that listed 16 or more sites; also excludes the three that did not visit any of the sites listed. 

2Average number of sites visited by respondents sampled in that region (i.e., all respondents sampled at interior sample sites). 

It is important to note that any visitor sampled in a region can visit other regions. 
64 | P a g e

Table 40. Sites Selected when Only One Site was Selected as Visited or Planned to Visit. 

Site Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Tongass National Forest 12% 28% 20%

White Mountains National Recreation Area 35% 2% 20%

Denali National Park and Preserve 3% 26% 14%

Tangle Lakes and Delta Wild and Scenic River 21% 1% 12%

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 11% 5% 9%

Chugach National Forest 10% 4% 8%

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 1% 13% 7%

Katmai National Park and Preserve 2% 6% 4%

Sitka National Historical Park 2% 2% 2%

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 1% 3% 2%

Kenai Fjords National Park 0% 3% 2%

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 0% 2% 1%

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge 0% 2% 1%

Residents n = 450, non-residents n = 382, all respondents n = 832. Sites not shown were not selected among respondents that 

selected one site. All of these locations were sample sites (and in cases when the respondent did not check the sample site, 

data were corrected to indicate they visited the sample site). 

Although not subject to statistical testing due to the large number of comparisons, and resulting 

difficulty in controlling the family-wise error rate, it appears visitors sampled in the Interior and 

Southcentral were more likely to visit other regions of Alaska than visitors sampled in southeast Alaska 

(Figure 18). 
65 | P a g e

27% 27%

100%

50%

95%

18%

88%

44%

23%

6%

24%

4%

14% 11%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sampled in Interior (n=983) Sampled in Southcentral (n=926) Sampled in Southeast (n=887)

Visitation of Other Regions, All Respondents

Visit Southeast Visit Southcentral Visit Interior Visit Southwest Visit Northern

Figure 18. Visitation of Other Regions of Alaska, by Sample Region. 

AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as Interior Sampling Region, and Katmai was classified as Southcentral Sampling Region, 

thus the bars for visiting interior and visiting southcentral do not sum to 100 for those sampled in the Interior and Southcentral, 

respectively. Given the large number of comparisons, and the consequent difficulty in controlling the family-wise error rate, a 

statistical test was not conducted. 

On average, the number of other regions visited was 2 or less (Table 41), with non-residents appearing 

to be more likely to visit multiple regions (Table 42). 

Table 41. Average Number of other Regions Visited, by Sample Region. 

Regions where 

respondent was sampled1 n

Average number 

of regions visited

Interior 983 1.84

Southcentral 926 2.00

Southeast 887 1.49

Total 2796 1.78

1AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as Interior Sampling Region, Katmai was classified as Southcentral Sampling Region. 

F = 62.0, p < .001, post hoc test revealed all regions were statistically different from each other at p = .05. 

Note, weighting the data by arrival type does not change results by more than .1. 
66 | P a g e

Table 42. Visitation to Other Regions of Alaska, by Residency and Sample Region. 

Residence of 

respondent n Region visited

Region sampled1Southeast Southcentral Interior Southwest North

Resident

Interior 417 11% 44% 75% 5% 15%

Southcentral 297 22% 97% 29% 21% 14%

Southeast 124 100% 12% 10% 5% 7%

Total 838 28% 58% 49% 11% 14%

Non-resident 

Interior 566 38% 54% 98% 7% 13%

Southcentral 629 29% 94% 51% 25% 9%

Southeast 763 100% 19% 26% 4% 3%

Total 1958 59% 53% 55% 12% 8%

All respondents

Interior 983 27% 50% 88% 6% 14%

Southcentral 926 27% 95% 44% 24% 11%

Southeast 887 100% 18% 23% 4% 3%

Total 2796 50% 55% 53% 11% 10%

1AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as Interior, Katmai was classified as Southcentral, thus the cells highlighted in yellow for 

visiting Southcentral and the Interior do not sum to 100 for those sampled in the southcentral and interior, respectively. 

Cell entries are the percent of respondents, sampled in a particular region, who indicated they visited a site in the respective 

column. Categories are not mutually exclusive and do not sum to 100. Given the large number of comparisons, and the 

consequent difficulty in controlling the family-wise error rate, a statistical test was not conducted. 

Ability to Visit All the Federal Public Lands Sites Planned 

For both residents and non-residents, approximately 90% of respondents were able to reach their 

desired destinations (Figure 19). For those not able to reach sites (n = 55), the most frequently cited 

reasons were time (combining “not enough time” [51%] and “didn’t realize how long it would take to 

travel to” [15%]), weather (24%), and cost (13%). As for reasons that could be influenced by 

management, area/road closures (9%) and transportation not available (7%) were cited, although it does 

appear as if information on travel times and expenses could alleviate some issues (Table 43).
67 | P a g e

11%

12%

8%

89%

88%

92%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All respondents

(n=529)

Non-resident (n=377)

Resident (n=134)

Percent of respondents

Ability to Visit All Federal Sites Planned

No Yes

Figure 19. Ability to Visit all the Federal Public Land Sites Planned. 

Question asked only on the follow-up survey. Chi-square = 1.2, p =.267. 41 respondents provided comments as to the site they 

could not visit, 7 were for Denali, 6 Glacier Bay, 3 Gates of the Arctic, 3 Wrangle-St. Elias, and 2 were unable to visit Skagway. 

Table 43. Reasons Preventing Site Visitation. 

Reasons preventing site visitation Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Not enough time 45% 52% 51%

Bad weather 27% 23% 24%

Didn't realize how long it would take to travel to destination(s) 9% 16% 15%

Transportation to/from the destination was too costly 18% 11% 13%

Area was closed/road closure 9% 9% 9%

Transportation to/from the destination was not available 9% 7% 7%

Transportation to/from the destination was not frequent 

enough/convenient 0% 5% 4%

Transportation related mechanical problems 9% 2% 4%

Other 36% 14% 18%

Residents n = 11, non-residents n = 44, all respondents n = 55. Statistical tests not conducted due to low sample size. No clear 

pattern emerged in the “other” category. The 10 responses included delay at customs, ferry break down, injury, lack of fuel, 

lack of information (2x), transportation didn’t accommodate small children, water level low, and limited time. Question asked 

on the follow-up survey. 
68 | P a g e

Cross-site Visitation Patterns 

Regarding the pattern of sites visited on the same trip, as expected, sites in the same region of Alaska 

were more likely to have common visitors. Denali was perhaps the exception, with the site being visited 

among sites across many other regions (Table 44). However, slightly different patterns do emerge for 

residents and non-residents, with residents typically being on shorter trips. When examining nonresidents, patterns emerge such as visitation to Tangle Lakes/Delta Wild and Scenic River and Wrangell 

St. Elias National Park and Preserve (Table 45). When examining next destination, again sites within the 

same region as where the respondent was sampled dominate, and cruise itineraries might be evident (as 

an example of potential cruise itineraries, Denali National Park and Preserve was the next destination of 

78% of visitors to APLIC Fairbanks); however, patterns do emerge (Table 46). For example, only 15% of 

respondents sampled at Maritime National Wildlife Refuge listed Denali National Park and Preserve as 

their next destination, whereas 52% of respondents sampled at Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge also visited Denali (i.e., either they already visited Denali, or they planned to visit other sites 

before reaching Denali). 
69 | P a g e

Table 44. Cross-site Visitation, All Respondents, by Sample Site.

Site listed as visited Other sites visited when sites listed in the rows or columns were visited Glacier Bay NP

&P

Klondike Gold Rush NHPSitka NHPTongass NFAK Maritime NWRKenai Fjords NPKenai NWRChugach NFCampbell TractTangle Lakes / Delta WSRWrangell St. Elias NP

&P

Kodiak NWRKatmai NP

&P

Denali NP

&P

Steese NCATetlin NWRWMNRADalton Hwy.

Southeast

Glacier Bay NP&P 621 36% 30% 58% 10% 31% 19% 24% 7% 3% 10% 6% 6% 51% 2% 5% 5% 6%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 539 15% 68% 5% 22% 17% 24% 7% 2% 11% 3% 3% 39% 2% 6% 3% 6%

Sitka NHP 342 74% 12% 22% 14% 20% 5% 4% 8% 13% 5% 28% 3% 3% 4% 4%

Tongass NF 871 5% 13% 10% 17% 4% * 6% 4% 3% 28% * 2% 2% 3%

Southcentral

AK Maritime NWR 258 53% 52% 50% 16% 4% 17% 19% 8% 52% 6% 7% 6% 9%

Kenai Fjords NP 759 50% 63% 14% 8% 20% 7% 10% 72% 5% 9% 7% 10%

Kenai NWR 625 62% 16% 8% 20% 6% 8% 55% 4% 10% 6% 8%

Chugach NF 797 17% 7% 18% 5% 8% 59% 4% 8% 5% 10%

Campbell Tract 176 16% 28% 11% 11% 66% 6% 16% 9% 14%

Tangle Lakes & Delta WSR 209 26% 3% 5% 43% 11% 11% 11% 12%

Wrangell St. Elias NP&P 234 8% 12% 84% 13% 20% 15% 21%

Southwest

Kodiak NWR 103 25% 51% 7% 5% 10% 10%

Katmai NP&P 147 56% 3% 7% 5% 5%

Interior and North

Denali NP&P 1144 6% 9% 11% 11%

Steese NCA 88 23% 64% 42%

Tetlin NWR 130 15% 22%

WMNRA 320 15%

Dalton Hwy. 154

Data are from the question included on the onsite survey that asked the respondents to indicate what sites they had visited and which they intended to visit. The rows indicate how 

many respondents visited the site (cell shaded in orange; visited consisted of had visited, next destination, or other destinations) and what percentage of those respondents visited the 

sites in the columns. For example, 621 respondents indicated they visited Glacier Bay NP&P. Of those 621, 36% visited Klondike Gold Rush NHP, 58% the Tongass NF, and 31% Kenai 

Fjords NP. Data were screened to respondents who indicated they visited 15 or fewer sites. Sites visited by fewer than 75 respondents are not included. 

*indicates less than 2% respondents visited. 
70 | P a g e

Table 45. Cross-site Visitation, Non-residents, by Sample Site.

Site listed as visited Other sites visited when sites listed in the rows or columns were visited Glacier Bay NP

&P

Klondike Gold Rush NHPSitka NHPTongass NFAK Maritime NWRKenai Fjords NPKenai NWRChugach NFCampbell TractTangle Lakes / Delta WSRWrangell St. Elias NP

&P

Kodiak NWRKatmai NP

&P

Denali NP

&P

Tetlin NWRWMNRADalton Hwy.

Southeast

Glacier Bay NP&P 553 37% 29% 58% 5% 28% 16% 21% 5% 2% 9% 6% 5% 52% 5% 2% 4%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 495 13% 68% 3% 21% 16% 23% 6% 2% 10% 2% 3% 40% 6% 2% 5%

Sitka NHP 276 78% * 21% 12% 18% 4% 2% 8% 14% 4% 29% 3% * 3%

Tongass NF 724 * 13% 10% 19% 4% * 6% 4% 2% 31% 2% * 2%

Southcentral

AK Maritime NWR 89 72% 62% 57% 16% 4% 26% 12% 13% 72% 16% 6% 11%

Kenai Fjords NP 611 49% 60% 11% 6% 20% 6% 10% 76% 9% 4% 9%

Kenai NWR 424 66% 14% 7% 24% 5% 9% 66% 12% 4% 8%

Chugach NF 579 15% 4% 18% 4% 8% 66% 9% 3% 8%

Campbell Tract 116 9% 25% 9% 11% 70% 17% 3% 10%

Tangle Lakes / Delta WSR 64 44% 2% 9% 84% 25% 11% 17%

Wrangell St. Elias NP&P 176 6% 13% 86% 22% 6% 15%

Southwest

Kodiak NWR 80 24% 48% 5% 5% 6%

Katmai NP&P 115 59% 9% 3% 3%

Interior and North

Denali NP&P 971 9% 5% 8%

Tetlin NWR 109 9% 19%

WMNRA 60 25%

Dalton Hwy. 95

Data are from the question included on the onsite survey that asked the respondents to indicate what sites they had visited and which they intended to visit. The rows indicate how 

many respondents visited the site (cell shaded in orange; visited consisted of had visited, next destination, or other destinations) and what percentage of those respondents visited the 

sites in the columns. For example, 553 respondents indicated they visited Glacier Bay NP&P. Of those 553, 37% visited Klondike Gold Rush NHP, 58% the Tongass NF, and 38% Kenai 

Fjords NP. Data were screened to respondents who indicated they visited 15 or fewer sites. Sites visited by fewer than 50 respondents are not included. 

*indicates less than 2% respondents visited. 
71 | P a g e

Table 46. Next Destination, All Respondents, by Sample Site.

Survey region n Next destination of respondents who completed survey at sampling site in the respective row

Sample site

Glacier Bay NP

&P

Klondike Gold Rush NHPSitka NHPTongass NFAK Maritime NWRGulkana WSRKenai Fjords NPKenai NWRChugach NFCampbell TractTangle Lakes / Delta WSRWrangell St. Elias NP

&P

Kodiak NWRKatmai NP

&P

Lake Clark NP

&P

Denali NP

&P

WMNRAYukon-Charley Rivers NPres.Arctic NWR

Interior

APLIC Fairbanks 37 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 78% 3% 3% 3%

APLIC Tok 22 9% 5% 9% 9% 5% 5% 5% 45% 5% 9%

Denali National Park 92 25% 4% 4% * * 2% 37% 13% 8% * 7% 3% * * 7% 2% 2%

Tangle Lakes 19 5% 11% 11% 11% 5% 11% 58% 5%

WMNRA 58 3% 2% 2% 2% 7% 5% 45% 5% 2% 7%

Southcentral

Alaska Maritime NWR 74 3% * 9% 3% * 12% 8% 8% 3% 41% 3% 15%

APLIC Anchorage 33 6% 3% 3% 3% 21% 9% 30% 12% 6% 27%

Brooks Camp 26 8% 4% 4% 31% 12% 19% 12% 4% 31%

Chugach NF 32 3% 3% 16% 19% 28% 9% 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 16%

FWS Dispersed 28 4% 25% 50% 4% 14% 4% 4%

Kenai Fjords NP 81 7% 2% 2% 4% 2% 21% 11% 19% 2% 4% 2% 2% * 35%

Kenai NWR VC 21 5% 5% 19% 19% 10% 29% 5% 10%

Russian River - FWS 21 5% 5% 38% 24% 10% 5% 14% 14%

Russian River CG 30 10% 3% 3% 3% 37% 20% 10% 10% 7% 3% 7% 17%

Southeast

AMHS ferry 65 40% 6% 28% 20% 2% 3% 5% 2% 2% 11%

Hoonah Ranger District 36 8% 14% 17% 64% 3% 11% 3%

Juneau Dispersed 37 27% 38% 11% 22% 3% 5% 3% 3%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 118 25% 5% 3% 75% * 3% * * 9%

Mendenhall Glacier 23 48% 39% 13% 9% 9% 4% 13%

Sitka NHP 30 47% 3% 7% 53% 3%

SE AK Discovery Center 16 19% 38% 31% 44% 6% 6%

Data were screened to respondents who listed two or fewer next destinations. The n is the number of respondents at that sample site that listed one or two next destinations. Cell 

entries in the next destination columns are the percent of respondents (use the listed n as the base) that listed the site as the next destination. 
72 | P a g e

Activity Participation 

The most frequently participated in activities for all visitors were hiking or walking (89% of respondents), 

followed by viewing wildlife (70% of respondents). Activities also appear to differ in how many times a 

respondent participates. For example, 29% of respondents appear to be hiking multiple times during 

their trip, whereas gold panning appears to be a one-time activity (Figure 20). The number of activities 

participated in might be influenced by the length of trip. However, trip length was not asked on the 

onsite survey. 

After the top two activities, the order of activity participation (i.e., ranked lowest to highest with respect 

to participation) within residency differs. Regardless of the order, most activities exhibited a difference 

by residency in the percentage of participants (Figure 21). 
73 | P a g e

78%

58%

11%

27%

10%

15%

12%

6%

12%

6%

36%

17%

6%

6%

40%

34%

6%

17%

8%

13%

9%

6%

11%

5%

19%

12%

5%

5%

89%

70%

15%

32%

16%

22%

17%

10%

21%

11%

40%

25%

11%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hiking or walking

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching)

Backpacking/trekking

Camping

Salt water fishing

Fresh water fishing

Berry picking/food gathering

Bicycling, including mountain biking

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting

Gold panning

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or

dirt)

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.)

Commercial aircraft tours

Other motorized activities (organized events, etc.)

Percent of respondents

Activity Participation, All Respondents

Did Plan to do Did + plan to do

Figure 20. Activity Participation, All Respondents. 

n = 2726. Excluded activities “did+planned to do” <10% (i.e., climbing/mountaineering, hunting, horseback riding, other nonmotorized activities, riding in designated off-road areas). The difference between the “did+planned to do” and “did” is the 

percent of respondents who have not yet participated in the activity. For example, 11% of respondents had not walked or 

hiked, but planned to. Also, subtracting that difference from the “plan” provides the percentage of respondents that participate 

in the activity multiple times (e.g., 29% of respondents will participate in walking or hiking multiple times). See Appendix C for a 

comparison of resident and non-residents and all activities. 
74 | P a g e

2%

14%

13%

3%

6%

1%

5%

13%

31%

18%

5%

9%

22%

13%

14%

18%

42%

26%

77%

90%

2%

3%

4%

4%

6%

6%

7%

9%

10%

10%

12%

13%

18%

20%

25%

31%

36%

47%

51%

87%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Horesback riding

Commercial aircraft tours**

Other motorized activities (organized events, etc.)**

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, endurance

events, etc.)

Hunting**

Climbing/mountaineering

Gold panning**

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.)**

Salt water fishing**

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.)**

Bicycling, including mountain biking **

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting**

Backpacking/trekking**

Berry picking/food gathering**

Fresh water fishing**

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or dirt)** v

Camping** v

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching)**

Hiking or walking**

Percent of respondents

Activity Particiation, by Residency

Residents (n=809) Non-residents (n=1917)

Figure 21. Activity Participation, by Residency. 

Combines responses to “participated in the activity” and “plan to participate in the activity.” 

**Indicates residents and non-residents were significantly different at p = .05. 

v When weighted for arrival type, for non-residents, camping decreased to 10% and driving for pleasure decreased to 34%. 
75 | P a g e

When compared across the region in which the respondents were sampled, the Interior and 

Southcentral Sampling Regions stood out as having a higher percentage of respondents participating in 

camping, freshwater fishing, berry picking/food gathering, and driving for pleasure. This is likely due to 

the cruise ship influence of the southeast respondents (Table 47). It should be noted the region where 

the respondent was sampled is not necessarily the region where they participated in the activity. Table 

48 limits the analysis to respondents who visited only one region, there is a decline in activities in the 

Interior such as viewing wildlife, saltwater fishing (which would not be available in the Interior), and 

motorized water travel. 

Table 47. Activity Participation, by Sample Region. 

Activity Region where respondents were sampled

Interior Southcentral Southeast

Hiking or walking 85% 90% 93%

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching) 62% 78% 69%

Backpacking/trekking 16% 19% 10%

Climbing/mountaineering 5% 8% 4%

Camping 42% 37% 16%

Hunting 4% 4% 1%

Salt water fishing 9% 23% 15%

Fresh water fishing 23% 32% 8%

Berry picking/food gathering 24% 16% 11%

Horseback riding 2% 3% 1%

Bicycling, including mountain biking 10% 14% 8%

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting 19% 27% 17%

Gold panning 17% 10% 7%

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, 

endurance events, etc.) 4% 6% 8%

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or 

dirt) 44% 49% 26%

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.) 12% 6% 2%

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas 5% 5% 2%

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.) 22% 31% 21%

Commercial aircraft tours 10% 11% 12%

Other motorized activities (organized events, 

etc.) 6% 10% 16%

Interior n = 958, Southcentral n = 912, Southeast n = 856. Cell entries are the percent of respondents indicating they did the 

activity or planned to do the activity. Note, many respondents visited multiple regions. AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as 

Interior Sampling Region, Katmai was classified as Southcentral Sampling Region. All activities were significantly different 

among the regions at p = .05, except commercial aircraft tours. 
76 | P a g e

Table 48. Activity Participation, by Sample Region, Respondents who Visited Only One Region. 

Activity Region where respondents was sampled

Interior Southcentral Southeast

Hiking or walking 81% 86% 93%

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching) 48% 70% 63%

Backpacking/trekking 11% 16% 9%

Climbing/mountaineering 2% 7% 3%

Camping 41% 40% 11%

Hunting 4% 2% 1%

Salt water fishing 3% 23% 14%

Fresh water fishing 25% 41% 7%

Berry picking/food gathering 27% 14% 9%

Horseback riding 1% 2% 1%

Bicycling, including mountain biking 6% 12% 6%

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting 13% 24% 15%

Gold panning 10% 6% 4%

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, 

endurance events, etc.) 2% 6% 8%

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or 

dirt) 36% 44% 18%

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.) 14% 4% 2%

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas 2% 3% 2%

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.) 10% 24% 19%

Commercial aircraft tours 3% 4% 8%

Other motorized activities (organized events, etc.) 3% 7% 14%

Interior n = 444, Southcentral n = 379, Southeast n = 603. Cell entries are the percent of respondents indicating they did the 

activity or planned to do the activity. AIVC and Tangle Lakes were classified as Interior Sampling Region, Katmai was classified as 

Southcentral Sampling Region. All activities were significantly different among the regions at p = .05, except commercial aircraft 

tours. 
77 | P a g e

Nearly one-half of respondents participated in two to four activities and 35% participated in 5 to 10 

activities (Table 49). 

Table 49. Total Number of Activities Listed. 

Number of activities 

listed

Alaska 

resident

Non-resident of 

Alaska All respondents

1 18% 8% 11%

2 – 4 49% 54% 52%

5 – 10 30% 37% 35%

11 - 19 2% 1% 1%

20 1% 0% 1%

Residents n = 809, non-residents n = 1917, all respondents n = 2726.

Ability to Do All Activities Planned 

Respondents were also asked whether they were able to participate in all the activities they had 

planned (Figure 22). Nearly all respondents (88%) confirmed that they were able to participate in 

activities as planned, and there were no differences between residents and non-residents on this 

measure. 
78 | P a g e

12%

13%

11%

88%

88%

89%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All respondents (n=509)

Non-resident (n=375)

Resident (n=134)

Percent of respondents

Ability to Do All Activities Planned

No Yes

Figure 22. Ability to Do All Activities Planned. 

Questions asked on follow up survey. Chi-square = .166, p = .684. 

There were 60 people who provided an explanation for the activities they were unable to participate in. 

Of those, 6 mentioned boating, 10 flightseeing, 3 sightseeing, 7 fishing, 12 hiking, 3 mentioned camping 

and 20 mentioned specific places for the activities. 

For the 12% (62 respondents) who were not able to participate in all planned activities, a variety of 

reasons were listed. Weather was cited most often, by residents and non-residents alike (33% and 38%, 

respectively). Nearly three-in-ten reported that they did not have enough time, with non-residents being 

significantly more likely than residents to cite this reason (34% vs. 13%). Sixteen percent also cited 

safety concerns and 11% mentioned that an area was temporarily closed to the public. Rules or 

regulations were cited more often by residents, as compared to non-residents (20% vs. 2%). Likewise, 

non-residents were more likely to indicate that they did not have enough information about the planned 

activity (27% vs. 4%), a finding that potentially could be addressed by management. 
79 | P a g e

Table 50. Reasons Respondents Were Not Able to do Planned Activities. 

Able to do activities planned Residents Non-residents

All 

respondents

Bad weather 33% 38% 37%

Not enough time 13% 34% 29%

Safety concerns 13% 17% 16%

Area was temporarily closed to public 7% 13% 11%

Not enough information about the activity** 27% 4% 10%

Rules or regulations did not allow for activity** 20% 2% 6%

Too crowded 7% 4% 5%

Could not get a reservation 0% 6% 5%

Difficult road or trail access 0% 6% 5%

No road or trail access** 13% 0% 3%

Unsatisfactory conditions of facilities 0% 4% 3%

Resource damage due to overuse 0% 2% 2%

Wildlife/other natural hazard 0% 13% 10%

Other 27% 19% 21%

Residents n = 15, non-residents n = 47, all respondents n = 62. **Residents and non-residents significantly different at p < .05 

Question asked on follow-up survey. As for the 12 respondents who did not engage in an activity due to a circumstance not 

listed, 3 were due to a lack of information, 2 were due to a mechanical issue. 

Information Sources 

Among the information sources used to plan the trip, web sites (general websites and state/federal), 

word of mouth, and travel guides/books were popular among non-residents (66%, 51%, 49%, and 47%, 

respectively), whereas previous visits were an often-cited information source among residents (53%; 

Figure 23). Differences emerged among tour type, with non-resident independent travelers more likely 

to use information sources than resident independent travelers and non-residents on a package tour 

(Figure 24).
80 | P a g e

27%

42%

38%

29%

13%

53%

15%

10%

13%

11%

5%

4%

2%

1%

66%

51%

49%

40%

47%

25%

35%

28%

19%

15%

14%

9%

3%

1%

55%

48%

46%

37%

37%

33%

29%

23%

17%

13%

11%

7%

3%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other websites**

Federal or State websites**

Word of mouth (e.g., friends or relatives)**

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps for National

Forests)**

Travel guides/books**

Previous visits**

Brochures or pamphlets**

Visitor bureaus, Visitor centers or Information

centers (e.g., APLIC)**

Alaska Milepost**

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)**

Other (Please specify below.)**

Newspaper/magazine article**

Radio/TV broadcasts nt

Podcasts nt

Percent of respondents

Information Sources Used to Plan Trip

Residents Non-residents All respondents

Figure 23. Sources of Information used to Plan Trip. 

Residents n = 838, non-residents n = 1985, all respondents n = 2796. **significant difference at p = .05. nt = not tested due to 

low number of respondents selected the option and a violation of the chi-square requirement of a minimum cell count of 5. 
81 | P a g e

27%

43%

39%

13%

29%

15%

10%

54%

13%

10%

4%

69%

62%

56%

52%

51%

41%

35%

30%

27%

18%

11%

55%

22%

33%

30%

15%

19%

10%

14%

2%

6%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other websites

Federal or State websites

Word of mouth (e.g., friends or relatives)~

Travel guides/books

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps for National

Forests)

Brochures or pamphlets~

Visitor bureaus, Visitor centers or Information

centers (e.g., APLIC)~

Previous visits

Alaska Milepost

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Newspaper/magazine article~

Percent of respondents

Information Sources Used to Plan Trip, by Tour

Resident independent Non-resident independent Non-resident tour only

Figure 24. Information Sources Used to Plan Trip, By Tour Type. 

Resident independent n = 815, non-resident independent n = 1254, non-resident tour only n = 395. All differed at p = .05, unless 

noted with ~ the post hoc test revealed all groups differed. ~resident independent and non-resident tour only did not differ. 

Podcast and radio/TV broadcast not tested due to low number of respondents selecting that information source. 
82 | P a g e

The onsite survey asked respondents if there was information they needed, but were not able to find. 

Three hundred twenty-three respondents (12%) replied “yes;” 320 (89 residents, 231 non-residents) 

provided a response to the open-ended question asking what information was needed but not available. 

Responses were coded into the following major themes: 

 Basic information about cities or town 

 Recreation information 

 Travel-related concerns 

 Communications 

Several responses fit into multiple themes. Within each major theme more refined codes were applied 

(as described below). For example a comment might have related to the Alaska Marine Highway Ferry 

System’s website being difficult to use. This comment would appear under the major themes of travelrelated concerns (with the sub-code of AMHS Ferry) and communications (with the sub-code of web 

info). Appendix E contains the responses arranged by theme and the codes; reading through the 

responses can provide additional context. 

 112 responses (35%) related to recreation information (44 residents, 68 non-residents). Specific 

topics that emerged were: 

o Trails n = 40 (18/44 residents, 22/68 non-residents) 

o Maps n = 26 (11/44 residents, 15/68 non-residents) 

o Campgrounds/Cabins/RV parks n = 21 (10/44 residents, 11/68 non-residents) 

o General logistics n = 11 (2/44 residents, 9/68 non-residents) 

o Denali National Park n = 9 (1/44 residents, 8/68 non-residents) 

o Fishing n = 9 (2/44 residents, 7/68 non-residents) 

 69 responses (21%) related to travel-related concerns (6 residents, 63 non-residents). Specific 

topics that emerged included: 

o General/Other Travel n = 14 (all non-residents) 

o Maps and signage n = 14 (5/6 residents, 9/63 non-residents) 

o Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry n = 13 (all non-residents) 

o Shuttles n = 10 (1/6 residents, 9/63 non-residents) 

o Public transportation n = 9 (all non-residents) 

o Customs n = 4 (all non-residents) 

 52 responses (16%) related to basic information about cities/towns (9 resident, 43 nonresidents). Specific topics that emerged were: 

o General logistics n = 21 (2/9 residents 19/43 nonresidents) 

o Maps n = 15 (4/9 residents, 11/43 non-residents) 

o Facility hours and closures n = 13 (3/9 residents, 10/43 non-residents) 

o Pricing n = 4 (all non-residents) 

o Denali n = 2 (all non-residents) 

 29 responses (9%) related to communications (7 residents, 22 non-residents). Specific topics 

that emerged were: 

o Web info n = 20 (6/7 residents, 14/22 non-residents) 

o Wi-Fi n = 6 (all non-residents) 

o Phone service n = 3 (all non-residents) 

o Emergency contact n = 2 (1 each residents and non-residents) 
83 | P a g e

35%

21%

16%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Recreation Information

Transporation issues

Basic information about cities/towns

Communications

Information Needed, but Not Available

Percent of respondents

 

Figure 25. Major Themes for Information Needed, but Not Available. 

320 responses were provided. Categories are not mutually exclusive. 

The information sources most commonly used during the trip were federal or state websites (56%), 

word of mouth from friends or relatives (45%), brochures or pamphlets (44%), other websites (43%), 

and travel guides or books (42%). However, non-residents were less likely to use those information 

sources. In contrast, previous visits was the most-often cites information source among residents (47%; 

Figure 26). 
84 | P a g e

39%

36%

17%

19%

13%

17%

9%

47%

2%

10%

10%

9%

62%

48%

54%

51%

53%

47%

46%

21%

30%

27%

24%

13%

56%

45%

44%

43%

42%

39%

37%

28%

22%

22%

20%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Federal or state websites**

Word of mouth (friends or relatives)**

Brochures or pamphlets**

Other websites**

Travel guides/books**

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps for National

Forests)**

Vistor bureaus, visitor centers or information

centers (e.g., APLIC)**

Previous visits**

Package tour companies/providers (Alaska

Railroads, airline, cruise, independent, etc.)**

Alaska Milepost**

Word of mouth (local businesses or residents)**

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Percent of respondents

Information Sources Used During Trip

Residents Non-residents All respondents

Figure 26. Information Sources Used During Trip. 

Residents n = 137, non-residents n = 382, all respondents n = 519. **significant difference at p = .05. Question asked on followup survey. Newspaper/magazine articles, radio/TV broadcasts, podcasts, did not use any, and other were cited by less than 10% 

or respondents and are not shown. 
85 | P a g e

For each information source used, respondents were asked to rate the helpfulness of the information 

(very helpful, moderately helpful, slightly helpful, not at all helpful). For most sources, a majority of 

respondents indicated the information was “very helpful”. Information sources rated as “very helpful” 

by a high percentage of respondents included previous visitation (78%), the Milepost (70%), tour 

companies (69%), and visitor centers (68%). Other websites, brochures and pamphlets, and social media 

was rated as “very helpful” by less than 50% of respondents (Figure 27).
86 | P a g e

21%

14%

7%

8%

5%

7%

9%

9%

5%

5%

8%

4%

39%

41%

45%

39%

41%

39%

33%

33%

26%

26%

21%

18%

35%

43%

48%

52%

54%

54%

58%

58%

68%

69%

70%

78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) (n=57)

Brochures or pamphlets (n=221)

Other websites (n=215)

Federal or state websites (n=287)

Travel guides/books (n=212)

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps for National

Forests) (n=196)

Word of mouth (local businesses or residents)

(n=104)

Word of mouth (friends or relatives) (n=226)

Vistor bureaus, visitor centers (e.g., Alaska Public

Lands Information Center) (n=187)

Package tour companies/providers (Alaska RR,

airline, cruise, independent, etc.) (n=113)

Alaska Milepost (n=116)

Previous visits (n=137)

Percent of respondents

Alaska Helpfulness of Information Source, All 

Respondents

Not at all helpful Slightly helpful Moderately helpful Very helpful

Figure 27. Helpfulness of Information Sources, All respondents.

If n<50, then the information source was excluded. Comparisons between residents and non-residents were not conducted due to 

small n of residents. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
87 | P a g e

When asked whether they received the information they needed from the sources consulted, 94% of 

visitors indicated that they had, with non-residents being somewhat more likely than residents to 

respond in the affirmative (96% vs. 89%). 

6%

4%

3%

6%

94%

96%

89%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All respondents (n=494)

Non-resident of Alaska (n=372)

Alaska Resident (n=122)

Percent of respondents

Received the Type of Information Needed

Not sure No Yes

Figure 28. Received the Type of Information Needed. 

Chi-square = 13.6, p = .001. Question asked on follow-up survey. 

Respondents who did not receive the information they needed were asked to elaborate. Of the 16 who 

provided a response, 7 had difficulties with cell or internet service, 2 had Wi-Fi problems, and 2 

responses indicated that their GPS lacked maps for Alaska. 

Electronic Devices 

Respondents were also asked about the electronic devices that they used during their trip, in order to 

understand the different ways in which travelers might access information. Seven-in-ten visitors (70%) 

used their smartphone, but significantly fewer visitors used other devices. Between one-quarter and 

one-third of visitors used a tablet (33%), laptop (28%), GPS (28%), or cellphone (without internet) (25%) 

during their trip. Three percent used a marine/aircraft radio. As Table 51 illustrates, non-residents were 

significantly more likely than residents to use a smartphone (78% vs. 48%), a tablet (40% vs. 11%), GPS 

(35% vs. 9%), laptop (34% vs. 10%), and cell phone without internet (30% vs. 11%). 
88 | P a g e

Table 51. Electronic Devices Used. 

Electronic devices used Residents Non-residents

All 

respondents

Smartphone (e.g., iPhone, Android)** 48% 78% 70%

Tablet computer (e.g., iPad)** 11% 40% 33%

Laptop** 10% 34% 28%

Global Positioning System (GPS)** 9% 35% 28%

Cell phone/text (without internet)** 11% 30% 25%

Marine/Aircraft radio 2% 3% 3%

Other portable electronic device(s) 1% 2% 2%

Residents n = 132, non-residents n = 376, all respondents n = 508. **significant difference at p = .05. Question asked on followup survey. As for the 9 respondents who indicated they used a device for travel other than the ones listed, 5 were some type of 

satellite device and three had no communication available. 

In addition to the use of devices, respondents were asked if they had any problems when trying to 

obtain information on their devices (the responses to these two questions are combined in Figure 29). 

Nearly two-thirds of visitors experienced an issue or problem using their device. Residents were more 

likely than non-residents to report that they did not use a device (25% vs. 5%) and that they did not 

experience a problem (Figure 29).

10%

5%

25%

27%

25%

33%

63%

71%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All respondents (n=493)

Non-resident of Alaska

(n=367)

Alaska Resident (n=126)

Percent of resondents

Electronic Device use and problems

Did not use electronic devices Did not experience problems At least one problem listed

Figure 29. Electronic Devices: If Used and If Experienced Problems. 

Question asked on follow-up survey. Due to the inclusion of the “did not use” category, caution should be used in interpreting 

the percentage experiencing problems vs. not. See Figure 30 for a comparison of problem vs. not for just those who used. 

When the analysis is based only on those using a device (i.e., those not using a device are excluded), the 

findings remain consistent, with non-residents being somewhat more likely than residents to experience 

such problems (74% vs. 56%). Residents may be familiar with areas where there is no Wi-Fi service, so it 

is possible that they did not try to use their devices in such instances. 
89 | P a g e

44%

26%

30%

56%

74%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Alaska resident (n=94)

Non-resident of Alaska

(n=349)

All respondents (n=443)

Percent of resondents

Electronic Device Problems, Excluding NA

Did not experience problems At least one problem listed

Figure 30. Problems with Electronic Devices, Excluding Did Not Use. 

Chi-square = 11.3, p < .001. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
90 | P a g e

The issue with electronic devices cited most often was a lack of service (96%). Very few respondents 

reported that the information was incomplete or not detailed enough (15%) or that they could not find 

the information they were seeking (7%). Responses were similar for residents and non-residents. 

96%

15%

7%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Service not available (e.g., no cell service/internet

connection)

Information was incomplete/not detailed enough

Could not find the information I was seeking

Other problem

Problems Obtaining Information

Percent of respondents that experienced problems

Figure 31. Problems Obtaining Information. 

n = 312. In this analysis residents (n = 53) and non-residents (n = 259) were essentially identical. The only percentage that 

differed was “could not find the information I was seeking,” with 4% and 7% of residents and non-residents citing this, 

respectively. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
91 | P a g e

Signage 

As part of the series of questions on traveler information, respondents were asked if the signage at 

specified locations (state highways, inside federal lands, trails, communities, ferry terminals or docks, 

and airports) was adequate. The question allowed for respondents to indicate they did not use the signs. 

For three of the items -- signs at airports, signs at ferry terminals or docks, and signs at railroad stations -

- a significant proportion responded “not applicable” (39%, 50% and 69%, respectively; Figure 32).

69%

50%

39%

24%

21%

19%

13%

3%

6%

5%

7%

7%

4%

5%

28%

44%

56%

69%

72%

76%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Signs at railroad stations/depots (n=461)

Signs at Ferry Terminals or Docks (n=473)

Signs at Airports (n=474)

Signs in Communities (n=485)

Signs Along Trails (n=491)

Signs on State Highways (n=500)

Signs inside Federal Lands (n=496)

Percent of respondents

Adequate Signage, Including NA

Not Applicable No Yes

Figure 32. Adequacy of Signage, All Respondents. 

Question asked on follow-up survey. Caution should be used when interpreting the % no/yes; see Figure 33 for the rating of 

sign adequacy excluding the “not applicable” responses. 

When excluding the “not applicable” responses, only 5% to 12% of respondents indicated that the signs 

were not adequate. In most cases, a large majority of respondents indicated that the signs were 

adequate (Figure 33). 
92 | P a g e

12%

9%

9%

9%

8%

6%

5%

88%

91%

91%

91%

92%

94%

95%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Signs at Ferry Terminals or

Docks (n=235; 238 NA)

Signs in Communities (n=371;

114 NA)

Signs Along Trails (n=387; 104

NA)

Signs at railroad

stations/depots (n=144; 317

NA)

Signs at Airports (n=288; 186

NA)

Signs inside Federal Lands

(n=431; 65 NA)

Signs on State Highways

(n=403; 97 NA)

Percent of respondents

Adequate Signage, Excluding NA

No Yes

Figure 33. Adequacy of Signage, Excluding "Not Applicable" Responses. 

Question asked on follow up survey. The n excludes “not applicable” responses. See Figure 32 for the percentage of “not 

applicable” responses. 
93 | P a g e

Residents were slightly less likely than non-residents to rate signs inside federal lands and signs in 

communities as adequate, however the difference is of a small magnitude (Table 52).

Table 52. Adequacy of Signage, by Residency. 

Signage

Not 

applicable Adequacy (applicable only)

n / % n No Yes

Signs on state highways

Resident (n=131) 18 / 14% 113 7% 93%

Non-resident (n=369) 79 / 21% 290 5% 96%

Signs inside federal lands**

Resident (n=127) 19% 103 12% 88%

Non-resident (n=369) 11% 328 4% 96%

Signs along trails

Resident (n=127) 34 / 27% 93 12% 88%

Non-resident (n=364) 70 / 19% 294 8% 92%

Signs in communities**

Resident (n=120) 56 / 47% 64 17% 83%

Non-resident (n=365) 58 / 16% 307 8% 93%

Signs at ferry terminals or docks

Resident (n=117) 96 / 82% 21 -- --

Non-resident (n=356) 142 / 40% 214 10% 90%

Signs at airports

Resident (n=115) 98 / 85% 17 -- --

Non-resident (n=359) 88 / 25% 271 6% 94%

Signs at railroad stations/depots

Resident (n=116) 103 / 89% 13 -- --

Non-resident (n=345) 214 / 62% 131 7% 91%

The % of “not applicable” is the percent of all respondents who provided an answer for that infrastructure type. The n listed 

under “adequacy (applicable only)” is the n with the “not applicable” excluded. Percentages not shown for facilities with an n of 

≤ 50 with the respective group, nor was the chi-square test conducted. *significant difference at p =.10. ** significant 

difference at p = .05. Chi-square test excludes the “not applicable” responses. Question asked on follow-up survey.
94 | P a g e

Satisfaction with Infrastructure 

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with various forms of infrastructure, with the option 

to state the particular infrastructure was not applicable to their trip. Overall, a majority of respondents 

were satisfied with the different infrastructure. The percent of respondents indicating “not applicable” 

ranged from a low of 5% for “availability of restrooms” to a high of 24% for “availability of 

transportation to the sites they wanted to visit” (Figure 34). 

20%

24%

23%

16%

8%

5%

7%

7%

10%

7%

7%

5%

8%

9%

63%

64%

68%

75%

77%

81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Number of trail markers (n=495)

Availability of transportation to the sites I

wanted to visit (n=495)

Parking availability (n=495)

Condition of trails (n=495)

Condition of roads (n=501)

Availability of restrooms (n=500)

Percent of respondents

Satisfaction with Infrastructure, All Respondents

Not applicable Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied

Figure 34. General Satisfaction with Infrastructure, All Respondents. 

See Figure 35 for the specific levels of satisfaction excluding the “not applicable” responses. Question asked on follow-up 

survey. 
95 | P a g e

When excluding the “not applicable” responses, approximately eight in ten visitors reported being 

satisfied with the infrastructure, with slight differences in the percent responding very satisfied (ranging 

from 33% for the number of trail markers to 51% for conditions of trails; Figure 35). 

12%

8%

9%

9%

10%

7%

46%

44%

45%

45%

41%

38%

33%

40%

41%

42%

45%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Number of trail markers (n=394; 101 NA)

Condition of roads (n=461; 40 NA)

Availability of restrooms (n=473; 27 NA)

Parking availability (n=383; 112 NA)

Availability of transportation to the sites I wanted to visit

(n=374; 121 NA)

Condition of trails (n=416; 79 NA)

Percent of respondents

Satisfaction with Infrastructure

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Satisfied

Figure 35. Specific Satisfaction with Infrastructure, Excluding "Not Applicable." 

The n excludes the respondents who answered “not applicable.” See Figure 34 for the percent of respondents who answered 

“not applicable.” Question asked on follow-up survey. 

Residents were slightly more likely to indicate dissatisfaction with availability of restrooms, number of 

trail markers, and conditions of trails; residents were also more likely to indicate “neither satisfied or 

dissatisfied” for the ability of transportation to the sites they wanted to visit (Table 53).
96 | P a g e

Table 53. Satisfaction with Infrastructure, by Residency. 

Type of infrastructure

Not 

applicable Satisfaction (applicable only)

n / % n

Very 

dissatisfied dissatisfied

Neither 

satisfied or 

dissatisfied Satisfied

Very 

satisfied

Availability of restrooms**

Resident (n=128) 7 / 6% 121 0%** 7%** 13% 41% 39%

Non-resident (n=372) 20 / 5% 352 2% 2% 8% 46% 42%

Availability of transportation to 

the sites I wanted to visit *

Resident (n=126) 50 / 40% 76 0% 3% 18%* 38% 41%

Non-resident (n=369) 71 / 19% 298 2% 3% 8% 41% 46%

Parking availability

Resident (n=128) 13 / 10% 115 0% 2% 12% 48% 38%

Non-resident (n=367) 99 / 27% 268 2% 3% 7% 44% 44%

Number of trail markers**

Resident (n=126) 23 / 18% 103 0% 15%** 16% 45% 25%

Non-resident (n=369) 78 / 21% 291 3% 4% 11% 46% 35%

Condition of trails**

Resident (n=127) 15 / 12% 112 1% 6%** 10% 47%** 36%**

Non-resident (n=368) 64 / 17% 304 2% 1% 5% 35% 57%

Condition of roads

Resident (n=129) 16 / 12% 113 3% 6% 12% 44% 35%

Non-resident (n=372) 24 / 7% 348 3% 5% 8% 44% 41%

The % of not applicable is the percent of all respondents who provided a “not applicable” answer for that infrastructure type. The n listed under “satisfaction (applicable only)” is 

the n with the “not applicable” excluded. Chi-square test excludes the “not applicable” responses. *significant difference at p = .1. **significant difference at p = .05. The * or ** 

attached to the percentages indicate which of the specific satisfaction ratings differed by residency. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
97 | P a g e

Issues Percieved as Problems 

Respondents were presented with a list of situations and asked to what degree they felt the situation 

was a problem, with an option to state they had “no opinion.” Relatively few respondents had “no 

opinion” (too few regulations was the highest at 12%) and, overall, none of the issues were rated as a 

big problem (Figure 36). 

6%

6%

6%

6%

8%

9%

9%

12%

8%

20%

17%

16%

11%

8%

10%

8%

3%

6%

68%

71%

71%

77%

78%

78%

81%

83%

84%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Motor vehicle sounds that interfered with natural

sounds and quiet (n=498)

Aircraft sounds that interfered with natural sounds

and quiet (n=501)

Too many people at scenic overlooks (n=499)

Traffic congestion (n=474)

Too many regulations (n=500)

Cars parked illegally (e.g., on road shoulders)

(n=501)

 Interaction between motorized and non-motorized

forms of transportation (n=499

Too few regulations (n=495)

People walking on, across, or along road (n=501)

Percent of respondents

Issues Perceived as Problems

No opinion Big problem Moderate problem Small problem Not a problem

Figure 36. Perception of Issues as Problems. 

Because the “no opinion” response is included, caution must be used in interpreting the degree to which the issues were 

problems and making comparisons across issues. See Figure 37 for the problem ratings with “no opinion” excluded. For the 26 

respondents who had problems other than those listed, 7 were about road conditions or construction, 3 had problems with 

facilities, and 2 had issues with off leash dogs and their waste. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
98 | P a g e

Excluding the “no opinion” responses, more than seven-in ten respondents reported that issues were 

not a problem. About one-quarter indicated that aircraft sounds that interfered with natural sounds and 

quiet (23%), too many people at scenic overlooks (24%), and motor vehicle sounds that interfered with 

natural sounds and quiet (26%) were a small or moderate problem (Figure 37).

21%

17%

18%

12%

8%

11%

9%

7%

4%

72%

76%

76%

83%

85%

86%

89%

91%

95%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Motor vehicle sounds that interfered with natural sounds

and quiet (n=470; 28 NO)

Too many people at scenic overlooks (n=468; 31 NO)

Aircraft sounds that interfered with natural sounds and

quiet (n=469; 32 NO)

Traffic congestion (n=444; 30 NO)

Too many regulations n=458; 42 NO)

Cars parked illegally (e.g., on road shoulders) (n=455; 46 NO)

 Interaction between motorized and non-motorized forms of

transportation (n=454; 45 NO)

People walking on, across, or along road (n=462; 39 NO)

Too few regulations (n=434; 61 NO)

Percent of respondents

Issues Perceived as Problems, Excluding No Opinion

Big problem Moderate problem Small problem Not a problem

Figure 37. Issues Perceived as Problems, Excluding No Opinion. 

Question asked on follow-up survey. NO = “no opinion.” See Figure 36 for the percentage of “no opinion” responses. 

Residents were more likely to rate too many people at scenic overlooks, motor vehicle sounds that 

interfered with natural sounds and quiet, and traffic congestion as “not a problem,” and for those same 

issues, non-residents were more likely to rate them as “a small problem.” Residents were more likely to 

rate too many regulations as a “big problem,” but the magnitude was small, as 5% of residents indicated 

it was a “big problem” (Table 54).
99 | P a g e

Table 54. Issues Perceived as Problems, by Residency. 

Type of infrastructure No opinion Degree of problem

n / % n Big Moderate Small No 

People walking on, across, or 

along road

Resident (n=128) 14 / 11% 114 0% 2% 3% 96%

Non-resident (n=373) 25 / 7% 348 0% 2% 8% 89%

Interaction between motorized 

and non-motorized forms of 

transportation

Resident (n=129) 13 / 10% 116 0% 3% 8% 89%

Non-resident (n=370) 32/ 9% 338 0% 2% 9% 89%

Too many people at scenic 

overlooks**

Resident (n=129) 15 / 12% 114 0% 3%** 7%** 90%**

Non-resident (n=370) 16 / 4% 354 1% 8% 20% 71%

Motor vehicle sounds that 

interfered with natural sounds 

and quiet**

Resident (n=128) 9 / 7% 119 3% 8% 11%** 79%**

Non-resident (n=370) 19 / 5% 351 2% 4% 24% 70%

Aircraft sounds that interfered 

with natural sounds and quiet

Resident (n=128) 11/ 9% 117 1% 5% 11% 83%

Non-resident (n=373) 21 / 6% 352 2% 5% 21% 73%

Cars parked Illegally (e.g., on road 

shoulders)

Resident (n=128) 12 / 9% 116 1% 3% 8% 89%

Non-resident (n=373) 34 / 9% 339 0% 3% 12% 86%

Too many regulations*

Resident (n=128) 9 / 7% 119 5%* 3% 8% 85%

Non-resident (n=372 33 / 9% 339 1% 5% 9% 85%

Too few regulations

Resident (n=128) 14 / 11% 114 0% 2% 5% 93%

Non-resident (n=367) 47 / 13% 320 0% 1% 3% 96%

Traffic congestion**

Resident (n=129) 113 2% 1%** 6%** 91%**

Non-resident (n=372) 331 1% 5% 14% 80%

The % of no opinion is the percent out of all respondents who provided a “no opinion” answer for that issue type. The n listed 

under “Degree of problem” is the n with the “no opinion” excluded. Chi-square test excludes the “no opinion” responses. 

*significant difference at p = .10. **significant difference at p = .05. The * or ** attached to the percentages indicate which of 

the specific satisfaction ratings differed by residency. Question asked on follow-up.
100 | P a g e

Infrastructure Preferences 

Respondents were presented with infrastructure and asked if their preference was “less,” “the same,”

or “more,” with an option for “no opinion.” Across all types of infrastructure presented, 24% or more of 

respondents did not have an opinion. The types of infrastructure with the lowest percent of respondents 

indicating no preference were trails for hiking, biking, or horseback riding (24%), directional or 

wayfinding signs (26%), and passenger vehicle roads (26%; Figure 38).

72%

61%

57%

54%

54%

53%

42%

26%

26%

24%

3%

1%

1%

4%

21%

5%

22%

31%

27%

32%

33%

19%

36%

54%

49%

41%

3%

6%

15%

14%

9%

8%

21%

14%

24%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Remote airstrips (n=489)

Boat launches, moorings and docks (n=489)

Accessible friendly sites and facilities (n=489)

Safety cabins/shelters (n=492)

Primitive roads (n=491)

All-terrain vehicles (n=492)

Campgrounds (n=489)

Passenger vehicle roads (n=491)

Signs (directions or wayfinding Information)

(n=491)

Trails for hiking, biking or horseback riding

(n=496)

Percent of respondents

Infrastructure Preferencences, All Respondents

No opinion Less Same More

Figure 38. Preferences for Infrastructure, All Respondents. 

Due to the inclusion of “no opinion,” caution should be used in interpreting the preferences for “less/same/more.” See Figure 

38 for preferences excluding the “no opinion” response. Among the 12 who marked other, 3 respondents had comments about 

roads (roadside pullouts, maintenance, safe surfaced roads), 2 wanted more access for off road motorized vehicles. Question 

asked on follow-up survey. 
101 | P a g e

When excluding the “no opinion” responses, almost half of the respondents indicated they would prefer 

more trails for hiking, biking and horseback riding, and approximately one-third reported wanting more 

campgrounds (36%), more accessible friendly sites and facilities (34%), more signs (for wayfinding) (33%) 

and more safety cabins/shelters (30%; Figure 39). On the other end of the scale, trails for all terrain 

vehicles stands out with 44% of respondents indicating they would prefer less. 

12%

44%

10%

7%

3%

79%

40%

81%

72%

74%

70%

66%

63%

61%

54%

10%

16%

16%

18%

20%

30%

33%

34%

36%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Remote airstrips (n=136; 353 NO)

Trails for all-terrain vehicles (n=233; 259 NO)

Boat launches, moorings and docks (n=190;

299 NO)

Primitive roads (n=228; 263 NO)

Passenger vehicle roads (n=361; 130 NO)

Safety cabins/shelters (n=228; 264 NO)

Signs (directions or wayfinding information)

(n=361; 130 NO)

Accessible friendly sites and facilities (n=210;

279 NO)

Campgrounds (n=286; 203 NO)

Trails for hiking, biking or horseback riding

(n=376; 120 NO)

Percent of respondents

Desired Infrastructure Changes, Excluding "No Opinion"

Less Same More

Figure 39. Preferences for Infrastructure, Excluding No Opinion. 

NO = no opinion. See Figure 38 for the percentages of the no opinion. Question asked on follow-up survey.

There were few differences in infrastructure preference by residency. Notable, though, is that residents 

were less likely than non-residents to indicate a preference for less ATV trails (35% vs 50%) and were 

also more likely to indicate a preference for more ATV trails (24% vs. 10%). Residents were less likely 

than non-resident to prefer more passenger vehicle roads (12% vs. 23%; Table 55).
102 | P a g e

Table 55. Preferences for Infrastructure, by Residency. 

Infrastructure No opinion 

n / %

Preference (excludes no opinion)

N Less Same More

Accessible-friendly sites and 

facilities

Resident (n=125 43 / 34% 82 1% 65% 34%

Non-resident (n=364 236 / 65% 128 4% 62% 34%

Boat launches, moorings, and docks

Resident (n=124 46 / 37% 78 1% 80% 19%

Non-resident (n=365 253 / 69% 112 5% 81% 14%

Remote airstrips

Resident (n=124 61 / 49% 63 13% 76% 11%

Non-resident (n=365 292 / 80% 73 11% 81% 8%

Safety cabins / shelters*

Resident (n=126 31 / 25% 95 0% 63% 37%

Non-resident (n=366 233 / 64% 133 0% 74% 26%

Signs that include directions or 

wayfinding information

Resident (n=125 20 / 16% 105 73% 27%

Non-resident (n=366 110 / 30% 256 1% 63% 36%

Campgrounds

Resident (n=126 13 / 10% 113 3% 58% 39%

Non-resident (n=363 190 / 52% 173 3% 62% 35%

Primitive roads

Resident (n=125 39 / 31% 86 13% 66% 21%

Non-resident (n=366 224 / 61% 142 8% 75% 17%

Passenger vehicle Roads**

Resident (n=124 24 / 19% 100 10% 78% 12%**

Non-resident (n=367 106 / 29% 261 5% 72% 23%

Trails for all-terrain Vehicles**

Resident (n=127 30 / 24% 97 35%** 41% 24%**

Non-resident (n=365 229 / 63% 136 50% 40% 10%

Trails for hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding

Resident (n=127 15 / 12% 112 1% 51% 48%

Non-resident (n=369 105 / 29% 264 0% 55% 45%

The % of no opinion is the percent out of all respondents who provided an answer for that infrastructure type. The n listed 

under “preference (excludes no opinion)” is the n with the no opinion excluded. Chi-square test excludes the no opinion 

responses. *significant difference at p = .10. **significant difference at p = .05 

The * or ** attached to the percentages indicate which of the specific satisfaction ratings differed by residency. For 

safety/shelter cabins, the chi-square was conducted isolating same and more, the post hoc test did not show differences. 

Question asked on follow-up survey.
103 | P a g e

Safety Concerns/Issues 

Thirty-five percent of respondents reported researching safety issues prior to their trip. Non-residents 

were significantly more likely than residents to do such research (41% vs. 20%). 

65%

59%

80%

35%

41%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All respondents (n=503)

Non-residents (n=374)

Residents (n=129)

Percent of respondents

Researched Safety Measures

No Yes

Figure 40. Researched Safety Measures. 

Chi-square = 17.6, p < .001. Question asked on follow-up survey.

One hundred forty-four (20 residents, 124 non-residents) provided a response to the open-ended 

question asking what safety concerns were searched and what were their top concerns. Responses were 

coded into the following themes: 

 Animal encounters 

 Basic information about cities, towns, or travel logics (includes hospital/medical facilities) 

 Recreation 

 Road conditions 

 Weather 

 Communication 

 Miscellaneous (includes firearm transportation regulations) 

Several responses fit into multiple themes. For example, a response might reference concerns over 

animal, weather, and road conditions. Such a response would have received a code for each of those 

themes (see appendix E for a list of the responses arranged by theme). 

 120 responses (83%) related to animals/animal encounters 13/20 residents, 107/124 nonresidents). 

o Most responses related to bears and bear safety. 

 35 responses related to weather (2/20 residents, 33/124 non-residents). 

 28 responses related to recreation (7/20 residents, 21/124 non-residents). 
104 | P a g e

 26 responses related to information about cities, towns, and travel logistics (4/20 residents, 

22/124 non-residents). 

o 8 responses related to medical/emergency facilities. 

o 5 responses related to gas/fuel availability. 

 17 responses related to road conditions (4/20 resident, 13/124 non-residents). 

 12 responses related to communications (2/20 residents, 10/124 non-residents). 

 12 were related to miscellaneous items (4/20 residents, 8/124 non-residents). 

o 5 responses related to firearm transportation regulations. 

Safety-Related Experiences 

Respondents were presented with a list of potential safety issues and asked which they had 

experienced. While 83% of respondents researched wildlife issues, only 13% reported an encounter that 

they deemed unsafe. The most frequently cited safety issue was lack of cell phone coverage. Residents 

were more likely to cite bad weather and poor trail conditions (Figure 41).
105 | P a g e

38%

23%

11%

13%

11%

6%

2%

2%

3%

2%

40%

14%

14%

11%

5%

6%

6%

5%

3%

2%

39%

16%

13%

11%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lack of cell phone coverage

Bad weather**

Wildlife encounter

Poor road conditions

Poor trail conditions**

Vehicles parked on road sides

Vehicle and pedestrian interactions

Vehicle and bicycle interactions

Got lost

Needing emergency services

Percent of respondents

Experience of Safety Issues

Resident (n=128) Non-resident (n=372) All respondents (n=500)

Figure 41. Experience of Safety Issues. 

**Significant difference at p = .05. Question asked on follow-up survey. 
106 | P a g e

Respondents were asked to describe the safety issue they experienced. One hundred eighteen 

respondents (32 residents, 86 non-residents) provided a response to the open-ended question asking 

respondents to describe any safety concerns. Two of these responses indicated they felt safe. Responses 

were coded into the same themes as the safety concerns searched question. 

 45 responses (38%) related to communications (12/32 residents, 33/86 non-residents). 

o Most of these concerns related to a lack of cell phone coverage. 

 40 responses (34%) related to animals/animal encounters (11/32 residents, 29/86 nonresidents). 

 18 responses related to road conditions (7/32 resident, 11/86 non-residents). 

 17 responses related to weather (8/32 residents, 9/86 non-residents). 

 15 responses related to recreation (4/32 residents, 11/86 non-residents). 

 7 responses related to information about cities and towns (1 resident, 6/86 non-residents). 

Accidents or Safety Incidents 

Respondents were asked if they were ever involved in a safety incident on Federal public lands. Only 2% 

reported they had been involved in one incident and 1% reported more than one. Nearly all respondents 

said they had not been involved in a safety incident (96%). 

Table 56. Involvement with a Transportation Accident or Safety Incident. 

Have you Ever Been Involved in a 

Transportation Accident or Safety Incident 

on Federal Public Lands in Alaska?

Alaska 

Resident

Non-resident 

of Alaska

Total

Yes, once 2.3% (n=3) 1.9% (n=7) 2.0%

Yes, more than once 3.1% (n=4) 0.0% .8%

No 93.1% 97.6% 96.4%

Can't recall 1.5% .5% .8%

Residents n = 130, non-residents n = 374, all respondents n = 504. Due to the cells with n < 5, the chi-square test was not 

conducted. Three of the non-resident incidents actually occurred in Yellowstone and not Alaska (see below). Question asked on 

follow-up survey. 

Of the 14 who had an incident on federal land in Alaska, 3 residents reported the incident and 1 nonresident reported the incident. Only 3 indicated to whom the incident was reported, providing the 

following responses: 

 VSFS, national ski patrol, Coast Guard 

 National Park Ranger 

 Refuge headquarters 
107 | P a g e

Eight residents provided a description of the incident (one respondent did not report having an incident, 

but provided a description): 

 1. Head on with a deer = disabled car(and deer) 2. Avalanche + partial burial = dug out ok 3. 

swamped/overturned kayak = almost hypothermic person 

 A float plane I was flying in while volunteering for the forest service had to make an emergency 

landing shortly after takeoff. Everyone was fine and we were able to return to town safely an 

hour or so later in a different plane. 

 Changing a flat tire in the southbound lane of Dalton Highway in a low-visibility curve in January 

at -50F in the dark with crazy speed-demon truckers flying by yelling at me on the C.B. to "get 

out of the fucking way!!" I had nowhere to go, no pull off anywhere, no shoulder. 

 DeHaviland motor konk-out near Deska River caused forced landing in a slough 

 Described above. Woman had only scrapes. She was not familiar with ATV and tried to go up a 

slope that was too steep. Slope caused by was out of trail. 

 No winter road maintenance icy conditions even Refuge officers would not travel on road but 

refused to close road or maintain/sand. No regular snow removal. 

 Two flat tires, separate incidents, one suspension related breakdown 

 Vehicle steering issue. No accident or property damaged occurred. I fixed the issue onsite. 

Seven non-residents provided a description of the safety incident. Of note, 3 incidents happened in 

Yellowstone. The incidents that occurred in Yellowstone have not been removed from Table 56. 

 Congestion, cars, ped wildlife at Yellowstone two years ago. Appeared to be norm so no point 

reporting idiot behavior. 

 Damage to RV on the campground road. 

 Decades ago a contractor's dump truck on Yellowstone NP road traveling at high rate of speed 

and way over center of line. My auto was definitely at risk -- scared me. I reported it but I wasn't 

taken seriously. 

 Flat tire 

 One person tripped and fell on the bridge across the Kennecott River at McCarthy 

 Pick-up truck backed into culvert (driver's fault), towed out by another passing truck, no injuries 

or damage 

 Yellowstone! Sow and cub were alongside the road on a curve. People were hitting their breaks 

because people were stopping to get pictures and crossing the road to get closer. So driving you 

missed seeing the bears because you had to watch the people. 
108 | P a g e

Additional Feedback on Travel Experience 

Two hundred twenty-six (49 residents, 177 non-residents), provided a response to the open-ended 

question asking respondents to share any additional feedback on their travel experience during their 

trip. Responses were coded into the following themes: 

 Basic information about cities, towns, or travel logistics 

 Recreation 

 Travel/transportation related (road condition, road access, shuttles, public transportation) 

 Ferry travel logistics and Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry 

 Communication (Wi-Fi and cell service, website issues) 

 Very satisfied (responses that expressed satisfaction with the trip) 

 Miscellaneous 

 None (the respondent stated they had “no comment” or wrote “none”)

Several responses fit into multiple themes. For example, a response might relate to road conditions and 

communication. Other responses might express satisfaction and qualify the satisfaction was with the 

roads; such responses were coded as satisfied and travel/transportation. 

 76 responses (34%) related to travel/transportation (17/49 residents, 59/177 non-residents). 

 70 responses (31%) expressed satisfaction with their travel experiences (4/49 residents, 66/177 

non-residents). 

 28 responses (12%) related to recreation (15/49 residents, 13/177 non-residents). 

 14 responses (6%) related to ferry travel (2/49 residents, 12/177 non-residents). 

 9 responses (4%) related to communication (all non-residents). 

 3 responses (1%) related to information about cities and towns (1/49 residents, 2/177 nonresidents). 

 41 responses (18%) expressed no problems with their travel experience (11/49 residents, 

30/177 non-residents). 

Within the travel/transportation category, the largest share of responses (n=22) referenced poor road 

conditions. A handful of respondents, however, gave positive comments about the roads (n=8). Other 

issues included public transportation (e.g., long wait times, lack of service, lack of information; n=8), the 

cost of transportation (n=8), construction-related delays (n=5), and signage (n=4). A few respondents 

also commented on their access to sites. While one or two respondents felt they were not given 

sufficient access (e.g., could not take their vehicle into Denali National Park), others were pleased with 

their level of access and acknowledged the tradeoff between access and preserving the land. 

Within the Ferry/AMHS category, respondents indicated they would have preferred more frequent 

service and better connections with other forms of public transportation. A couple of respondents also 

noted delays with the ferry. 

Within the recreation category, about one-half of the comments pertained to trails (n=12), including 

trail conditions, lack of signage or trail maps, and the need for more trails. 

See Appendix E for a list of responses arranged by theme. 
109 | P a g e

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel to/through Federal Lands 

One hundred fifty respondents10 (44 residents, 106 non-residents) provided a response to the openended question asking respondents if they had any suggestions for how travel/transportation to or 

through federal public lands could be improved. Reponses were coded into the following themes: 

 Recreation 

 Travel/transportation related (road condition, road access, shuttles, public transportation) 

 Basic information about cities and towns 

 Regulations or maintain current condition 

 Communication (Wi-Fi and cell service, website issues) 

 Very satisfied (responses that expressed satisfaction with the trip) 

 Miscellaneous 

Several responses fit into multiple themes. For example, a response might relate to road conditions and 

communication. Other responses might express satisfaction and qualify the satisfaction was with the 

roads; such responses were coded as satisfied and travel/transportation. 

 64 responses (42%) related to travel/transportation (15/44 residents, 49/106 non-residents). 

o Of these, 6 non-residents expressed satisfaction with travel-related conditions. 

 42 responses (28%) related to recreation (22/44 residents, 20/106 non-residents). 

 34 responses (23%) related to satisfaction (3/44 residents, 31/106 non-residents). 

 15 responses (10%) related to regulations and maintain current conditions of an area (9/44 

residents, 6/106 non-residents). 

 5 responses (4%) related to communication (1/44 resident, 4/106 non-residents). 

 4 responses (3%) related to basic information about cities and towns (2/44 residents, 2/106 nonresidents). 

Among the transportation/travel-related response respondents tended to mention poor road conditions 

most often (n=18). 

In addition, a number of respondents (n=19) referenced access to federal lands. Responses were mixed 

as to desiring more access, typically via private vehicle (n = 9; e.g., “In my opinion there are not enough 

roads to remote areas in Alaska”), and expressing support for limiting access in order to preserve public 

lands (n=9; “Keep it as remote as possible. Don’t spoil the wilderness”).

Another transportation /travel related issue was public transportation (n=9). Respondents indicated the 

need for service in certain locations and some noted issues with the Denali shuttle buses. Among the 

recreation-related comments, about half mentioned trails (n=22). Some respondents mentioned a 

desire for more trails, while others cited the need to improve trail conditions or the availability of 

information about trails (e.g., trail maps, signage). In addition respondents were fairly evenly divided on 

whether there should be more or less trails for ATVs. 

See Appendix E for a list of responses arranged by theme. 

 

10 Excludes 46 respondents who stated they did not have suggestions (i.e., the respondent wrote in “no” or 

“none”. This treats the “none” differently than suggestions for improvement; as a response to suggestion for 

improvement, “none” was assumed to have meaning as in no improvements were needed. 
110 | P a g e
111 | P a g e

Appendices 

Appendix A Letters to FLMAs and Survey Instruments 

Each of the Alaska CVTS leads for their Land management Agency sent out the letter announcing the 

study to their units. The UAF survey team followed up with phone calls to each site to receive input into 

the logistics.

The CVTS team leads that sent out the FLMA letters are listed below: 

USFS – Amy Thomas 

NPS – Paul Schrooten 

FWS – Charles Grant 

BLM – Randy Goodwin 

Templates of the letters follow, as does one example final letter that was sent to Sitka NHP. 
112 | P a g e

National Park Service, Paul Schrooten 

Example: Denali 

Dear , 

The Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in Alaska, including the National Park Service, the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are planning to 

conduct a visitor survey at Denali National Park and Preserve during the summer of 2016. The same 

survey will be administered at approximately fifteen FLMA units across the state as part of a 

collaborative effort among FLMAs to collect visitor experience data. The survey focuses on visitors’ 

transportation-related experiences and the resulting data will be incorporated into the 2017 Alaska Long 

Range Transportation Plan. The results will be shared with your unit, and you will also have access to the 

data. 

This project represents an unprecedented survey collaboration effort. The Alaska FLMAs, as well as the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Western Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting permission to 

collect the survey data on FLMA public lands. Additionally, in support of this collaboration, the Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. DOT provided funding that enabled the FLMAs to obtain a Generic 

Clearance, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control # 0596-0236), to 

streamline the process for conducting multi-agency surveys. The Alaska survey will serve as a pilot for 

the Generic Clearance, and lessons learned will be shared with other FLMAs across the nation that are 

planning similar, collaborative surveys. 

The University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) will administer the Alaska survey on behalf of the FLMAs. Dr. 

Peter Fix, the survey manager, and his team have administered numerous surveys on Alaska Federal 

Lands. The survey team will intercept visitors and administer a brief survey on-site. Visitors will also be 

asked to complete a follow-up survey online (after their trip). Dr. Fix will send you a preliminary set of 

survey intercept locations and a tentative survey schedule in advance for your feedback and approval. 

He will work with the appropriate staff at your unit to coordinate the data collection and to ensure that 

the survey complies with all regulations. 

As a first step, Dr. Fix will be following up with you in the next week or so to determine if there are any 

requirements (e.g., permits) or restrictions that UAF should be aware of before administering the 

survey. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Peter Fix (pjfix@uaf.edu or 907-474-

6926). If you have questions about the collaborative effort, please contact the U.S. DOT Technical Lead, 

Margaret Petrella (Margaret.Petrella@dot.gov or 617-494-3582)

Thank you for your cooperation and support. 

Best Regards, 

Paul Schrooten 
113 | P a g e

Forest Service, Amy Thomas 

Example: Chugach 

Dear , 

The Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in Alaska, including the U.S. Forest Service, National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are planning to conduct a 

visitor survey at Chugach National Forest during the summer of 2016. The same survey will be 

administered at approximately fifteen FLMA units across the state as part of a collaborative effort 

among FLMAs to collect visitor experience data. The survey focuses on visitors’ transportation-related 

experiences and the resulting data will be incorporated into the 2017 Alaska Long Range Transportation 

Plan. The results will be shared with your unit, and you will also have access to the data. 

This project represents an unprecedented survey collaboration effort. The Alaska FLMAs, as well as the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Western Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting permission to 

collect the survey data on FLMA public lands. Additionally, in support of this collaboration, the Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. DOT provided funding that enabled the FLMAs to obtain a Generic 

Clearance, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control # 0596-0236), to 

streamline the process for conducting multi-agency surveys. The Alaska survey will serve as a pilot for 

the Generic Clearance, and lessons learned will be shared with other FLMAs across the nation that are 

planning similar, collaborative surveys. 

The University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) will administer the Alaska survey on behalf of the FLMAs. Dr. 

Peter Fix, the survey manager, and his team have administered numerous surveys on Alaska Federal 

Lands. The survey team will intercept visitors and administer a brief survey on-site. Visitors will also be 

asked to complete a follow-up survey online (after their trip). Dr. Fix will send you a preliminary set of 

survey intercept locations and a tentative survey schedule in advance for your feedback and approval. 

He will work with the appropriate staff at your unit to coordinate the data collection and to ensure that 

the survey complies with all regulations. 

As a first step, Dr. Fix will be following up with you in the next week or so to determine if there are any 

requirements (e.g., permits) or restrictions that UAF should be aware of before administering the 

survey. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Peter Fix (pjfix@uaf.edu or 907-474-

6926). If you have questions about the collaborative effort, please contact the U.S. DOT Technical Lead, 

Margaret Petrella (Margaret.Petrella@dot.gov or 617-494-3582)

Thank you for your cooperation and support. 

Best Regards, 

Amy Thomas 
114 | P a g e

Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles Grant 

Example: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

Dear , 

The Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in Alaska, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management, are planning to conduct a 

visitor survey at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge during the summer of 2016. The same survey will be 

administered at approximately fifteen FLMA units across the state as part of a collaborative effort 

among FLMAs to collect visitor experience data. The survey focuses on visitors’ transportation-related 

experiences and the resulting data will be incorporated into the 2017 Alaska Long Range Transportation 

Plan. The results will be shared with your unit, and you will also have access to the data. 

This project represents an unprecedented survey collaboration effort. The Alaska FLMAs, as well as the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Western Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting permission to 

collect the survey data on FLMA public lands. Additionally, in support of this collaboration, the Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. DOT provided funding that enabled the FLMAs to obtain a Generic 

Clearance, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control # 0596-0236), to 

streamline the process for conducting multi-agency surveys. The Alaska survey will serve as a pilot for 

the Generic Clearance, and lessons learned will be shared with other FLMAs across the nation that are 

planning similar, collaborative surveys. 

The University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) will administer the Alaska survey on behalf of the FLMAs. Dr. 

Peter Fix, the survey manager, and his team have administered numerous surveys on Alaska Federal 

Lands. The survey team will intercept visitors and administer a brief survey on-site. Visitors will also be 

asked to complete a follow-up survey online (after their trip). Dr. Fix will send you a preliminary set of 

survey intercept locations and a tentative survey schedule in advance for your feedback and approval. 

He will work with the appropriate staff at your unit to coordinate the data collection and to ensure that 

the survey complies with all regulations. 

As a first step, Dr. Fix will be following up with you in the next week or so to determine if there are any 

requirements (e.g., permits) or restrictions that UAF should be aware of before administering the 

survey. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Peter Fix (pjfix@uaf.edu or 907-474-

6926). If you have questions about the collaborative effort, please contact the U.S. DOT Technical Lead, 

Margaret Petrella (Margaret.Petrella@dot.gov or 617-494-3582)

Thank you for your cooperation and support. 

Best Regards, 

Charles Grant 
115 | P a g e

Bureau of Land Management, Randy Goodwin 

Example: Tangle Lakes and Delta National Wild and Scenic River 

Dear , 

The Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) in Alaska, including the Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are planning to conduct a 

visitor survey at Tangle Lakes and Delta National Wild and Scenic River during the summer of 2016. The 

same survey will be administered at approximately fifteen FLMA units across the state as part of a 

collaborative effort among FLMAs to collect visitor experience data. The survey focuses on visitors’ 

transportation-related experiences and the resulting data will be incorporated into the 2017 Alaska Long 

Range Transportation Plan. The results will be shared with your unit, and you will also have access to the 

data. 

This project represents an unprecedented survey collaboration effort. The Alaska FLMAs, as well as the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Western Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting permission to 

collect the survey data on FLMA public lands. Additionally, in support of this collaboration, the Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division, U.S. DOT provided funding that enabled the FLMAs to obtain a Generic 

Clearance, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control # 0596-0236), to 

streamline the process for conducting multi-agency surveys. The Alaska survey will serve as a pilot for 

the Generic Clearance, and lessons learned will be shared with other FLMAs across the nation that are 

planning similar, collaborative surveys. 

The University of Alaska at Fairbanks (UAF) will administer the Alaska survey on behalf of the FLMAs. Dr. 

Peter Fix, the survey manager, and his team have administered numerous surveys on Alaska Federal 

Lands. The survey team will intercept visitors and administer a brief survey on-site. Visitors will also be 

asked to complete a follow-up survey online (after their trip). Dr. Fix will send you a preliminary set of 

survey intercept locations and a tentative survey schedule in advance for your feedback and approval. 

He will work with the appropriate staff at your unit to coordinate the data collection and to ensure that 

the survey complies with all regulations. 

As a first step, Dr. Fix will be following up with you in the next week or so to determine if there are any 

requirements (e.g., permits) or restrictions that UAF should be aware of before administering the 

survey. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Peter Fix (pjfix@uaf.edu or 907-474-

6926). If you have questions about the collaborative effort, please contact the U.S. DOT Technical Lead, 

Margaret Petrella (Margaret.Petrella@dot.gov or 617-494-3582)

Thank you for your cooperation and support. 

Best Regards, 

Randy Goodwin 
116 | P a g e
117 | P a g e
118 | P a g e

The following script was utilized when administering the onsite survey. 

Hello, my name is __________________. I work for the University of Alaska Fairbanks and we are conducting a 

study for the Alaska Federal Land Management Agencies to learn about users’ transportation experiences on 

Federal public lands. The Federal agencies will use this information to better understand the types of 

transportation improvements needed on Federal public lands. [Optional if asked: The survey is sponsored by the 

National Park Service, US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, and US Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

collaboration with the US Department of Transportation.] 

The survey is entirely voluntary and consists of 2 parts: an on-site survey and a follow up survey, which we could 

send to you by email or regular mail. The onsite survey could take up to 13 minutes to complete; however, for 

some of the questions, the responses may not apply to you, so the survey may take less time. After completing the 

on-site survey, I will ask if you would like to participate in the follow-up survey. 

Note to surveyor: at this point the potential respondent might state they are not on a recreation trip (e.g., 

they working, commuting, etc.) If so, mention we have a survey for people who are not on recreation 

trips, and ask if they would like to complete that survey. 

We are requesting the person in your group over 18, who has had the most recent birthday complete the survey. 

[If further explanation is needed: that is, within the past year, who most recently celebrated a birthday. If they ask 

why: we are selecting the person with the most recent birthday to help ensure a random sample.] 

IF NO (Attempt to convert to completed survey, but do not push too hard)

Could I ask you three questions? 

Q1: In what state or country do you live? (record in log) 

Q2: [Residents] Have you visited this site before? 

[Non-residents] Have you visited Alaska before? (for both code in log as: 0x, 1x, 2-3x, 4-6x, 7-10x, >10) 

Q3: How would you rate your travel experience arriving at this site? Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor. 

(Code as: E, G, F, P, VP) 

Record if they were recreation or non-recreation. Record any comments received, but do not ask for comments. 

Thank you. Have a great day. 

IF YES 

Great THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 

Would you like to complete the survey on an iPad or a paper copy? 

If not known yet, ask if they are a recreational visitor or non-recreational visitor. 

Ask all: Are you a permanent resident of Alaska? (Use this question to provide the correct paper copy) 

For residents only: The survey asks several questions about your travel through Federal public lands. For this 

survey, travel through public lands can include travel through Federal public lands to reach a particular destination, 

traveling within Federal public lands, as well as commuting through Federal public lands (e.g., on a state highway). 
119 | P a g e

All: The survey asks several questions ask about your visitation to “this site.” Answer those questions with respect 

to [insert details about the site at which you are sampling.] There are also several questions asking about your 

broader trip. For questions about activities, include only activities on Federal public land in Alaska. However, the 

questions about trip planning should include your entire trip (i.e., if you are visiting multiple states/countries). 

If you are not familiar with Federal public lands in Alaska, I have a map you could look at. 

I need to confirm you are over 18. [If not, they will need to have someone else in the group respond.] 

Completing the survey implies your consent to participate. 

Hand them the survey... 

AFTER SURVEY IS COMPLETE – 

Ask if they would like to participate in the follow-up survey. The general format is below. Record id 

number on the follow up survey sheet. 

NOTE: Both versions have a question asking if they would like to complete the follow up survey. For the 

iSurvey version, confirm if they responded to the follow up question, if they have not, ask them if they 

would like to participate. For the paper survey, you might not always be near the respondent when they 

complete the survey (e.g., a campground). In those cases, confirm that question was answered. 

Would you be willing to complete the follow-up survey?

___ No 

___ Yes  Can we send you a link to complete the survey online, or do prefer a paper version of the 

survey?

 ___ online: please provide your email address________________________________ 

 ___ mail: please provide your name and mailing address 

Name: ___________________________________________________ 

Street: ___________________________________________________ 

City /State (or Country)/Zip: ___________________________________________________ 

NOTE: Email or mailing address information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the 

purpose of sending you the follow-up survey. Your contact information will be stored in a separate file 

and will never be linked to any of your survey responses. In addition, your contact information will be 

destroyed upon completion of the study. 
120 | P a g e

FOR NON-RESIDENTS Can you let us know on which date you will be leaving Alaska, so that we know 

when to send you the follow-up survey? 

Date you will leave Alaska: __________________ 

NOTE, the above question is intended to measure when they will be able to receive an electronic follow 

up survey or a mail survey. The questions ask them about their experience in AK, so we need to be sure 

they have departed AK. However, they might not be traveling directly home after leaving (e.g., heading 

to AZ for the winter or something). So...you will need to probe a bit to determine when the “Alaska” part 

of their trip is over and when they can receive an email or mail survey. 

There were slightly different versions of the surveys for each of the three regions. The 

differences were in question about transportation used to arrive at site and transportation used 

within the site. 

 Interior did not include the White Pass Railroad 

 Southcentral did not include White Pass Railroad nor Denali Visitor Transportation 

System bus 

 Southeast did not include Denali Visitor Transportation System bus 

There were also different versions of the onsite survey for residents and non-residents. 

The resident and non-resident recreation surveys from the southcentral regions are shown 

below, followed by the resident and non-resident recreation survey. 

The follow-up survey, and reminders, are shown after the onsite survey. Qualtrics was used for 

the web-based version of the follow-up survey. 

The OMB Control number 0596-0236 was displayed as a footer on the surveys. 
121 | P a g e

Alaska Federal Lands Transportation Survey – Alaska Resident

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The 

valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0236. The time required to complete this 

information collection is estimated to average 13 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions. 

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, you can contact the University 

of Alaska-Fairbanks Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 1-866-876-7800 (toll-free 

outside the Fairbanks area) or uaf-irb@alaska.edu. 

1. In general, in the last year, how often have you used the Federal public lands in Alaska managed by 

each of the following agencies, either traveling through them to get to your destination, or 

participating in activities, such as hunting or fishing? 

 Federal lands include National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation 

Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

 Include commuting through Federal public lands and working on Federal public lands. 

 First we’ll ask about your use during winter months, and then we’ll ask about your use during 

summer months. 

(Check one response for each agency listed below.)

Don’t 

know

More 

than 

once per 

week

About 

once per 

week

About 

once per 

month

Less than 

monthly

Never

WINTER MONTHS

(approximately October – April)

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

U.S. Forest Service

SUMMER MONTHS

(approximately May – September)

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

U.S. Forest Service
122 | P a g e

2. In the last year, how often have you used each of the following forms of transportation when 

traveling to or through Federal public lands in Alaska (including National Parks, National Forests, 

National Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers)? Please include 

winter travel, as well as travel during other seasons. (Under “Frequency of use,” check one response 

for each item.) 

Second, for those forms of transportation that you have used when traveling to or through Alaska 

Federal public lands, please use the 1 to 5 scale to rate your satisfaction, on average, with your 

travel experience. (Under “Satisfaction rating,” check one response for each form of transportation 

you have used.) 

Frequency of use Satisfaction rating

1 - Never2 - Rarely3 - Occasionally 4 - Often5 - Always1 - Very dissatisfied2 - Dissatisfied

3 - Neither satisfied 

or dissatisfied

4 - Satisfied5 - Very satisfied

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Kayak, canoe, or raft 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Motorboat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

AMHS ferry 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxis, 

helicopter)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Private airplane (includes ultralights) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Commercial shuttle/tour bus 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Public bus 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Train 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Snow machine 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Cross country skis, snowshoes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Bicycle 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Foot/hiking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify:___________) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify:___________) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

3. Have you visited this site before today (not including this visit)? 

___ Yes  Approximately how many times have you visited in the last year? (Check one response.)

 __ 1 time 

 __ 2 – 3 times 

 __ 4 – 6 times 

 __ 7 – 10 times 

 __ More than 10 times 

___ No
123 | P a g e

4. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive at this site? (Please check all that apply.) 

Which form(s) of transportation have you used or do you plan to use within this site to get from one 

destination to another? (Check all that apply.) 

 

Type of Transportation Used TO ARRIVE 

at site

Used/plan to use 

WITHIN site

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys)

Commercial shuttle/tour bus

Alaska Railroad

Alaska Marine Highway ferry

Cruise ship

Motorboat

Kayak, canoe, or raft

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, helicopter)

Private airplane

Bicycle

Foot/hiking

Other (please specify: ______________________)

No additional travel within site/area

5. How would you rate your travel experience arriving at this site? (Check one response in column A.) 

How would you rate your travel experience within this site? (Check one response in column B.) 

A B

Arriving at site Within site

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor
124 | P a g e

Now we are going to ask you a few questions about your overall trip. When we use the word trip, we mean 

the time you spent away from home. For example, this may be a day trip to a single site or area. It could 

also be a trip that lasts a week or two, where you are visiting multiple sites. 

6. On this trip, which Federal lands sites have you visited (please include this site in your response)? 

(Please check all that apply in column A.)

What Alaska Federal public lands do you plan to visit next? (Check one response in column B.) 

What other Alaska Federal public lands are you planning to visit? (Check all that apply in column C.) 

A B C

Visited Next destination Other destinations

SOUTHEAST REGION

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park

Sitka National Historical Park

Tongass National Forest

SOUTHCENTRAL REGION

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

Gulkana Wild and Scenic River

Kenai Fjords National Park

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Chugach National Forest

Campbell Tract (Anchorage)

Tangle Lakes and Delta Wild and Scenic River

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

SOUTHWEST REGION

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge

Katmai National Park and Preserve

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve

INTERIOR

Denali National Park and Preserve

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River

Steese National Conservation Area

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge

White Mountains National Recreation Area

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve

NORTHERN REGION

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve

Cape Krusenstern National Monument

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve

Kobuk Valley National Park

Noatak National Preserve

Dalton Highway

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Other (please specify:________________________)

Other (please specify:________________________)

Do not plan to visit other sites
125 | P a g e

 

7. During this trip, which of the following activities have you participated in on Federal public lands? 

(Check all that apply in column A.) 

During the rest of your trip, which activities do you plan to participate in on Federal public lands? 

(Check all that apply in column B.)

A B

NON-MOTORIZED ACTIVITIES

Did on this trip Plan to do during rest 

of this trip

Hiking or walking

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching)

Backpacking/trekking

Climbing/mountaineering

Camping

Hunting

Salt water fishing

Fresh water fishing

Berry picking/food gathering

Horseback riding

Bicycling, including mountain biking

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting

Gold panning

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, endurance 

events, etc.)

MOTORIZED ACTIVITIES

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or dirt)

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.)

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas 

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.)

Commercial aircraft tours

Other motorized activities (organized events, etc.)

No other activities planned

Now we’d like to ask you a few questions about your planning for this trip. If you are on a multi-day trip visiting 

different sites, please answer the questions with respect to your entire trip. 

8. How long before the trip did you start making your travel arrangements? (Check one response.) 

___ Less than one week 

___ 1 week to 4 weeks 

___ 1 to 3 months 

___ 4 to 11 months 

___ 1 year to 2 years 

___ More than 2 years 

___ Don’t know/can’t recall
126 | P a g e

9. Prior to your trip, how did you and your personal group obtain information to plan the 

transportation and travel-related details of your trip? (Check one response for each item.) 

Used?

Yes No

Federal or State websites

Other websites

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Podcasts

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

 for National Forests)

Brochures or pamphlets

Travel guides/books 

Newspaper/magazine article

Alaska Milepost

Radio/TV broadcasts

Word of mouth (e.g., friends or relatives)

Previous visits

Visitor bureaus, visitor centers, or information centers 

(e.g., Alaska Public Lands Information Center)

Other (Please specify ____________________)

10. Was there information that you and your personal group needed that was not available? 

__ Yes  please describe:_______________________________________________ 

__ No 

__ Not Sure 

Next, we have a few questions about you and your travel group. 

11. On this trip are you traveling independently or as part of a pre-purchased guided tour group? 

(Check one response.) 

___ Independently 

___ Part of pre-purchased package or tour group 

 ___ Both 

12. On this trip, are you and your personal group traveling with any of the following types of organized 

groups? 

Yes No

a. School/educational group ___ ___

b. Other organized group (such as business group, scout group, etc.) ___ ___
127 | P a g e

13. On this trip, what kind of personal group (not guided tour/school group) are you with? 

(Check one response.) 

___ Alone 

___ Family 

___ Friends

___ Family and friends 

___ Business associates 

___ Other (please specify: ________________________) 

14. Does anyone in your personal group have a physical condition or personal limitation that made it 

difficult to access services or participate in activities on this trip? 

___ Yes  Which activities or services has the person(s) had difficulty accessing or participating in?

Please be as specific as possible, and include the location, if possible. 

________________________________________________ 

___ No

15. Including yourself, how many people in your personal travel group are in the following age groups? 

(Please write in number of people in each age group.)

______ 5 years and under 

______ 6 – 12 years 

______ 13 – 18 years 

______ 19 – 29 years 

______ 30 – 44 years 

______ 45 – 64 years 

______ 65 or older 
128 | P a g e

The following demographic questions are to help public land managers better understand their 

visitors. Responses will be reported as summary statistics (e.g., percentages). 

 

16. What is your zip code? __________ 

17. Are you: (Check one response.) 

___ Male 

___ Female 

18. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Check one response.) 

___ Yes 

___ No 

19. What is your race? (Check all that apply.) 

___ American Indian or Alaska Native 

___ Asian 

___ Black or African American 

___ White 

___ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

___ Other 

20. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Check one response.)

___ Less than high school 

___ High school graduate/GED 

___ Vocational or technical school certificate 

___ Some college 

___ Associate’s degree 

___ Bachelor’s degree

___ Graduate degree or professional degree (MA, MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA, etc.) 

21. Which category best represents your annual household income (before taxes) last year? (Check one 

response.) 

___ Less than $24,999 

___ $25,000 – $34,999 

___ $35,000 – $49,999 

___ $50,000 – $74,999 

___ $75,000 – $99,999 

___ $100,000 – $149,999

___ $150,000 – $199,999

___ $200,000 or more 

___ Do not wish to answer 

Thank you so much for participating in the survey! We are hoping that you will be willing to complete a followup survey after your trip, so we can better understand your entire travel experience. 
129 | P a g e

Would you be willing to complete the follow-up survey?

__ No 

__ Yes  Can we send you a link to complete the survey online, or do prefer a paper version of the survey?

 ___ online: please provide your email address________________________________ 

 ___ mail: please provide your name and mailing address 

Name: ___________________________________________________ 

Street: ___________________________________________________ 

City/Zip: ___________________________________________________ 

 

NOTE: Email or mailing address information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of 

sending you the follow-up survey. Your contact information will be stored in a separate file and will never be 

linked to any of your survey responses. In addition, your contact information will be destroyed upon 

completion of the study. 
130 | P a g e

 

 

Alaska Federal Lands Transportation Survey – 

Alaska Non-Resident

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The 

valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0236. The time required to complete this 

information collection is estimated to average 13 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions. 

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, you can contact the University 

of Alaska-Fairbanks Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 1-866-876-7800 (toll-free 

outside the Fairbanks area) or uaf-irb@alaska.edu. 

1. Do you live in the United States?

___ Yes  What is your home state? ________________________

 

 ___ No  What country do you live in? ______________________

2. Are you a seasonal resident of Alaska?

___ Yes 

___ No

3. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive in Alaska? (Check all that apply.)

___ Airplane (commercial or private) 

___ Cruise Ship 

___ Vehicle (car, RV, truck, motorcycle) 

___ Alaska Marine Highway ferry 

___ Bus 

___ Other (please specify:________________________) 

4. Have you visited Alaska before (not including this visit)? 

 ___ Yes  Approximately how many times have you visited in the last ten years? (Check one 

 response.) 

 __ 1 time 

 __ 2 – 3 times 

 __ 4 – 6 times 

 __ 7 – 10 times 

 __ More than 10 times 

 ___ No 
131 | P a g e

5. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive at this site? (Please check all that apply.) 

Which form(s) of transportation have you used or do you plan to use within this site to get from one 

destination to another? (Check all that apply.) 

 

Type of Transportation Used TO ARRIVE 

at site

Used/plan to use 

WITHIN site

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys)

Commercial shuttle/tour bus

Alaska Railroad

Alaska Marine Highway ferry

Cruise ship

Motorboat

Kayak, canoe, or raft

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, helicopter)

Private airplane

Bicycle

Foot/hiking

Other (please specify: ______________________)

No additional travel within site/area

6. How would you rate your travel experience arriving at this site? (Check one response in column A.) 

How would you rate your travel experience within this site? (Check one response in column B.) 

A B

Arriving at site Within site

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor
132 | P a g e

Now we are going to ask you a few questions about your overall trip. When we use the word trip, we mean the 

time you spent away from home. For example, this may be a day trip to a single site or area. It could also be a 

trip that lasts a week or two, where you are visiting multiple sites. 

7. On this trip, which Federal lands sites have you visited (please include this site in your response)? 

(Please check all that apply in column A.)

What Alaska Federal public lands do you plan to visit next? (Check one response in column B.) 

What other Alaska Federal public lands are you planning to visit? (Check all that apply in column C.) 

A B C

Visited Next destination Other destinations

SOUTHEAST REGION

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park

Sitka National Historical Park

Tongass National Forest

SOUTHCENTRAL REGION

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

Gulkana Wild and Scenic River

Kenai Fjords National Park

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Chugach National Forest

Campbell Tract (Anchorage)

Tangle Lakes and Delta Wild and Scenic River

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

SOUTHWEST REGION

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge

Katmai National Park and Preserve

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve

INTERIOR

Denali National Park and Preserve

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River

Steese National Conservation Area

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge

White Mountains National Recreation Area

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve

NORTHERN REGION

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve

Cape Krusenstern National Monument

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve

Kobuk Valley National Park

Noatak National Preserve

Dalton Highway

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Other (please specify:________________________)

Other (please specify:________________________)

Do not plan to visit other sites
133 | P a g e

 

8. During this trip, which of the following activities have you participated in on Federal public lands? 

(Check all that apply in column A.) 

During the rest of your trip, which activities do you plan to participate in on Federal public lands? 

(Check all that apply in column B.)

A B

NON-MOTORIZED ACTIVITIES

Did on this trip Plan to do during rest 

of this trip

Hiking or walking

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching)

Backpacking/trekking

Climbing/mountaineering

Camping

Hunting

Salt water fishing

Fresh water fishing

Berry picking/food gathering

Horseback riding

Bicycling, including mountain biking

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting

Gold panning

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, endurance 

events, etc.)

MOTORIZED ACTIVITIES

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or dirt)

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.)

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas 

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.)

Commercial aircraft tours

Other motorized activities (organized events, etc.)

No other activities planned

Now we’d like to ask you a few questions about your planning for this trip. If you are on a multi-day trip 

visiting different sites, please answer the questions with respect to your entire trip. 

9. How long before the trip did you start making your travel arrangements? (Check one response.) 

___ Less than one week 

___ 1 week to 4 weeks 

___ 1 to 3 months 

___ 4 to 11 months 

___ 1 year to 2 years 

___ More than 2 years 

___ Don’t know/can’t recall
134 | P a g e

10. Prior to your trip, how did you and your personal group obtain information to plan the 

transportation and travel-related details of your trip? (Check one response for each item.) 

Used?

Yes No

Federal or State websites

Other websites

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Podcasts

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

 for National Forests)

Brochures or pamphlets

Travel guides/books 

Newspaper/magazine article

Alaska Milepost

Radio/TV broadcasts

Word of mouth (e.g., friends or relatives)

Previous visits

Visitor bureaus, visitor centers, or information centers 

(e.g., Alaska Public Lands Information Center)

Other (Please specify ____________________)

11. Was there information that you and your personal group needed that was not available? 

__ Yes  please describe:_______________________________________________ 

__ No 

__ Not Sure 

Next, we have a few questions about you and your travel group. 

12. On this trip are you traveling independently or as part of a pre-purchased guided tour group? 

(Check one response.) 

___ Independently 

___ Part of pre-purchased package or tour group 

 ___ Both 

13. On this trip, are you and your personal group traveling with any of the following types of organized 

groups? 

Yes No

a. School/educational group ___ ___

b. Other organized group (such as business group, scout group, etc.) ___ ___
135 | P a g e

14. On this trip, what kind of personal group (not guided tour/school group) are you with? 

(Check one response.) 

___ Alone 

___ Family 

___ Friends

___ Family and friends 

___ Business associates 

___ Other (please specify: ________________________) 

15. Does anyone in your personal group have a physical condition or personal limitation that made it 

difficult to access services or participate in activities on this trip? 

___ Yes  Which activities or services has the person(s) had difficulty accessing or participating in?

Please be as specific as possible, and include the location, if possible. 

________________________________________________ 

___ No

16. Including yourself, how many people in your personal travel group are in the following age groups? 

(Please write in number of people in each age group.)

______ 5 years and under 

______ 6 – 12 years 

______ 13 – 18 years 

______ 19 – 29 years 

______ 30 – 44 years 

______ 45 – 64 years 

______ 65 or older 
136 | P a g e

The following demographic questions are to help public land managers better understand their visitors. 

Responses will be reported as summary statistics (e.g., percentages). 

 

17. Are you: (Check one response.) 

___ Male 

___ Female 

18. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Check one response.) 

___ Yes 

___ No 

19. What is your race? (Check all that apply.) 

___ American Indian or Alaska Native 

___ Asian 

___ Black or African American 

___ White 

___ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

___ Other 

20. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Check one response.)

___ Less than high school 

___ High school graduate/GED 

___ Vocational or technical school certificate 

___ Some college 

___ Associate’s degree 

___ Bachelor’s degree 

___ Graduate degree or professional degree (MA, MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA, etc.) 

21. Which category best represents your annual household income (before taxes) last year? (Check one 

response.) 

___ Less than $24,999 

___ $25,000 – $34,999 

___ $35,000 – $49,999 

___ $50,000 – $74,999 

___ $75,000 – $99,999 

___ $100,000 – $149,999

___ $150,000 – $199,999

___ $200,000 or more 

___ Do not wish to answer 

Thank you so much for participating in the survey! We are hoping that you will be willing to complete a followup survey after your trip, so we can better understand your entire travel experience. 
137 | P a g e

Would you be willing to complete the follow-up survey?

___ No 

___ Yes  Can we send you a link to complete the survey online, or do prefer a paper version of the survey?

 ___ online: please provide your email address________________________________ 

 ___ mail: please provide your name and mailing address 

Name: ___________________________________________________ 

Street: ___________________________________________________ 

City /State (or Country)/Zip: ___________________________________________________ 

NOTE: Email or mailing address information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of 

sending you the follow-up survey. Your contact information will be stored in a separate file and will never be 

linked to any of your survey responses. In addition, your contact information will be destroyed upon 

completion of the study. 

Can you let us know on which date you will be leaving Alaska, so that we know when to send you the 

follow-up survey? 

Date you will leave Alaska: __________________ 
138 | P a g e

Alaska Federal Lands Transportation Survey – Non-Recreational 

Alaska Resident

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 0596-0236. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 13 

minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. 

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, you can contact the University of AlaskaFairbanks Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 1-866-876-7800 (toll-free outside the Fairbanks area) 

or uaf-irb@alaska.edu. 

1. In general, in the last year, how often have you used the Federal public lands in Alaska managed by 

each of the following agencies, either traveling through them to get to your destination, or 

participating in activities, such as hunting or fishing? Include commuting through Federal public lands 

and working on Federal public lands. First we’ll ask about your use during winter months, and then 

we’ll ask about your use during summer months. (Check one response for each item.)

Don’t 

know

More 

than 

once per 

week

About 

once per 

week

About 

once per 

month

Less than 

monthly

Never

WINTER MONTHS

(approximately October – April) 

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

U.S. Forest Service

SUMMER MONTHS

(approximately May – September) 

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

U.S. Forest Service

2. Have you visited this site before today (not including this visit)? 

___ Yes  Approximately how many times have you visited in the last year? (Check one response.)

 __ 1 time 

 __ 2 – 3 times 

 __ 4 – 6 times 

 __ 7 – 10 times 

 __ More than 10 times 

___ No
139 | P a g e

3. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive at this site? (Please check all that apply.) 

Which form(s) of transportation have you used or do you plan to use within this site to get from one 

destination to another? (Check all that apply.) 

Type of Transportation Used TO ARRIVE at 

site

Used/plan to use 

WITHIN site

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)

All-terrain vehicle or off-road vehicle

Public Bus (not including shuttles or trolleys)

Commercial shuttle/tour bus

Alaska Marine Highway ferry

Cruise ship

Motorboat

Kayak, canoe, or raft

Commercial airplane (includes air taxi)

Private airplanes

Bicycle

Foot/Hiking

Other (please specify: ___________________)

No additional travel within site/area

4. How would you rate your travel experience arriving at this site? (Check one response in column A.) 

How would you rate your travel experience within this site? (Check one response in column B.)

A B

Arriving at Site Within site

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

5. Please use the space below to share any additional feedback on your travel experiences on Alaska 

Federal public lands. In particular, we are interested in learning about any transportation-related 

issues or problems you faced. Please be as specific as possible. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Do you have any suggestions for how travel/transportation to or through Federal public lands can 

be improved? 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 
140 | P a g e

 

We have just a few final questions. The following demographic questions are to help public land managers 

better understand their visitors. Responses will be reported as summary statistics (e.g., percentages). 

7. What is your zip code? _______________

8. What is your age? (Check one response.)

____ 18 – 29 years 

____ 30 – 44 years 

____ 45 – 64 years 

____ 65 or older 

9. Are you: (Check one response.) 

___ Male 

___ Female 

10. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Check one response.)

___ Yes 

___ No 

11. What is your race? (Check all that apply.) 

___ American Indian or Alaska Native 

___ Asian 

___ Black or African American 

___ White 

___ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

___ Other 

12. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Check one response.) 

___ Less than high school 

___ High school graduate/GED 

___ Vocational or technical school certificate 

___ Some college 

___ Associate’s degree 

___ Bachelor’s degree

___ Graduate degree or professional degree (MA, MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA, etc.) 

13. Which category best represents your annual household income (before taxes) last year? (Check one 

response.) 

___ Less than $24,999 

___ $25,000 – $34,999 

___ $35,000 – $49,999

___ $50,000 – $74,999 

___ $75,000 – $99,999 

___ $100,000 – $149,999

___ $150,000 – $199,999

___ $200,000 or more 

___ Do not wish to answer 
141 | P a g e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you so much for participating in the survey! 

 

 

 
142 | P a g e

Alaska Federal Lands Transportation Survey – Non-Recreational 

Alaska Non-Resident

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 0596-0236. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 13 

minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. 

If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, you can contact the University of AlaskaFairbanks Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 1-866-876-7800 (toll-free outside the Fairbanks area) 

or uaf-irb@alaska.edu. 

1. Do you live in the United States?

___ Yes  What is your home state? _____________

 ___ No  What country do you live in? ______________________

 

2. Are you a seasonal resident of Alaska?

___ Yes 

___ No

3. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive in Alaska? (Check all that apply).

___ Airplane (commercial or private) 

___ Cruise Ship 

___ Vehicle (car, RV, truck, motorcycle) 

___ Alaska Marine Highway ferry 

___ Bus 

___ Other (please specify:__________________________________________) 

4. Have you visited Alaska before (not including this visit)? 

 ___ Yes Approximately how many times have you visited in the last ten years? (Check one 

response.) 

 ___ 1 time 

 ___ 2 – 3 times 

 ___ 4 – 6 times 

 ___ 7 – 10 times 

 ___ More than 10 times 

 ___ No 
143 | P a g e

5. Which form(s) of transportation did you use to arrive at this site? (Please check all that apply.) 

Which form(s) of transportation have you used or do you plan to use within this site to get from one 

destination to another? (Check all that apply.) 

Type of Transportation Used TO ARRIVE at 

site

Used/plan to use 

WITHIN site

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV)

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or Off-road vehicle

Public Bus (not including shuttles or trolleys)

Commercial shuttle/tour bus

Alaska Marine Highway ferry

Cruise ship

Motorboat

Kayak, canoe, or raft

Commercial airplane (includes air taxi)

Private airplanes

Bicycle

Foot/hiking

Other (please specify: _________________)

No additional travel within site/area

6. How would you rate your travel experience arriving at this site? (Check one response in column A.) 

How would you rate your travel experience within this site? (Check one response in column B.)

A B

Arriving at Site Within site

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

7. Please use the space below to share any additional feedback on your travel experiences on Alaska 

Federal public lands. In particular, we are interested in learning about any transportation-related 

issues or problems you faced. Please be as specific as possible. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

8. Do you have any suggestions for how travel/transportation to or through Federal public lands can 

be improved? 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 
144 | P a g e

We have just a few final questions. The following demographic questions are to help public land managers 

better understand their visitors. Responses will be reported as summary statistics (e.g., percentages). 

 

9. What is your zip code? _______________

10. What is your age? (Check one response.)

____ 18 – 29 years 

____ 30 – 44 years 

____ 45 – 64 years 

____ 65 or older 

11. Are you: (Check one response.) 

___ Male 

___ Female 

12. Are you Hispanic or Latino? (Check one response.)

___ Yes 

___ No 

13. What is your race? (Check all that apply.) 

___ American Indian or Alaska Native 

___ Asian 

___ Black or African American 

___ White 

___ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

___ Other 

14. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Check one response.) 

___ Less than high school 

___ High school graduate/GED 

___ Vocational or technical school certificate 

___ Some college 

___ Associate’s degree 

___ Bachelor’s degree

___ Graduate degree or professional degree (MA, MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA, etc.) 

15. Which category best represents your annual household income (before taxes) last year? (Check one 

response.) 

___ Less than $24,999 

___ $25,000 – $34,999 

___ $35,000 – $49,999

___ $50,000 – $74,999 

___ $75,000 – $99,999 

___ $100,000 – $149,999

___ $150,000 – $199,999

___ $200,000 or more 

___ Do not wish to answer 
145 | P a g e

 

 

Thank you so much for participating in the survey! 
146 | P a g e

Alaska Federal Lands Transportation 

Survey 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Peter Fix at (907) 474-6926 or pjfix@alaska.edu.
147 | P a g e

First, we’d like to ask you a few general questions about your trip and about information sources you used 

during your trip. 

1. How many total nights did you spend away from home on this trip? (Please check one response.)

___ 0  go to question 3 

___ 1 – 2 

___ 3 - 14

___ 15+ 

2. In what type(s) of accommodations did you and your personal group spend the night(s)? (Check all 

that apply.) 

 

___ Rental lodge or cabin 

___ Hotel, motel, rented condo/home or bed & breakfast 

___ Cruise ship 

___ Alaska Marine Ferry or other boat 

___ RV/trailer camping 

___ Tent camping 

___ Backcountry camping 

___ Personal seasonal residence 

___ Residence of friends/relatives 

___ Other accommodations (please specify) 
148 | P a g e

3. Which information sources did you and your personal group use during your trip for transportation 

or travel-related information? (Check all that apply in the “Used” column.) 

For each source used, how helpful was the information you received? (For each information source 

used, check one response in the “How helpful” column.) 

1) Used 

During 

Trip?

2) How helpful?

Not at all

helpful

Slightly 

helpful

Moderately 

helpful

Very 

helpful

Federal or state websites 1 2 3 4

Other websites 1 2 3 4

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 1 2 3 4

Podcasts 1 2 3 4

Maps (e.g., Motor Vehicle Use Maps 

 for National Forests) 1 2 3 4

Brochures or pamphlets 1 2 3 4

Travel guides/books 1 2 3 4

Newspaper/magazine article 1 2 3 4

Alaska Milepost 1 2 3 4

Radio/TV broadcasts 1 2 3 4

Word of mouth (friends or relatives) 1 2 3 4

Word of mouth (local businesses or residents) 1 2 3 4

Package tour companies/providers (Alaska 

 Railroads, airline, cruise, independent, etc.) 1 2 3 4

Visitor bureaus, visitor centers or 

Information centers (e.g., Alaska Public 

Lands Information Center)

1 2 3 4

Previous visits 1 2 3 4

Other (Please specify) 1 2 3 4

Did not use any sources 1 2 3 4

4. From the sources marked above, did you and your personal group receive the type of information 

that you needed? 

___ Yes

___ No  IF No, What was the information that you and your personal group needed that was not 

available? Please be specific. ________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________ 

___ Not sure 
149 | P a g e

5. During your trip, did you and your personal group use any of the following electronic devices to 

obtain transportation or travel-related information? (Please check one response for each item.) 

 

 

 

Used Did not use Not sure

Laptop

Tablet computer (e.g., iPad)

Smartphone (e.g., iPhone, Android)

Cell phone/text (without internet)

Global Positioning System (GPS)

Marine/aircraft radio (2-way radio)

Other portable electronic device 

(please specify:______________)

Other portable electronic device 

(please specify:______________)

 

6. Please indicate if you had any of the following problems when trying to obtain information on your 

electronic device. (Check all that apply.) 

___ Service not available (e.g., no internet connection) 

___ Could not find the information I was seeking 

 ___ Information was incomplete, not detailed enough 

 ___ Other problem (please specify:___________________________________) 

 ___ Did not experience any problems 

 ___ Did not use electronic devices 

7. On this trip, were the signs directing you and your personal group to your destination(s) adequate? 

(Please check one response for each item.) 

Yes No Not applicable

Signs on state highways

Signs in communities

Signs along trails

Signs at airports

Signs at ferry terminals or docks

Signs at railroad stations/depots

Signs inside Federal Lands (National 

Parks, National Forests, National 

Wildlife Refuges, etc.)
150 | P a g e

7a. [If no for one or more items]: Please explain any issues or problems you had with the signs. 

Please be as specific as possible. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

The next set of questions is about the sites you visited and activities you engaged in. 

8. Were you and your personal group able to visit all of the Federal public land sites that you planned 

to visit on this trip? 

___Yes  go to question 11

___ No 

9. Which sites were you not able to visit? _________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

10. What reasons prevented you from visiting those sites? (Check all that apply.) 

___ Not enough time 

___ Didn’t realize how long it would take to travel to destination(s)

___ Transportation to/from the destination was too costly 

___ Transportation to/from the destination was not available 

___ Transportation to/from the destination was not frequent enough/convenient 

___ Transportation-related mechanical problems 

___ Area was closed/road closure 

___ Bad weather 

___ Other (please specify:__________________________________) 

11. Were you able to participate in all the activities that you and your personal group had planned on 

Federal public lands? 

___ Yes  go to question 14 

___ No 

12. Which activity(s) were you and your personal group not able to participate in? 

______________________________________________________________________ 
151 | P a g e

13. Which of the following reasons explain why you did not engage in the activity? 

(Check all that apply.) 

___ Rules or regulations did not allow for activity 

___ Area was temporarily closed to the public 

___ Not enough time 

___ Safety concerns 

___ Not enough information about the activity 

___ Too crowded 

___ Could not get a reservation 

___ Difficult road or trail access 

___ No road or trail access 

___ Unsatisfactory conditions of facilities 

___ Resource damage due to overuse 

___ Bad weather 

___ Wildfire/other natural hazard 

___ Other (please specify:______________________________________________) 
152 | P a g e

Next, we’d like to ask you about your travel experience, including questions evaluating different aspects of your 

trip. 

14. This question asks about your use of transportation during your trip and has two parts. First, please 

indicate which of the following forms of transportation you and your personal group used during 

your trip. (Check all that apply in the “Used” column.) 

Next, for each form of transportation that you and your personal group used, please use the 5-point 

scale to rate your satisfaction, on average, with your travel experience. 

1) Used? 2) Satisfaction Rating

Very 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither 

Satisfied or 

Dissatisfied Satisfied

Very 

Satisfied

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, 

RV) 1 2 3 4 5

Rental vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle 

RV) 1 2 3 4 5

All-terrain vehicle or off-road vehicle 1 2 3 4 5

Commercial tour bus 1 2 3 4 5

Other public bus 1 2 3 4 5

Denali Visitor Transportation System 

(Shuttle bus) 1 2 3 4 5

White Pass Railroad

Alaska Railroad 1 2 3 4 5

Cruise Ship 1 2 3 4 5

Boat (motorized) 1 2 3 4 5

Alaska Marine Ferry System 1 2 3 4 5

Kayak, canoe or raft 1 2 3 4 5

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxis, 

helicopters) 1 2 3 4 5

Private airplane (includes ultralights) 1 2 3 4 5

Bicycle 1 2 3 4 5

Foot/hiking 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify:_____________) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify:_____________) 1 2 3 4 5

14a. [For any forms of transportation rated “1” or “2”]: Why were you dissatisfied with your travel 

experience? 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 
153 | P a g e

15. Thinking about your trip as a whole, please use the 5-point scale to rate how well your travel 

experience lived up to your expectations. (Please check one response) 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Significantly 

below my 

expectations

Below my 

expectations

Met my 

expectations

Above my

expectations

Significantly 

above my 

expectations

1 2 3 4 5

15a. If you rated your overall travel experience as a 1 or 2, why did your travel experience fall below 

your expectations?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

16. During your trip, did you experience any delays or other problems making connections from one 

form of transportation to another? For example, a weather delay making a connection from a bus to 

a train? 

___ Yes  IF YES, Please indicate the nature of the problem. Please be as specific as possible. 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

 ____________________________________________________________ 

___ No 

___ Not applicable (didn’t make any transportation connections during my trip)
154 | P a g e

17. During your trip, how dissatisfied or satisfied were you and your personal group with each of the 

following services or facilities on Federal public lands (e.g., National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife 

Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers)? (For each item, check one response. 

If you had no experience with a particular service or facility, please check “Not applicable.”) 

 

Very 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Neither 

Satisfied or 

Dissatisfied Satisfied

Very 

Satisfied

Not 

Applicable

Condition of Roads 1 2 3 4 5 6

Condition of trails 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of trail markers 1 2 3 4 5 6

Parking availability 1 2 3 4 5 6

Availability of transportation 

to the sites I wanted to visit 1 2 3 4 5 6

Availability of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. During your trip, to what extent do you feel the following issues were a problem when you were 

visiting Federal public lands (e.g., National Parks, National Forests, National Recreation Areas, 

National Wildlife Refuges)? (For each item, please check one response.) 

Not a

problem

Small

problem

Moderate 

problem

Big 

problem

No 

opinion

People walking on, across, or along the 

road 1 2 3 4 5

Interactions between motorized and 

non-motorized forms of transportation 1 2 3 4 5

Too many people at scenic overlooks 1 2 3 4 5

Motor vehicle sounds that interfered 

with natural sounds and quiet 1 2 3 4 5

Aircraft sound that interfered with 

natural sounds and quiet 1 2 3 4 5

Cars parked illegally (e.g., on road 

shoulders) 1 2 3 4 5

Too many regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Too few regulations 1 2 3 4 5

Traffic congestion

Other 

(Please specify:____________________) 1 2 3 4 5
155 | P a g e

19. Thinking about your trip, would you have liked to have seen more of, the same, or less of each of 

the following on the Federal public lands that you saw or visited (e.g., National Parks, National 

Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers)? 

(For each item, please check one response.)

 ____________________________________________________________ 

Less Same More No Opinion

Trails for hiking, biking, or horseback riding 1 2 3 4

Trails for all-terrain vehicles 1 2 3 4

Roads for passenger vehicles 1 2 3 4

Primitive roads (e.g., high clearance roads) 1 2 3 4

Campgrounds 1 2 3 4

Signs that include directions or wayfinding 

information 1 2 3 4

Safety cabins/shelters 1 2 3 4

Remote airstrips 1 2 3 4

Boat launches, moorings, and docks 1 2 3 4

Accessible-friendly (e.g., for wheelchairs) sites 

and facilities 1 2 3 4

Other (please specify:_____________________) 1 2 3 4

Other (please specify:_____________________) 1 2 3 4

 ____________________________________________________________ 

In this last section, we have a few questions on safety. 

20. Prior to your trip, did you or anyone in your travel group search for information about safety 

measures? 

___ Yes  IF YES, What were the safety concerns that you searched? Please list up to three of your 

top concerns. ____________________________________________________________ 

___ No 
156 | P a g e

21. While on Federal public lands in Alaska, did you or members of your personal group experience any 

safety concerns (e.g., concern about potential injury) as a result of the following: (For each item, 

please check one response).

 

 ___________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Experienced: Safety Concern:

Yes No

Wildlife encounter

Bad weather

Got lost

Poor road conditions

Poor trail conditions

Vehicles parked along the side of the road

Interactions between vehicles and bicycles

Interactions between vehicles and pedestrians

Ran out of gas or other supplies in a remote area

Lack of cell phone coverage

Needing emergency services

Other (please specify:_________________________)

 ___________________________________________ 

IF YES TO ANY ITEMS: Please describe:___________________________________________ 

22. Considering all trips you have made on Federal public lands in Alaska, have you ever been involved 

in a transportation-related accident or safety incident? (Please check one response.) 

___ Yes, once 

___ Yes, more than once 

___ No  go to question 25 

___ Can’t recall  go to question 25 

23. Was (were any of) the transportation related accident(s) or safety incident(s) reported? 

___ Yes  IF YES, to whom? ______________________________________________________ 

 ___ No 

 ___ Don’t know

24. Please describe the transportation-related accident or safety incident(s). If more than one, please 

describe the most serious:

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 
157 | P a g e

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

25. Please use the space below to share any additional feedback on your travel experiences during your 

trip. In particular, we are interested in learning about any transportation-related issues or problems 

you faced. Please be as specific as possible. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

26. Do you have any suggestions for how travel/transportation to or through Federal public lands can 

be improved? 

You have completed the survey. Thank you so much! Your participation is deeply appreciated. 

Use the space below to provide any additional comments. 
158 | P a g e

Text for cover letter (printed on UAF Letterhead). Cover letter was customized for each survey site. 

School of Natural Resources and Extension 

Department of Natural Resources Management 

303 O’Neill Building ● P.O. Box 757200 ● Fairbanks AK 99775-7200 

(907) 474-7188 ● fax (907) 474-6184 ● http://www.uaf.edu/snras/ ● fysnras@uaf.edu 

Dear [First Last], 

We hope that you enjoyed your recent visit to Alaska's Federal public lands. You may recall completing the 

first part of a survey in-person at [SITE], and you agreed to complete our follow-up survey. This follow-up 

survey is about that same trip, and it should take less than 20 minutes of your time to complete. 

Your feedback is very important to us! The results will be used to help us better manage your Federal public 

lands. 

When you have completed the survey, please return it to us in the postage-paid return envelope.

Your responses will remain confidential. As participation is voluntary, you can withdraw at any time. 

Completing the survey implies your consent to participate. If you have any questions about the survey, please 

contact Peter Fix at (907) 474-6926 or pjfix@alaska.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your rights 

as a research participant, you can contact the UAF Office of Research Integrity at 474-7800 (Fairbanks area) or 

1-866-876-7800 (toll-free outside the Fairbanks area) or uaf-irb@alaska.edu.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely, 

Dr. Peter J Fix 

Principal Investigator 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 
159 | P a g e

Text for thank you/reminder postcard. 

Dear <first> <last>, 

A survey was recently mailed to you regarding your trip on Alaska Federal public lands. As of today we have 

not received your response. If you have already completed the survey, thank you for your help. If not, please 

complete the survey at your earliest convenience. Because the surveys were sent to only a limited number of 

visitors to Alaska Federal public lands, it is extremely important that we hear from you. 

If you did not receive the survey, please contact Peter Fix at (907) 474-6926; or 

ak.transportation.survey@alaska.edu. 

Sincerely, 

Peter J Fix 

Principal Investigator 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 
160 | P a g e

Appendix B Comparison of CVTS Data to AVSP Data 

Travel to Regions of the State 

The AVSP presented visitors with five regions of the state (Southeast, Southcentral, Interior, Southwest, 

and Northern) and asked which regions they visited. While the CVTS did not ask that exact question, it 

did ask about visitation to specific sites within those five regions. Using responses to specific site 

visitation, a new variable was created to indicate which of the five regions the CVTS respondents visited. 

CVTS data shows a lower rate of visiting southeast Alaska and a higher rate of visiting Interior, 

southwest, and the north (Table 57).

Table 57. Visitation to regions of Alaska: CVTS compared to AVSP. 

Regions CVTS1

AVSP2

n %

Southeast 1161 59% 68%

Southcentral 1040 53% 56%

Interior 1069 55% 33%

Southwest 227 12% 4%

North 151 8% 2%

1n = 1958, which includes only the non-resident recreation visitors. 

2Data are from 2011. 

Mode of arrival to Alaska 

The CVTS non-resident recreation respondents were used for this analysis. There were 1,958 

nonresident recreation surveys. Of those, 252 entered more than 1 mode of travel to Alaska (the 

question was set up so respondents could check all that apply). For the respondents who checked more 

than one mode, to categorize their arrival type, the following rules were developed: 

 If cruise ship was listed among the travel modes, the arrival type was coded as cruise. 

 If air was listed among the travel modes, but cruise ship was not, the arrival type was coded as 

air. 

 If Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry and private vehicle were both checked, arrival type was 

coded as Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry. 

Of the 252 that checked more than one, the following codes were applied. 

 150 coded as air 

 70 coded as Cruise ship 

 3 coded as vehicle 

 21 coded as AMHS 

 8 coded as other 
161 | P a g e

Table 58. Comparison of CVTS Mode of Travel to Arrive in Alaska to AVSP Exit Mode. 

Travel Mode CVTS1 AVSP2

N %

Airplane 1000 51% 49%

Cruise ship 558 28% 46%

Vehicle 318 16% 4%3

AMHS 46 2% <1%

Other4 36 2%

1n = 1958. 

2Exit mode and 2015 estimate. 

3

Listed as “highway” in AVSP report.

4Notable among the “other” are 12 respondents who listed train (i.e., White Pass Rail Road) and 5 that listed private boat. (For 

this analysis, the “other” category includes only the respondents who selected other and were not classified into one of the 

other arrival types.) 

When compared to the AVSP data, given the assumptions in the comparison, cruise ship passengers 

might be underrepresented and those visiting by private vehicle overrepresented. As sites visited, 

activity participation, and demographics could vary by those travel modes, we created weights and 

applied them to the data to investigate if results were biased due to travel mode not matching the best 

estimate of travel mode (i.e., the AVSP). With regard to the weights, the largest weight was 1.61. 

Although vehicle, AMHS, and “other” had relatively small weights, they were a relatively small 

percentage of the sample (Table 59). Residents were assigned a weight of “1.” In general, applying the 

weights did not have a large impact on the results. Weighting did impact analysis related to regions 

visited (because cruise passengers are skewed toward the Southeast), but overall it appears cruise ship 

passengers and non-residents arriving in a private vehicle were similar with regards to activity 

participation and demographics. For all relevant analyses, an analysis was conducted with both the raw 

data and the data with weights applied. When weighting changed the results of frequencies by more 

than 5%, the results with weighted data are also presented. 

Table 59. Mode of Transportation Weights Applied to Data. 

Mode of 

Transportation

% 

sample % AVSP Weight

Airplane 51.07 49 0.9594

Cruise ship 28.50 46 1.6141

Vehicle 16.24 4 0.2463

AMHS 2.35 0.5 0.2128

Other 1.84 0.5 0.2719
162 | P a g e

Appendix C Non-response Bias Test 

Non-response Bias Test of Onsite Respondents 

Travel mode arriving/within site 

Surveyors attempted to observe the travel mode of the non-respondent. As surveyors were always at 

the site, the respondent did use that mode within the site. However, for non-respondents only one 

mode of transportation was recorded, whereas respondents could select more than one. With those 

limitations, travel mode within the site is compared between respondents and non-respondents (Table 

60). 

 

Table 60. Non-response Test, Travel Mode within Site. 

Travel mode Respondents Non-respondents1

Private vehicle 27% 39%

Foot/hiking 72% 44%

Train 3% 1%

Commercial shuttle/tour 9% 5%

Denali VTS 7% --1

AMHS 2% 2%

Respondents n = 2049, non-respondents n = 561 (both include only recreation trips). 

1Observed by surveyor, only mode of transportation was recorded (the mode when they refused to conduct the survey). 

2

It would be difficult for the surveyor to observe whether a non-respondent used the Denali VTS. 

 Given the differences in methodology a statistical test was not conducted. However, the results 

show a diversity of travel modes for both respondents and non-respondents; i.e., nonrespondents are not lumped in a particular travel mode category. 

Rating of travel arriving at site 

When possible, and when they were willing, non-respondents were asked the question from the survey 

regarding their travel experience to the site (Table 61). 

Table 61. Non-response Test, Rating of Travel Arriving at Site. 

Respondents Non-respondents

Excellent 62.1% 41.4%

Good 31.6% 47.2%

Fair 5.2% 7.8%

Poor 0.8% 2.9%

Very Poor 0.3% 0.6%

Respondents n = 2773, non-respondents n = 309 (both include only recreation trips). 

X

2

 = 57, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .07. 

 While the chi-square tests indicates there were differences in evaluations between respondents 

and non-respondents, the magnitude of the percent of respondents selecting excellent or good 

is not that different (94% of respondents and 89% of non-respondents and respondents, 

respectively). Further the effect size is less than .1 (Cramer’s V = .07), indicating a small effect.

 Given the small effect size and similar overall split between excellent/good and fair/poor, data 

were not weighted. 
163 | P a g e

Activity participation 

Activity was another variable recorded for non-respondents. However, rather than asking the 

respondent directly, the non-respondent’s apparent activity was recorded. In addition to the subjective 

nature of recording the activity, there are two other complications when comparing to respondents. 

First, the respondents were asked about all activities they participated in or planned to participate in; 

the activities for any particular respondents are not mutually exclusive, whereas only one activity was 

recorded for non-respondents. Second, respondents were presented with a list; the list used to observe 

non-respondents had some slight differences. Despite these differences, activities for respondents and 

non-respondents are presented in Table 62. 

Table 62. Non-response Test, Activities of Respondents and Non-respondents. 

Respondents Non-respondents1

Activity % Activity %

Wildlife viewing 70% Sightseeing 60%

Hiking/Walking 89% Walking through site2

26%

Fishing 28.2% Fishing 5%

Hiking --

3 Hiking 16%

Camping 32% Camping 10%

Guided tour --

4 Guided tour 5%

Driving for pleasure 40% Traveling through 11%

Respondents n = 2726, non-respondents n = 565. 

1Observed by surveyor, only one activity was recorded for each respondents. 

2Activity added after the first week of data entry.

3Respondents were not asked separately whether they participated in hiking. 

4Not asked of respondents. 

 Because the measures of activities for respondents and non-respondents were so different, 

statistical tests were not conducted. 

 Although the measures were different, it can be concluded there was similar diversity if 

activities. I.e., non-respondents did not appear to be associated with any particular activity. 

Previous visitation to site (residents) 

When possible, and when they were willing, resident non-respondents were asked a question 

corresponding to the survey regarding their previous visitation to the site. This allowed a direct 

comparison between resident respondents and resident non-respondents (Table 63).
164 | P a g e

Table 63. Non-response Test, Resident Previous Visitation of Site. 

Respondents Non-respondents

First visit 32% 21.1%

1 time 19% 12.9%

2 - 3 times 20% 14.1%

4 - 6 times 11% 14.1%

7 - 10 times 3% 5.9%

> 10 times 15% 31.8%

Respondents n = 824, non-respondents n = 85 (both include only recreation trips). 

X

2

 = 21.06, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .07 

 While the effect size was small (Cramer’s V = .07); among non-respondents, there are fewer first 

time visitors and relatively more respondents who have visited more than 10 times (a 2x2 chisquared test results in X

2 = 13.4, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .18). As frequency of visitation might be 

related to site preferences, weights were calculating and applied to the data. 

 The resulting weights were within .3 of 1, and the results did not change by more than 1%. 

 Data were not weighted by this variable. 

Previous visitation to Alaska (non-residents) 

When possible, and when they were willing, non-resident non-respondents were asked a question 

corresponding to the survey regarding their previous visitation to Alaska. This allowed a direct 

comparison between non-resident respondents and non-resident non-respondents (Table 64).

Table 64. Non-response Test, Non-residents previous visitation to Alaska. 

Respondents Non-respondents1

First visit 61% 74.8%

1 time 16% 15.1%

2 - 3 times 12% 6.4%

4 - 6 times 5% 0.9%

7 - 10 times 2% 1.4%

> 10 times 4% 1.4%

Respondents, n = 1957; non-respondents, n = 218 (both include only recreation trips). 

X

2

 = 22.6, p < .001; Cramer’s V = .05 

 Although the chi-square is significant, the small magnitude of the effect size suggests there is 

not a practical difference. Indeed, a majority within both respondents and non-respondents 

were on their first visit. Data were not weighted. 

Tour group 

Surveyors attempted to record, through observation, whether the non-respondent was on a tour. This 

would include departing a cruise ship or tour bus, or passing through a site with a tour group. This 

method, though, has potential to undercount non-residents on a tour. More respondents indicated they 

were on a tour than respondents (25%, n = 2768) than non-respondents (11%, n = 564, recreational trips 

only). However, given the difference in methodology, the chi-square test was not computed. Likewise, it 

appears the majority of respondents and non-respondents did not take a cruise. 
165 | P a g e

Group size 

When possible, the surveyors recorded the group size of the non-respondents. Respondents were not 

asked about their group size, but rather how many group members were in predefined age categories 

(e.g., 5 years old and younger, 6 – 12 years old, etc.). To compare groups size between respondents and 

non-respondents, the sum of respondent’s group members across all predefined group size categories 

was calculated. Because of the difference in methodology, a t-test was not conducted. While 

respondents did have a slightly larger mean, the magnitude was not great and outliers might explain the 

difference (see below). 

 Respondents M = 3.8 (std. deviation = 2.83, n = 2660 [recreational trips only], includes 18 

respondents with group sizes > 30 [with 11 summing to > 40, and one sum of 66 and another of 

87]). 

 Non-respondents M = 3.04 (std. deviation = 2.99, n = 592 [recreational trips only], includes two 

respondents who stated they were in groups of 40). 

Representation of Follow-Up Survey

Also of concern is whether the follow-up surveys are representative of the onsite surveys. To determine 

if there is a bias associated with 1) respondents that agreed to complete an onsite survey and 2) of 

those agreeing, the respondents who actually completed the follow-up survey, the following variables 

were compared among all respondents, respondents agreeing to complete the follow-up, and 

respondents who completed the follow-up survey: 

 Residency, 

 Traveling independently vs. with a tour, 

 Group composition (alone, family, friends, etc.), 

 Number of group members within predefined age categories, and 

 Demographics. 

Given the large sample size (i.e., the influence on the significance of the chi-square statistic) and the 

number of 5x2, and larger, contingency tables that would result (i.e., resulting in many post-hoc tests ad 

a difficulty in controlling the family-wise error rate), the magnitude of the differences were examined. 

Of the 140 comparisons, only 11 differed by more than 5%, with only 5 differing by greater than 6%. 

Differences were as follows, the comparisons below are the percentage difference compared to all 

recreation respondents (e.g., if “Bachelor’s Degree” was 28% of all recreation respondents, but 35% of 

those agreeing to complete the follow-up survey, a difference of +7% is reported). See Table 65 for a 

summary of differences, results of specific tests follow. 
166 | P a g e

Group characteristics 

Table 65. Differences between Respondents Agreeing to Follow-up Survey and Respondents Completing Followup Survey: Group Composition and Demographics. 

Characteristic Agreeing to 

follow-up survey

Completing 

follow-up survey

Group composition: Traveling with family +5.8% +7.6%

Group members: 19-29 years old, 0 group members1 n/a +5.9%

Group members: 30-44 years old, 0 group members1 n/a +8.5%

Group members: 45-64 years old, 0 group members1 n/a + 5.2

Group members: 45-64 years old, 1 – 2 group members1 n/a -5.5%

Group members: 65 years old +, 0 group members1-6.3% -12.3%

Group members: 45-64 years old, 1 – 2 group members1 +5.5% +11.2%

Income: $100,000 - $149,000 n/a +5.4

1The group membership question asked respondents how many people they were traveling with in each of seven age ranges: 5 

years old and younger, 6 – 12 years old, 13 – 18 years old, 19 – 29 years old, 30 – 44 years old, 45 – 65 years old, and 65 years 

old or older. The question was open ended, but data were coded into the following categories: 0 group members, 1 – 2 group 

members, 3 – 5 group members, 6 – 10 group members, and 11 + group members. 

Table 66. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Type of Traveler 

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

Independently 74.7% 76.1% 76.7%

Independently and tour 

group

25.3% 23.9% 23.3%

all n = 2768 Agreed to follow 

up all n = 1197

Completed follow 

up all n = 527

Table 67. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Group Composition. 

Group composition

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

Alone 11.5% 8.1% 6.9%

Family 57.7% 63.5% 65.3%

Friends 15.0% 12.8% 13.0%

Family and friends 13.1% 11.8% 11.9%

Business associates 0.8% .7% .2%

Other (Please specify.) 1.9% 3.0% 2.7%

all n = 2751 Agreed to follow 

up all n = 1191

Completed follow 

up all n = 522
167 | P a g e

The n for each table below: all residents = 807, all nonresidents = 1894, all respondents = 2701, agreed 

to follow up = 1175, and completed follow up = 520 

5 years and under

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 90.0% 91.7% 94.0%

1 to 2 group members 9.0% 8.0% 5.8%

3 to 5 group members 0.8% 0.3% 0.2%

6 to 10 group members 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%

11 + group members 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

6 to 12 years old

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 84.0% 87.1% 88.8%

1 to 2 group members 13.2% 10.8% 9.8%

3 to 5 group members 2.6% 1.9% 1.2%

6 to 10 group members 0.2% 0.3% 0.2%

11 + group members 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

13 to 18 years old

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 87.4% 88.1% 89.2%

1 to 2 group members 10.5% 10.4% 9.4%

3 to 5 group members 1.9% 1.3% 1.2%

6 to 10 group members 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

11 + group members 0.1% 0.2% 0.0%

19 to 29 years old

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 77.0% 78.5% 82.9%

1 to 2 group members 18.7% 17.6% 14.2%

3 to 5 group members 3.7% 3.1% 2.3%

6 to 10 group members 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%

11 + group members 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
168 | P a g e

30 to 44 years old

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 66.3% 70.0% 74.8%

1 to 2 group members 27.7% 25.4% 21.3%

3 to 5 group members 5.1% 4.3% 3.8%

6 to 10 group members 0.8% 0.3% 0.0%

11 + group members 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

45 to 64 years old

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 45.9% 45.3% 40.8%

1 to 2 group members 44.9% 45.3% 50.4%

3 to 5 group members 7.1% 7.1% 7.1%

6 to 10 group members 1.5% 1.6% 1.3%

11 + group members 0.5% 0.7% 0.4%

65 and older

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to Follow 

up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow 

up 

0 group members 68.4% 62.1% 56.2%

1 to 2 group members 26.5% 32.1% 37.7%

3 to 5 group members 3.7% 4.7% 5.4%

6 to 10 group members 0.7% 0.3% 0.2%

11 + group members 0.6% 0.9% 0.6%

Residency of the respondent 

Table 68. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Residency.

Residence 

of 

respondent All Respondents

Respondents Agreed to 

Follow up

Respondents 

Completed Follow up

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Alaska 

Resident 838 30% 356 30% 140 26%

Nonresident of 

Alaska

1958 70% 846 70% 389 74%

Total 2796 100% 1202 100% 529 100%
169 | P a g e

Gender 

Table 69. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Gender of Respondent. 

Gender

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to 

Follow up 

Respondents 

Completed Follow

up 

Male 50.5% 48.7% 46.1%

Female 49.5% 51.3% 53.9%

n = 2757 n = 1192 n = 523

Education 

Table 70. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Education Level of Respondent. 

Education

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to 

Follow up 

Respondents 

Completed 

Follow up 

Less than high school .7% 0.7% 0.6%

High school 

graduate/GED 9.6%

7.3% 6.1%

Vocational or 

technical school 

certificate

4.1%

3.2% 2.9%

Some college 13.8% 12.3% 10.5%

Associate's degree 7.5% 7.3% 6.7%

Bachelor's degree 32.1% 33.9% 33.0%

Graduate degree or 

professional degree 

32.2% 35.3% 40.4%

n = 2738 n = 1193 n = 525
170 | P a g e

Income

Table 71. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Income of Respondent. 

Income

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to 

Follow up 

Respondents 

Completed 

Follow up 

Less than $24,999 4.6% 4.0% 2.1%

$25,000 - $34,999 3.8% 3.3% 3.7%

$35,000 - $49,999 6.7% 5.9% 5.2%

$50,000 - $74,999 13.2% 13.5% 13.9%

$75,000 - $99,999 16.4% 17.4% 17.0%

$100,000 -

$149,999 19.1% 22.7% 24.5%

$150,000 -

$199,999 7.5% 8.5% 8.9%

$200,000 or more 8.3% 9.2% 8.9%

Do not wish to 

answer

20.4% 15.4% 15.8%

n = 2686 n = 1181 n = 518

Hispanic or Latino 

Table 72. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Respondent Hispanic or Latino. 

Hispanic or Latino

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to 

Follow up 

Respondents 

Completed 

Follow up 

Yes 3.7% 4.1% 3.3%

No 96.3% 95.9% 96.7%

n = 2739 n = 1190 n = 523
171 | P a g e

Race 

Table 73. Differences Among All Respondents, Those Agreeing to the Follow-up Survey and Those Completing 

the Follow-up Survey: Race of Respondent. 

Race

All 

Respondents 

Respondents 

Agreed to 

Follow up 

Respondents 

Completed 

Follow up 

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 3% 3% 3%

Asian 3% 2% 1%

Black or African 

American 1% 1% 0%

White 94% 96% 96%

Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific 

Islander

0%

0% 0%

n = 2637 n = 1158 n = 511
172 | P a g e

Appendix D Additional Detailed Analysis 

Table 74. Percent of Respondents with Group Members of Specific Age, by FLMA. 

Sample region1

 Sample Site n Percent of Respondents with Group Members of ages

<= 5 6 – 12 13 – 18 19 – 29 30 – 44 45 – 64 >= 65

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 90 6% 10% 10% 21% 13% 70% 43%

APLIC Tok 62 0% 0% 2% 16% 13% 47% 47%

Denali National Park 319 5% 8% 10% 25% 24% 57% 44%

Tangle Lakes 141 16% 26% 19% 20% 43% 53% 28%

WMNRA 278 18% 24% 15% 33% 47% 46% 12%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 65 0% 11% 8% 8% 14% 65% 49%

Alaska Maritime NWR 175 4% 11% 13% 18% 24% 52% 41%

Brooks Camp 79 3% 5% 9% 23% 25% 65% 24%

Chugach National Forest 109 9% 21% 21% 19% 40% 55% 28%

FWS Dispersed 102 20% 31% 16% 23% 48% 57% 24%

Kenai Fjords NP 182 3% 7% 9% 29% 29% 56% 26%

Kenai NWR Visitor Center 60 12% 10% 3% 13% 18% 52% 45%

Russian River - FWS 55 2% 4% 9% 18% 27% 55% 45%

Russian River Campground 72 19% 18% 7% 21% 40% 58% 24%

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 135 5% 9% 10% 13% 22% 48% 44%

Hoonah Ranger District 78 1% 12% 18% 14% 19% 65% 63%

Juneau Dispersed 105 1% 10% 13% 23% 22% 57% 51%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 225 7% 15% 14% 23% 32% 64% 40%

Mendenhall Glacier 65 5% 11% 18% 18% 32% 57% 35%

Sitka National Historic Park 122 5% 10% 10% 13% 19% 57% 58%

Southeast Alaska Discovery 

Center 54 6% 6% 9% 17% 15% 57% 52%

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification 

differs from how FLMA managers might classify the sites. Sample sites with less than 50 respondents are not shown (AIVC, 

Tetlin, Ketchikan trails, Prince of Wales).
173 | P a g e

Table 75. Site Visitation by Visited, Next Destination, and Other Destinations. 

Site Visited Next Destination Other destination

Resident % Nonresident %Total 

%

Resident 

%

Nonresident %Total % Resident 

%

Nonresident %Total 

%

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 6% 14% 12% 3% 11% 9% 5% 4% 4%

Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 3% 19% 15% 2% 6% 5% 5% 2% 3%

Sitka National Historical Park 6% 9% 8% 1% 5% 4% 5% 3% 3%

Tongass National Forest 13% 35% 28% 3% 11% 9% 4% 2% 3%

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 9% 10% 9% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Gulkana Wild and Scenic River 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Kenai Fjords National Park 15% 22% 20% 2% 10% 7% 4% 4% 4%

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 24% 17% 19% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Chugach National Forest 26% 26% 26% 4% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2%

Campbell Tract (Anchorage) 8% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2%

Tangle Lakes and Delta Wild and Scenic River 18% 3% 7% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve 6% 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3%

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 1% 2%

Katmai National Park and Preserve 3% 5% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Denali National Park and Preserve 19% 36% 31% 5% 12% 10% 4% 4% 4%

Fortymile Wild and Scenic River 4% 2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Steese National Conservation Area 6% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge 4% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

White Mountains National Recreation Area 34% 3% 12% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Bering Land Bridge National Preserve 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2%

Cape Krusenstern National Monument 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1%

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Kobuk Valley National Park 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2%

Noatak National Preserve 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2%

Dalton Highway 7% 4% 5% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2%

Other 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Residents n = 822; non-residents n = 1931 

Note, 3 respondents only checked “other” and listed sites not included in this list; they were sampled at APLIC Tok, APLIC ANC, and the AMHS Ferry, so they are not excluded 

from the table above. 

All resident-non-resident pairs differed at I = .05 unless noted by: Blue font = NOT significant differently; Purple font = significant at p = .10. (Other destinations was not tested.)
174 | P a g e

Table 76. Activity Participation, by Did on This Trip and Plan to Do on this Trip. 

Activity Did on this trip Plan to do this trip

Resident 

%

Non-resident 

%

All 

respondents %

Resident 

%

Non-resident 

%

All respondents 

%

Hiking or walking 74% 81% 78% 33% 42% 40%

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching) 43% 65% 58% 20% 40% 34%

Backpacking/trekking 16% 9% 11% 6% 6% 6%

Climbing/mountaineering 4% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2%

Camping 40% 21% 27% 24% 14% 17%

Hunting 3% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2%

Salt water fishing 7% 11% 10% 4% 9% 8%

Fresh water fishing 22% 12% 15% 18% 10% 13%

Berry picking/food gathering 17% 10% 12% 14% 7% 9%

Horseback riding 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Bicycling, including mountain biking 8% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6%

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting 13% 12% 12% 9% 12% 11%

Gold panning 5% 7% 6% 4% 6% 5%

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, 

endurance events, etc.) 

3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, 

or dirt) 

33% 36% 36% 15% 20% 19%

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.) 8% 3% 4% 6% 3% 4%

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.) 7% 21% 17% 5% 15% 12%

Commercial aircraft tours 1% 9% 6% 2% 6% 5%

Other motorized activities (organized events, 

etc.) 

1% 8% 6% 3% 6% 5%

Resident n = 809, non-resident n = 1917, all respondent n = 2726; All comparisons were significantly different at p = .05, unless noted by: Blue font = NOT significant differently; 

Purple font = significant at p = .10.
175 | P a g e

Table 77. Types of Transportations Used to Arrive at Site, by Sample Site. 

Sample region1

 Sample Site n Transportation modes used to arrive at site2 Private vehicle ATV or off-road vehicle Public bus Commercial shuttle/tour bus Denali VTS Alaska/White Pass Railroad AMHS Ferry Cruise ship Motorboat Kayak, canoe, raft Commercial 

aircraft Private airplaneBicycleFoot/HikingOther

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 95 45% 0% 2% 29% 2% 12% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 2% 1% 24% 4%

APLIC Tok 67 90% 3% 0% 6% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 7% 0%

Arctic Interagency Visitor Center 23 83% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 26% 0% 9% 9% 0%

Denali National Park 323 55% 0% 2% 20% 6% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% 1%

Tangle Lakes 142 100% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0%

Tetlin NWR Visitor Center 30 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

WMNRA 292 98% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% 0%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 63 44% 0% 5% 13% 0% 8% 2% 2% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 37% 5%

Alaska Maritime NWR 174 71% 0% 1% 6% 1% 2% 3% 21% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 9% 0%

Brooks Camp 81 12% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 69% 40% 1% 11% 0%

Chugach National Forest 109 81% 0% 0% 4% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 9% 1%

FWS Dispersed 106 97% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 6% 1%

Kenai Fjords NP 182 81% 0% 1% 7% 1% 9% 1% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 1% 4% 1%

Kenai NWR Visitor Center 63 95% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%

Russian River - FWS 55 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5%

Russian River Campground 74 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 5% 0%

Table continues

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification differs from how FLMA managers might classify the 

sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
176 | P a g e

Table 77 cont.

Sample region1

 Sample Site n Transportation modes used to arrive at site2 Private vehicle ATV or off-road vehicle Public bus Commercial shuttle/tour bus Denali VTS Alaska/White Pass Railroad AMHS Ferry Cruise ship Motorboat Kayak, canoe, raft

Commercial aircraft Private airplaneBicycleFoot/HikingOther

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 133 48% 0% 4% 7% 0% 8% 71% 2% 0% 0% 17% 1% 2% 8% 3%

Hoonah Ranger District 77 5% 1% 0% 22% 0% 0% 1% 77% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 1%

Juneau Dispersed 102 23% 0% 3% 5% 0% 0% 3% 41% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 42% 2%

Ketchikan Trails 45 56% 0% 0% 7% 2% 2% 4% 9% 2% 2% 4% 4% 2% 38% 2%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 226 33% 0% 3% 15% 0% 1% 4% 40% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 9% 4%

Mendenhall Glacier 64 22% 0% 9% 61% 0% 2% 3% 14% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 33% 5%

Prince of Wales 30 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 7% 3% 17% 0% 0% 10% 3%

Sitka National Historic Park 128 18% 0% 5% 32% 0% 0% 5% 27% 2% 2% 15% 0% 2% 62% 2%

Southeast Alaska Discovery Center 54 4% 0% 6% 2% 2% 2% 4% 48% 2% 0% 4% 0% 4% 61% 0%

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification differs from how FLMA managers might classify the 

sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
177 | P a g e

Table 78. Types of Transportation Used Within Site, by Sample Site. 

Sample region1

 Sample site n Transportation modes used within the site2 Private vehicle ATV or off-road vehicle Public bus Commercial shuttle/tour bus Denali VTS Alaska/White Pass Railroad AMHS Ferry Cruise ship Motorboat Kayak, canoe, raft

Commercial aircraft Private airplaneBicycleFoot/HikingOther

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 61 30% 0% 5% 16% 3% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 67% 7%

APLIC Tok 45 62% 4% 0% 9% 11% 4% 2% 2% 0% 4% 4% 2% 7% 31% 0%

Arctic Interagency Visitor Center 14 64% 21% 0% 14% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 29% 7% 0% 14% 57% 0%

Denali National Park 250 34% 2% 1% 21% 45% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 60% 0%

Tangle Lakes 137 16% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 29% 1% 0% 11% 85% 1%

Tetlin NWR Visitor Center 26 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 81% 0%

WMNRA 219 33% 18% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1% 8% 71% 0%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 46 22% 2% 0% 9% 0% 11% 0% 4% 2% 2% 0% 2% 4% 74% 4%

Alaska Maritime NWR 129 42% 2% 5% 19% 2% 2% 6% 8% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 51% 4%

Brooks Camp 51 6% 2% 2% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 16% 12% 4% 69% 2%

Chugach National Forest 78 46% 0% 0% 3% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3% 15% 0% 0% 18% 71% 5%

FWS Dispersed 81 51% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 5% 21% 36% 5% 5% 12% 59% 6%

Kenai Fjords NP 113 39% 3% 6% 9% 4% 4% 3% 11% 4% 12% 3% 3% 4% 63% 4%

Kenai NWR Visitor Center 34 12% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 82% 0%

Russian River – FWS 40 65% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 3% 50% 33%

Russian River Campground 51 41% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 10% 0% 2% 12% 80% 2%

Table continues

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification differs from how FLMA managers might classify the 

sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
178 | P a g e

Table 78 cont.

Sample region1

 Sample site n Transportation modes used within site2 Private vehicle ATV or off-road vehicle Public bus Commercial shuttle/tour bus Denali VTS Alaska/White Pass Railroad AMHS Ferry Cruise ship Motorboat Kayak, canoe, raft

Commercial aircraft Private airplaneBicycleFoot/HikingOther

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 104 49% 2% 7% 13% 0% 8% 19% 3% 13% 11% 8% 2% 9% 49% 13%

Hoonah Ranger District 53 0% 2% 6% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 4% 87% 2%

Juneau Dispersed 87 1% 1% 1% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 87% 11%

Ketchikan Trails 29 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 7% 100% 0%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 199 9% 0% 1% 10% 0% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 96% 17%

Mendenhall Glacier 39 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 95% 3%

Prince of Wales 18 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0% 78% 0%

Sitka National Historic Park 111 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 1% 5% 1% 4% 4% 0% 1% 93% 2%

Southeast Alaska Discovery Center 31 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 97% 0%

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification differs from how FLMA managers might classify the 

sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
179 | P a g e

Table 79. Rating of Travel Experience Arriving at Site, by Sample Site. 

Sample region1

 Sample Site n Rating of travel experience arriving at site

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 95 63.2% 31.6% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0%

APLIC Tok 65 41.5% 40.0% 15.4% 1.5% 1.5%

Denali National Park 325 63.1% 32.9% 3.4% 0.6% 0.0%

Tangle Lakes 142 33.8% 48.6% 13.4% 3.5% 0.7%

WMNRA 292 57.9% 36.0% 4.5% 1.7% 0.0%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 65 61.5% 27.7% 9.2% 0.0% 1.5%

Alaska Maritime NWR 176 66.5% 30.1% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Brooks Camp 81 75.3% 22.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Chugach National Forest 110 71.8% 23.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0%

FWS Dispersed 106 47.2% 34.9% 14.2% 1.9% 1.9%

Kenai Fjords NP 185 63.2% 34.1% 2.2% 0.5% 0.0%

Kenai NWR Visitor Center 64 64.1% 28.1% 6.3% 1.6% 0.0%

Russian River - FWS 55 63.6% 30.9% 3.6% 0.0% 1.8%

Russian River Campground 74 63.5% 33.8% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0%

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 134 61.2% 33.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.7%

Hoonah Ranger District 80 77.5% 21.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Juneau Dispersed 109 71.6% 22.0% 5.5% 0.9% 0.0%

Klondike Gold Rush NHP 227 65.6% 30.4% 3.5% 0.0% 0.4%

Mendenhall Glacier 67 76.1% 22.4% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Sitka National Historic Park 131 65.6% 30.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.8%

Southeast Alaska Discovery 

Center 55 72.7% 25.5% 1.8% 0.0%

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification 

differs from how FLMA managers might classify the sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
180 | P a g e

Table 80. Rating of Travel Experience Within Site, by Sample Site. 

Sample region1

 

Sample Site n Rating of travel experience within site

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Interior Regions

APLIC Fairbanks 67 74.6% 22.4% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%

APLIC Tok 52 51.9% 44.2% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Denali National Park 255 60.4% 33.7% 5.1% 0.4% 0.4%

Tangle Lakes 133 58.6% 33.8% 6.0% 1.5% 0.0%

WMNRA 228 62.7% 29.8% 6.6% 0.9% 0.0%

Southcentral 

APLIC Anchorage 54 68.5% 29.6% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Alaska Maritime NWR 158 66.5% 30.4% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0%

Brooks Camp 77 67.5% 29.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0%

Chugach National 

Forest 103 75.7% 21.4% 1.9% 0.0% 1.0%

FWS Dispersed 97 58.8% 28.9% 11.3% 1.0% 0.0%

Kenai Fjords NP 147 72.8% 25.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Kenai NWR Visitor 

Center 51 70.6% 27.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Russian River - FWS 50 68.0% 24.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Russian River 

Campground 68 70.6% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Southeast

AMHS Ferry 110 52.7% 41.8% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Hoonah Ranger 

District 66 60.6% 33.3% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Juneau Dispersed 63 61.9% 36.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

Klondike Gold Rush 

NHP 175 63.4% 30.9% 5.1% 0.6% 0.0%

Mendenhall Glacier 61 73.8% 24.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

Sitka National Historic 

Park 114 77.2% 19.3% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0%

1Sample regions are based on the sites sampled by the Fairbanks, Soldotna, and Juneau based surveyors. That classification 

differs from how FLMA managers might classify the sites. 

2The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100.
181 | P a g e

Appendix E Codes for Open Ended Questions 

Reponses were edited for typos and other grammatical issues. In no cases, though, did the meaning 

change. 

Multiple respondents provided the same responses, or responses that were similar. When that 

occurred, the individual responses were collapsed and the number of times the response was provided 

is shown in parentheses after the response. For example “long walk (13x)” indicates that “long walk”

was a response provided by 13 respondents. 
182 | P a g e

Responses to Open-Ended Question: What Services or Activities did You Have Difficulty Accessing? 

Table 81. Response Potentially Related to ADA. 

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or 

activity listed

ADA Codes Response potentially related to ADA Residency

General ADA accessible especially Kenai Non-AK Res.

General ADA compliance needs work AK Res.

Age; Mobility General Age and mobility and needs more handicap access. Non-AK Res.

Water activities Wheelchair/walker Anything that is not wheelchair accessible. Tide differential made 

getting on whale watching boat difficult

Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Can do it all if trail is smooth AK Res.

General Checked No but handwritten that they "noticed absence of ADA 

improvements in Wrangell, Haines, and even Juneau

Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain climbing/descending without handrails AK Res.

Diabetes Bus tours; Sitting General Diabetic and Disabled: cannot ride Denali tours because they are all too 

long, worried if a medical emergency occurred.

Non-AK Res.

Film viewing Hearing impaired Disabled vet with hearing loss-need closed captions on movies at visitor 

centers

Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Getting down tot he water to fish. No handicap ramps. Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Hand rails AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Handicap/walker AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Having steps could have used ramp Non-AK Res.

Hearing impaired Hearing impaired Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Jim’s landing/no mobility ramps or rails. AK Res.

Knees Ramps/rails and Terrain Knees- difficulty on stairs Non-AK Res.

Mobility Wheelchair/walker Limited mobility. Getting off the cruise line was hard. Hard to get a 

wheelchair it took a few hours.

Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Long walks and stairs (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Long walks and stairs ramp off ship Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Medical foster care homer for veterans, so two of them are wheelchair 

bound.

Non-AK Res.

General More handicapped access AK Res.

Continues 
183 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or 

activity listed

ADA Codes Response potentially related to ADA Residency

Wheelchair/walker Non wheel chair availability Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker On a walker AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Wheelchair/walker; 

Ramps/rails and Terrain

People in wheelchairs so stairs and no long walks Non-AK Res.

Knees; Heart; 

Brain

Walking/Hiking General; Ramps/rails and 

Terrain

Prosthetic knees, brain injury, and heart issues. Walking long 

distances and doing stairs in particular at Russian River campground.

AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Someone in wheelchair Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Stairs AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Stairs (x3) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Stairs and hiking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Stairs and long walks (x4) Non-AK Res.

Misc Ramps/rails and Terrain Stairs, no soft seating. Alaska maritime refuge Non-AK Res.

Standing Wheelchair/walker Standing for long periods of time, motorized wheelchair Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Steep ramps/stairs. Gravel walkways/roads Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Steep stairs Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Steps Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ramps/rails and Terrain Steps long walks Non-AK Res.

Ramps/rails and Terrain Steps need more ramps Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Traveling through sites because of wheelchair Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking General Trouble walking around. Physical disability accessibility can be 

improved

Non-AK Res.

General Very handicap accessible Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Walker wheelchair Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Wheelchair/walker Walking, person in power wheel chair could not come. Not public bus 

close that can bring them. One wheel chair accessible taxi in town

Non-AK Res.

General We are chose activities that would accommodate disabilities Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Wheel chair bound AK Res.

Continues 
184 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation 

listed

Service or 

activity listed

ADA Codes Response potentially related to ADA Residency

Wheelchair/walker Wheelchair access available but limited AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker; 

Ramps/rails and Terrain

Wheelchair bound and loose gravel is difficult. AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Wheelchair bound couldn’t go too far Non-AK Res.

Wheelchair/walker Wheelchair shuttle from cruise ship Non-AK Res.
185 | P a g e

Table 82. Response Related to a Service or Activity 

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or activity listed Responses related to a service or activity Residency

Misc Walking/Hiking; Climbing 7.5 months pregnant woman hikes table top but didn’t climb rocks AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Ability to walk long distances Non-AK Res.

Age Walking/Hiking Age Specific Hiking Non-AK Res.

Physical exertion Anything exercised Non-AK Res.

Physical exertion Anything physically challenging (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Anything walking Non-AK Res.

Arthritis Walking/Hiking Arthritis and can’t do the long hikes. Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Artificial knee. Difficult to hike the smokes. Non-AK Res.

Legs Walking/Hiking Artificial leg walking long distances hard. AK Res.

Asthma Walking/Hiking Asthma on hills AK Res.

Back Water activities Back issues and accessing the river. Non-AK Res.

Back Walking/Hiking Back pain. Unable to hike. Non-AK Res.

Feet Walking/Hiking Bad feet can’t walk long distances Non-AK Res.

Heart Walking/Hiking Bad heart and can’t participate in long hikes Non-AK Res.

Knees; Legs Walking/Hiking Bad hips and knees hard hikes Non-AK Res.

Knees; Arthritis Walking/Hiking Bad knees and arthritis minimum hiking Non-AK Res.

Balance Walking/Hiking Balance issues. No technical trails Non-AK Res.

Biking; Water activities; 

Climbing

Biking kayaking, climbing Non-AK Res.

Feet Walking/Hiking Broken foot- anything walking Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Broken knee so walking is hard Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Can manage short distance hikes. Nothing too strenuous. AK Res.

Feet Walking/Hiking Cannot feel feet so difficult to walk/hike AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Can’t do a bunch of walking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Can’t do the major hiking or climbing. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Cant hike Non-AK Res.

Continues 
186 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or activity listed Responses related to a service or activity Residency

Walking/Hiking Can’t walk too far AK Res.

Bus tours Checked no but entered this( observed poor info for visitors bus & how to get 

to heritage totem site ride in electric scooter. Didn’t know about free bus & 

turned back wearing out Bally)

Non-AK Res.

Lungs Walking/Hiking; Climbing COPD altitude issues so climbing steep mountain sides not an option. Non-AK Res.

Legs Walking/Hiking Difficult to hike due to leg injury Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Difficulty walking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Duck tour, walking tours Non-AK Res.

Fibromyalgia Walking/Hiking Fibromyalgia which makes it painful to walk long distances for hikes. AK Res.

Water activities Fishing- cant see well anymore AK Res.

Balance Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Fishing, hiking- balance is difficult AK Res.

Eating Food allergies (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking General walking AK Res.

Arthritis Water activities Getting down to the river is hard with arthritis Non-AK Res.

Age; Mobility Bus tours Getting in and out of bus. Older people have less mobility. Non-AK Res.

Celiac Eating Gluten free food for celiac Non-AK Res.

Arthritis Walking/Hiking Hard hiking - arthritis Non-AK Res.

Mobility Walking/Hiking Hard of walking- mobility difficulties Non-AK Res.

Lungs Water activities Hard to breath when bent over. Water too cold, too many bugs AK Res.

Heart Walking/Hiking Has a pacemaker, but limitations are negligent. Just can’t do the long hikes. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Hiking AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Hiking (x12) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Hiking (elevation changes difficult) Non-AK Res.

Heart Walking/Hiking Hiking activities/heart condition Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Hiking and kayaking limited Non-AK Res.

Continues 
187 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or activity listed Responses related to a service or activity Residency

Walking/Hiking Hiking climbing Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Hiking is difficult AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Hiking trekking, no water borne activities (active) Non-AK Res.

Age Walking/Hiking Hiking, All are old Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Hiking, long walks Non-AK Res.

Misc Just referring to cruise activities Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Just with more difficult hikes because of bad knee. Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Knee issues so avoids hiking. Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Knee replacements inhibit long walks/hikes/climbs Non-AK Res.

Misc Lack of good restroom showers, toilets, etc. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Limited ability to walk >1/2 mile Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Physical 

exertion

Limited exercise, uphill walking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Limited hiking Non-AK Res.

Mobility Walking/Hiking Limited mobility cant do the long hikes. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Limited walking (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Limited walking therefore most activities Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Limited walking/ taxis were great Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Long hikes Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Long hikes around Denali. Just walking from the visitor center to wilderness 

center was long. Good thing there was a shuttle back

Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Long strenuous hikes Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Long walk knee replacement Non-AK Res.

Legs Walking/Hiking Long walking amputee Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Long walks AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Long walks (x14) Non-AK Res.

Continues 
188 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or activity listed Responses related to a service or activity Residency

Walking/Hiking Long walks and climbing Non-AK Res.

Legs Walking/Hiking Long walks recent ankle break Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Lots of hiking Non-AK Res.

Physical exertion Low inactivity Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Minimal walking Non-AK Res.

Multiple Sclerosis Walking/Hiking; Climbing MS can’t walk too steep of climb and the climbing. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Need to sit a while at times, cannot walk around for too long of a time. Non-AK Res.

Arthritis Backpacking No backpacking due to arthritis Non-AK Res.

Climbing No climbing Non-AK Res.

Physical exertion No physical activity Non-AK Res.

Age Walking/Hiking Older age, difficulty walking (leg cramps due to age) Non-AK Res.

Misc Walking/Hiking Poor health makes hiking difficult. AK Res.

Misc; Water activities Private bathrooms would be helpful, family bathroom. Need help of the 

opposite sexes. Kayaking

Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Running and long walking bad knees Non-AK Res.

Hernia Sitting Sitting hernia surgery Non-AK Res.

Misc Square dancing Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Steep or long walks (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Strenuous hiking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Swimming hiking walking Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Trail too steep at perseverance Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Trails steep and long. Non-AK Res.

Mobility Walking/Hiking Up stairs, walking long distances Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking (x3) AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking (x12) Non-AK Res.

Oxygen Walking/Hiking Walking (on oxygen has to be careful and watch activities). Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking a lot (x2) Non-AK Res.

Continues 
189 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or activity listed Responses related to a service or activity Residency

Lungs Walking/Hiking Walking and breathing hard Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking and climbing Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking and standing for long Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking around (x2) Non-AK Res.

Arthritis Walking/Hiking Walking arthritis AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking confined to places close To the roads Non-AK Res.

Knees Walking/Hiking Walking due to injured knee Non-AK Res.

Water activities Walking in the river to fish AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking is limited (x2) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking long distances (x3) Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Walking long distances and can’t participate in deep sea fishing like use to. Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking long distances and having benches to rest on. AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Water 

activities

Walking off trail for gathering, fishing AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking on gravel Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking over unmaintained , trails down to river are nice Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking stairs hills etc. Non-AK Res.

Mobility Walking/Hiking Walking to and from locations. Around sites and off and on cruise ship Non-AK Res.

Mobility Water activities Walking up boat ramps Non-AK Res.

Mobility Walking/Hiking Walking, getting around AK Res.

Walking/Hiking Walking/hiking (x2) Non-AK Res.

Balance Walking/Hiking Walking/stability Non-AK Res.

Misc Water activities Was hospitalized for an unknown allergy a few days ago mso cancelled plans 

just in case if something were to happen. One of the plans was kayaking.

Non-AK Res.

Misc Weather determines whether hefeatger hunts or walks AK Res.

Misc Wrangle St. Elias assistance on glacier Non-AK Res.

Walking/Hiking; Misc Zip line walking ATVing Non-AK Res.

MISC Zip lining, anything Non-AK Res.
190 | P a g e

Table 83. Response Related to a Personal Limitation. 

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or 

activity listed

Response related to personal limitation Residency

Age Age (x4) Non-AK Res.

Knees Age and an artificial knee, but no real problems with acces 

though.

Non-AK Res.

Arms Anything needing arms AK Res.

Mobility Anything w climbing in it Non-AK Res.

Arthritis Arthritis Non-AK Res.

Autism Autism AK Res.

Back Back problems AK Res.

Back; Mobility Back problems so it causes limited mobility. Non-AK Res.

Back; Feet; Age Bad back/ foot/age AK Res.

Knees; Mobility Bad knee and has limited mobility Non-AK Res.

Knees Bad knees (x3) Non-AK Res.

Knees; Sciatica Bad knees and sciatica Non-AK Res.

Knees; Legs Bad knees/hip Non-AK Res.

Misc. Broke AK Res.

Lungs COPD- prince Rupert ferry terminal Non-AK Res.

Mobility Getting in and out of facilities. Non-AK Res.

Mobility Getting off the ship Non-AK Res.

Mobility Gimps AK Res.

Knees Just had knee surgery AK Res.

Knees Knee replacement AK Res.

Knees; Lungs Knee replacement and COPD Non-AK Res.

Knees Knee surgery Non-AK Res.

Knees; Mobility Knee surgery makes it difficult to get around Non-AK Res.

Mobility Limited mobility (x5) Non-AK Res.

Age; Mobility Limited mobility with age (x3) Non-AK Res.

Continues. 
191 | P a g e

Personal 

limitation listed

Service or 

activity listed

Response related to personal limitation Residency

Back Lower back is screwed up. Had surgery. AK Res.

Lungs Lung problems Non-AK Res.

Mobility Mobility issues (x5) Non-AK Res.

Mobility; Knees Mobility limitation. Bad knees. Non-AK Res.

Mobility Mobility limitations AK Res.

Multiple Sclerosis MS- no specific location most difficult Non-AK Res.

Children New born in group Non-AK Res.

Age No big problems just old Non-AK Res.

Knees No trouble but has knee replacement Non-AK Res.

Mobility Not as limber Non-AK Res.

Back Not at this facility, but has a back problems. Non-AK Res.

Age Old so getting around Non-AK Res.

Feet One young on has a broken foot AK Res.

Parkinson’s Parkinson’s disease (x2) Non-AK Res.

Mobility; Legs Someone on crutches not getting around a lot Non-AK Res.

Feet Sore feet AK Res.

Age Too old AK Res.

Children Traveling with a 17 month old has presented some limitations Non-AK Res.

Mobility Use trekking poles for support due to injuries Non-AK Res.
192 | P a g e

Responses to Open-ended Question: What Information was Needed but Not Available? 

Basic local information 

Table 84. Information needed but not Available: Basic Local Information. Denali Pricing Maps Facil. Hours/

Closure

General Logistics

Basic Local Information Residency

X Area restaurants Non-AK Res.

X Basic info of towns Non-AK Res.

X

In Homer visitor center is closed then there was poor communication, and 

no good address. It was an Ocean not-for-profit behind Safeway. Center 

for Alaskan Coastal Studies. Also mentioned that the hours sign posted on 

the door needs to be more visible. Difficult to see with reflection of glass.

Non-AK Res.

X X Fuel availability - closed facilities Non-AK Res.

X Hard to tell what will be open when you arrive AK Res.

X Hours of operation Non-AK Res.

X Hours of operation are not dependable. Non-AK Res.

X Denali has very little specific info Non-AK Res.

X Didn't know tours were cheaper locally Non-AK Res.

X Closure times of federal buildings like customs but also didn't look Non-AK Res.

X Dump station/gas/water available Non-AK Res.

X Finding the addresses for certain offices and gps. Non-AK Res.

X Info centers closed when we were at them Non-AK Res.

X Places to eat (2x) Non-AK Res.

X Public showers directory Non-AK Res.

X Saxman totem village in Ketchikan lacking info Non-AK Res.

X Visitor center hours Non-AK Res.

X Visitor center is not open Non-AK Res.

Continues. 
193 | P a g e Denali Pricing

MapsFacil. 

Hours

/

Closure

General Logistics

Basic Local Information Residency

X We visited before but we didn't know the center was closed AK Res.

X Restrooms Non-AK Res.

X Cost for meal at lodge Non-AK Res.

X Lack of lodging information, lack of comprehensive information Non-AK Res.

X Not sure what services are available at lodges AK Res.

X Accommodation Non-AK Res.

X Accurate information on tendering Non-AK Res.

X Bathymetry AK Res.

X Better be ne'er standing of overall lodging options at Denali park Non-AK Res.

X Gratuities were not mentioned Non-AK Res.

X Recycling Non-AK Res.

X Specific details about travel time, available facilities/amenities. Non-AK Res.

X Admission fee and hours not listed online. No free Wi-Fi @ visitor centers. Non-AK Res.

X

Information on finding fuel and motels on the highway isn't accurate and 

up to date. Non-AK Res.

X

Websites geared towards marketing instead of basic information. Such as, 

phone numbers, addresses, times of operation, and at hidden lake the 

trail information could be better.

Non-AK Res.

X Clothes to bring for weather in southeast Non-AK Res.

X X Map and playground places for young kids Non-AK Res.

X Maps lacking stops and attractions in small towns Non-AK Res.

X Very difficult to locate Kenai peninsula city/area information Non-AK Res.

X Info to get from Skagway to DYEA Non-AK Res.

Continues. 
194 | P a g e Denali Pricing

MapsFacil. Hours/ClosuresGeneral Logistics

Basic Local Information Residency

X Trouble finding map of waterfront park AK Res.

X Vegetation maps/info AK Res.

X Gates locked AK Res.

X Maps/detailed maps (8x) Both

X Maps of old mining activity/sites AK Res.

X Signage Non-AK Res.

X X Signs could be more consistent and easier to see and find Non-AK Res.

Recreation 

Table 85. Information needed but not Available: Recreation. Misc. Maps Trails DNP Campgrounds/ Cabins/RV parks Cost/Pricing Cultural Info General Logistics

Fishing

Recreation Information Residency

X

X

Where to purchase fuel and bear spray for Katmai NP. 

Where gas stations are at on long drives. A good map on 

Katmai.

Non-AK Res.

X Services available at campground AK Res.

X Cost benefits of recreation vs resource extraction AK Res.

X Misinformation on Katmai Non-AK Res.

X More poop bags AK Res.

Continues 
195 | P a g e Misc. Maps

TrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X RV Parks Non-AK Res.

X

Trying to figure out the next place to camp at since Skilak 

was full. It only took them to find out about Swanson 

camping because someone a grocery store told them about 

it.

AK Res.

X When the ice goes out AK Res.

X Booked forest cabin- but is it locked? Non-AK Res.

X Campground pricing AK Res.

X Campground reservations AK Res.

X Dog or bike friendly? AK Res.

X Backcountry camping Non-AK Res.

X

Best ways to catch sockeye salmon as well as time tables to 

catch halibut Non-AK Res.

X Better cabin rental info Non-AK Res.

X Bikes for rent Non-AK Res.

X Camping site details Non-AK Res.

X Climbing routes on some peaks Non-AK Res.

X Fish count and where there are being caught. Non-AK Res.

X Fishing access AK Res.

X Fishing charters moped rentals Non-AK Res.

X Fishing options Non-AK Res.

X Gear Checklist for Chilkoot hard to find Non-AK Res.

X Glacier bay access info Non-AK Res.

X Gold panning info Non-AK Res.

Continues 
196 | P a g e Misc. Maps

TrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X

It was challenging to get detailed trail information. We 

like to hike and couldn't get great info for hiking Non-AK Res.

X Katmai/brooks falls brochure Non-AK Res.

X List all campgrounds Non-AK Res.

X Local fishing opportunities free no guide Non-AK Res.

X More detailed hiking/biking trail info AK Res.

X More detailed information all the opportunities available. Non-AK Res.

X More fish counters Non-AK Res.

X Northern Lights Information Non-AK Res.

X More info on cultural groups/archaeology of the area Non-AK Res.

X More information on First Nation/Native American Non-AK Res.

X Timing of salmon unknown Non-AK Res.

X Unsure all trailed were listed AK Res.

X

Would have liked more information about hiking trails 

accessible from beaches/waterfront Non-AK Res.

X Length of hike AK Res.

X

Let us know about 8 hour frightening ride up hairpin 

curves and narrow road Non-AK Res.

X Clam tides Non-AK Res.

X If campsites provide firewood AK Res.

X Local tide charts Non-AK Res.

X Public knowledge of local ATV TRAILS AK Res.

X More info on Denali Non-AK Res.

X Where to hop on hop off bus in Denali Non-AK Res.

Continues 
197 | P a g e Misc. Maps

TrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X What the food cache area was going to look like. AK Res.

X

Wondering about available wood instead of hiking out to 

find some AK Res.

X X Better marked trails/maps AK Res.

X Deer mountain summit marker Non-AK Res.

X Rental information-canoes AK Res.

X

Knowing which parks are what. National vs state. Improve 

signs to key you know which is what. Appreciates the 

restroom at visitor centers.

Non-AK Res.

X The length of trails are often not mentioned on signs. Non-AK Res.

X

They need to mark to trails that lead to camps from trails. 

Out mile markers on trail as well. Non-AK Res.

X Trail markers AK Res.

X Trail signage for split tree Non-AK Res.

X Trail signage is confusing AK Res.

X Pickup point for tour Non-AK Res.

X

No concise "go to" place in the park(Denali). In other federal 

parks the "newspaper" has schedules for everything as well 

as cost. Much of the scheduled events are at the same time 

so if you miss one, you miss them all. This seems to be set 

up for cruises, not for general public.

Non-AK Res.

X Current trail conditions, mud, washouts AK Res.

X How tough trails are Non-AK Res.

X Trail info Non-AK Res.

X Better information on trail conditions Non-AK Res.

X Trail info on website was 2 weeks old AK Res.

Continues 
198 | P a g e Misc. Maps

TrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X Trails (2x) Non-AK Res.

XX Trail map (2x) Both X X

Campground information, driving 'times' on remote 

roads, construction delays etc. Not just distance. Non

-AK Res.

X Details about trail difficulty Non-AK Res.

X Info on public use cabins milepost, saw cripple creek 

has one, could not find AK Res.

X Prices of campgrounds Non-AK Res.

X

X

There needs to be better maps about the visitor center 

campus

AK Res.

X Difficult to find trail maps Non-AK Res.

X Elevation changes along highways/roads for biking Non-AK Res.

X Some camp and recreation sites were not listed in map Non-AK Res.

X State camp site locations AK Res.

XX Tangle lakes campground info/map Non-AK Res.

XX

Denali campground info minimal before arriving, filter 

or no unsure- no info on websites Non

-AK Res.

X

Hard to know campgrounds before arriving ; 2016 

didn't match true campground locations Non

-AK Res.

X

Hiking at Denali -> contacted Talkeetna VC by phone + 

they mailed Alpenglow - not online Non

-AK Res.

X

Need more campground choices. Good Sam and other 

websites have info on 50% or less. Non

-AK Res.

X The fish count web page wasn't working (AKF&G) AK Res.

X Trail conditions would be handy on BLM site AK Res.

Continues 
199 | P a g e Misc. 

MapsTrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X Snow conditions on Chilkoot trail Non-AK Res.

X

Hiking guide to Skagway area. An excellent one is available 

(published by the Skagway Convention and Visitors Bureau) 

but we didn't know of it until we came to town

Non-AK Res.

X Lack of signage for public use cabins in white mountains AK Res.

X Marked trail at and around Borealis cabin AK Res.

X Finding fresh water that is available, and no places indicating 

a trash receptacle use. Non-AK Res.

X Difficulty finding a good topographic map AK Res.

X Distance of trails (2x) AK Res.

X GPS coordinates AK Res.

X Lime peak? Better maps AK Res.

X Map of lake- bathymetry AK Res.

X X Maps in town of trails Non-AK Res.

X

X

Trail heads need maps, distance listed, and a topographic 

map of what to expect on your hike. Non-AK Res.

X Update the Arial imagery(BLM mainly). Would be useful to 

know more specifics when looking at photos of an area 

regarding land condition

AK Res.

X X Maps throughout trail at mile markers AK Res.

X Profile of trails (elevation) Non-AK Res.

X Where the top of the trail is, mile markers AK Res.

X Trail signage Non-AK Res.

X X Map of trails are difficult to find on Internet Non-AK Res.

X Mileage markers on hikes AK Res.

Continues 
200 | P a g e Misc. Maps

TrailsDNPCampgrounds/Cabins/RV parksCost/PricingCultural InfoGeneral LogisticsFishing

Recreation Information Residency

X Signs could be better for the tenting. Indicating where all of 

the tent sites were. AK Res.

X

A map could be useful to see where you are in relation to 

King Salmon Non-AK Res.

X Maps were hard to get, GPS is helpful but maps needed Non-AK Res.

X Campgrounds not true to website AK Res.

X X

Denali campground info minimal before arriving, filter or no 

unsure- no info on websites Non-AK Res.

X X

Denali was confusing- different information and permits 

were located in different buildings, ended up wasting a lot 

of time driving around to figure it all out. ALSO would 

appreciate a way to sort junior ranger programs by state 

online. I guess there is a list online of all junior ranger

programs in the country it cannot be filtered

Non-AK Res.

X Any good map online AK Res.

X Site specifics for camping were lacking AK Res.
201 | P a g e

Travel/transportation related 

Table 86. Information needed but not Available: Travel/Transportation Related. Misc. General

/

Other TravelPublic Transp.ShuttlesAMHSCustomsMaps and Signage

Travel/Transportation Related Residency

X Transportation connections Non-AK Res.

X Communication on ship about shows and entertainment in towns Non-AK Res.

X Border crossing-fruits and veggies Non-AK Res.

X Booking airline seats Non-AK Res.

X Bus into Hoonah Non-AK Res.

X Bus routes and public transportation Non-AK Res.

X Info about White Pass train prices and times Non-AK Res.

X No real public transportation information for homer Non-AK Res.

X Public transportation in Seward Non-AK Res.

X Small buses around downtown Juneau Non-AK Res.

X Transportation to DYEA Non-AK Res.

X Bus maps Non-AK Res.

X Info on shuttles Non-AK Res.

X Ketchikan bus routes and maps Non-AK Res.

X More info on the shuttle to valley of ten thousand smokes (were 

not told there was a fee) AK Res.

X Shuttle schedules for Denali Non-AK Res.

X

Clarity about lodge shuttle times (not relevant to park). Also, 

shuttle time for park are advertised in time brackets(e.g. 7:30-

8:00am) but leave at a specified time.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
202 | P a g e Misc. General/ Other Travel

Public Transp.ShuttlesAMHSCustomsMaps and Signage

Travel/Transportation Related Residency

X

Finding shuttles and know when the shuttle is coming into the exit 

glacier. Being an independent travel or in Seward is difficult. There 

is no map indicating where stops are or no time stops.

Non-AK Res.

X

It was unclear where buses left from, in Denali and how you pay for 

them etc.. Non

-AK Res.

X

It would be nice for Chilkoot trail hikers if the Yukon- Whitehorse 

train schedule would mesh with the state ferry schedule. As it is 

now, the ferry leaves 15 min before the train gets in. This affects 

>50 hikers per train trip

Non-AK Res.

X Pickup point for tour Non-AK Res.

X The bus schedule & planning from Seward to Homer Non-AK Res.

X Trolley information hard to find the scheduling. Non-AK Res.

X Where to get on the train in Whittier Non-AK Res.

X White gas and bear spray information was lacking without having 

to contact the company ahead.

Non-AK Res.

X

Where to get information for getting transportation to Kesugi Ridge 

trail head Non

-AK Res.

X Gas station locations on the Dalton Highway Non-AK Res.

X Gas stations (2x) Non-AK Res.

X Gas stations in route from Edmonton Non-AK Res.

X Good hotel info for AK highway Non-AK Res.

X

Ground transport info vague- ex Juneau is very long so had to rent 

a car

Non-AK Res.

X

More about land travel specifics of cruise-land package offered by 

princess cruises Non

-AK Res.

X Paying methods Non-AK Res.

X Poor detail about luggage transfer from Denali to Fairbanks Non-AK Res.

Continues 
203 | P a g e Misc. General

/

Other TravelPublic Transp.ShuttlesAMHSCustomsMaps and Signage

Travel/Transportation Related Residency

X Questions about travel packets from the Yukon river area. Non-AK Res.

X Taxi service in Haines. had to email visitors bureau Non-AK Res.

X Getting to and from trail Non-AK Res.

X

Could not find a PDF schedule for AMHS and the website was hard 

to use

Non-AK Res.

X

Cruise website sucked- considered AMHS but website was too 

difficult Non-AK Res.

X

Difficult to find the AMHS website. thought I had booked through 

them but told on arrival I had booked via a travel agency. cost very 

high $4700, subsequently told ferry out of Canada cheaper than 

Bellingham but didn't find that on Internet

Non-AK Res.

X Ferry website wasn't working properly Non-AK Res.

X Distance ferry terminals from cities Non-AK Res.

X Easy planning tool- state ferry Non-AK Res.

X Ferry information in Valdez Non-AK Res.

X Ferry schedule from Skagway to Haines Non-AK Res.

X Ferry schedule was nearly impossible to understand Non-AK Res.

X Ferry schedules for summer 2016 Non-AK Res.

X Ferry website difficult to use Non-AK Res.

X

Really important- ferries are not advertised enough as an 

alternative to cruise ships. people don't want to travel via cruise. 

cycling in June beau is also to advertised enough. not promoting 

places to north of Ketchikan. everything seems tailored to people 

with a 6-8hr visit. no emphasis on independent travelers looking to 

do activities here

Non-AK Res.

X Rental cars general knowledge of federal sites in the area Non-AK Res.

X Many travel forms for non-US citizens Non-AK Res.

Continues 
204 | P a g e Misc. General

/

Other TravelPublic Transp.ShuttlesAMHSCustomsMaps and Signage

Travel/Transportation Related Residency

X List of items you can and can't bring into the states Non-AK Res.

X

Wish they knew they could travel through the interior and then get 

on the cruise Non-AK Res.

X Knowing whether or not certain lands are state or federal entities. Non-AK Res.

X Maps, mileposts AK Res.

X State map Non-AK Res.

X

Signage coming from south of this park is not clear and it's 

dangerous AK Res.

X

Signage needs to be better from highway. the forest loop took 

them to the old visitor center. no sign on the flora. like more 

information on tribes in the area at the visitor center about their 

culture and life on the peninsula.

Non-AK Res.

X Direct sign on road AK Res.

X Signage not good Non-AK Res.

X Signs AK Res.

X Mile markers Non-AK Res.

X Mile posts time frame AK Res.

X Exits not listed with milepost Non-AK Res.

X Maps of Fairbanks and 40 mile Non-AK Res.

X More detail map of Alaska Non-AK Res.

X Public land ownership map Non-AK Res.

X Closure times of federal buildings like customs but also didn't look Non-AK Res.
205 | P a g e

Communication 

Table 87. Information needed but not Available: Communication. Web Info Service (Phone) Wi-Fi Emerg. Contact

Communication Residency

X X Wi-Fi accessibility, cell phone coverage, roadside assistance services Non-AK Res.

X Difficult to contact ranger AK Res.

X

Not really but it can be hard to access rangers while in remote areas, stations 

sometimes are far from boat docks Non-AK Res.

X X Availability of Internet and cell phone service Non-AK Res.

X

Have 907 phone numbers as well as 1-800 phone numbers available. many 1-

800 numbers don't work when dialed within Alaska. with no 907 option 

availability tourists are out of luck when planning on the fly

Non-AK Res.

X Clear Wi-Fi access Non-AK Res.

X Free Wi-Fi spots- Non-AK Res.

X Internet Non-AK Res.

X Could not find a PDF schedule for AMHS and the website was hard to use Non-AK Res.

X Cruise website sucked- considered AMHS but website was too difficult Non-AK Res.

X Campgrounds not true to website AK Res.

X

Denali campground info minimal before arriving, filter or no unsure- no info 

on websites Non-AK Res.

X

Denali was confusing- different information and permits were located in 

different buildings, ended up wasting a lot of time driving around to figure it 

all out. ALSO would appreciate a way to sort junior ranger programs by state 

online. I guess there is a list online of all junior ranger programs in the country 

it cannot be filtered

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
206 | P a g e Web Info Service (Phone)

Wi-FiEmerg. Contact

Communication Residency

X Could be more user friendly i.e. less than three clicks AK Res.

X

lots of campground info in anchorage etc would try more before coming, 

overnight locations allowed in any parks is hard to access while abroad. easy 

once I the state

Non-AK Res.

X Better info online US NPS AK Res.

X Difficult to do research via Internet while on the ship- internet expensive. 

would do more research of signs for free WIFI

Non-AK Res.

X

Difficult to find the AMHS website. thought I had booked through them but 

told on arrival I had booked via a travel agency. cost very high $4700, 

subsequently told ferry out of Canada cheaper than Bellingham but didn't 

find that on Internet

Non-AK Res.

X Ferry website wasn't working properly Non-AK Res.

X Hard to begin Tripadvisor etc. limited Non-AK Res.

X Map of trails are difficult to find on Internet Non-AK Res.

X Please add online registration for scheduling tours Non-AK Res.

X Reservation for bus tour Denali restricted on-line Non-AK Res.

X Small tour companies didn't have websites hard to shop around Non-AK Res.

X The fish count web page wasn't working (ADF&G) AK Res.

X Trail conditions would be handy on BLM site AK Res.

X

Websites geared towards marketing instead of basic information. Such as, 

phone numbers, addresses, times of operation, and at Hidden lake the trail 

information could be better.

Non-AK Res.

X

Websites were not complete with information. hard to contact with time 

difference. Non-AK Res.

X Any good map online AK Res.
207 | P a g e

Responses to Open-Ended Question: What Safety Concerns Did You Research? 

Table 88. Response Describing Safety Concerns Researched. Animal Issues

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Concerns Researched Residency

X X 1. Bears 2. sudden weather changes 3. river conditions Non-AK Res.

X X 1. Bike trails and bike lanes/safety in Juneau and Sitka

2. Bear safety in Juneau and Alaska

Non-AK Res.

X X 1. Human/wildlife interactions (esp. bears)

2. road conditions (rocks, potholes, washouts)

AK Res.

X X X 1. Safe procedures for viewing wildlife especially bears.

2. Safety of floatplanes.

3. Securing luggage & personal items especially cameras and lenses.

Non-AK Res.

X X X 1. Wildlife 2. Roads 3. Weather Non-AK Res.

X X Animal interaction

Bad weather

Non-AK Res.

X Animals and other tourist Non-AK Res.

X X X Animals, especially bears :) proximity to fuel, cell reception in case of 

emergency

Non-AK Res.

X X Animals, safety, weather, AK Res.

X X Appropriate gear and bear encounters Non-AK Res.

X X Availability of fuel. Bear Safety Non-AK Res.

X X Avalanche warnings. Bear warnings Non-AK Res.

X Bear and moose encounters (x3) Non-AK Res.

Bears (x3) AK Res.

X Bears (x23) Non-AK Res.

X X X Bear encounter, out-of-state hospitalization, cellular coverage areas Non-AK Res.

X X Bear encounters, bad weather Non-AK Res.

Continues 
208 | P a g e Animal Issues

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Concerns Researched Residency

X X X Bear encounters, roadway, campground safety Non-AK Res.

X X X Bear Encounters, Unexpected Bad Weather, Fire Danger and ongoing fire 

conditions

Non-AK Res.

X X X Bear interactions Hospital locations

Gun laws

Non-AK Res.

X Bear regulations AK Res.

X X Bear Safety, personal weapons regulations, flight travel safety AK Res.

X X Bear safety, river crossings Non-AK Res.

X X X Bear safety, traveling with firearms, weather/clothing preparedness Non-AK Res.

X X X Bear safety, weather safety, access to emergency help in remote areas

without cell service

Non-AK Res.

X X Bear watching, remote hiking, kayaking around icebergs Non-AK Res.

X Bear Compass Mosquitos Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears weather. Airplane Non-AK Res.

X Bears and other wildlife (x3) Non-AK Res.

X X Bears and roads and what we should take with us for protection! Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears medical road conditions Non-AK Res.

X X Bears weather slides bugs Non-AK Res.

X X Bears while fishing and hiking. Non-AK Res.

X Bears while hiking on trails. Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears, , weather, general "what to bring" when hiking with a family Non-AK Res.

X X Bears, access to vehicle gasoline. Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears, backcountry first aid, AK Highway road safety AK Res.

X X Bears, camping Non-AK Res.

Continues 
209 | P a g e Animal Issues

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Concerns Researched Residency

X X Bears, drivable roads. Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears, firearms, road conditions Non-AK Res.

X Bears, moose (x3) Non-AK Res.

X X Bears, moose, general backcountry preparedness Non-AK Res.

X Bears, mosquitoes Non-AK Res.

X X Bears, other hiking concerns Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears, road conditions, and gas availability. Non-AK Res.

X X Bears, vehicle breakdown, Flash flooding/landslides, gasoline AK Res.

X X Bears, weather. (x2) Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears, weathers, driving conditions Non-AK Res.

X X Bears. Falling on the trail. Non-AK Res.

X X Bears. Weather conditions on water, Non-AK Res.

X X X Boat transportation, wildlife, weather Non-AK Res.

X X Encountering wildlife

Recommendations on rain (weather) gear

Non-AK Res.

X X General safety of road ways (primitive, road conditions, wild life) Non-AK Res.

X X General safety when walking on trails, respecting wildlife and keeping safe Non-AK Res.

X X How to be safe around glaciers & icebergs with our boat

How to be safe in bear territory

Non-AK Res.

X How to handle seeing wildlife (bears) Non-AK Res.

X X Landslides, earthquakes, wildlife encounters Non-AK Res.

X X Local emergency contact number and wildlife safety precautions Non-AK Res.

X X Road conditions, fast driving on gravel roads, animals on roads Non-AK Res.

Continues 
210 | P a g e Animal Issues

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Concerns Researched Residency

X X X Trail conditions, road conditions, bear warning-or-activity AK Res.

X X X X Typical remote emergency management, motorcycle repair, bear and 

wildlife safety.

AK Res.

X X Water, special needs child bears AK Res.

X X X Weather Animals Transportation Non-AK Res.

X X X Weather and exposure; rafting and river level; wildlife encounters Non-AK Res.

X X Weather, tides, coastal features Non-AK Res.

X X Wild animals, boat tour over cold water, getting lost in forests Non-AK Res.

X Wildlife encounter (x7) Non-AK Res.

X X Wildlife encounter, traveling, weather. Non-AK Res.

X X Wildlife encounters & bad weather (x4) Non-AK Res.

X Wildlife encounters (bear, moose) Non-AK Res.

X X Wildlife encounters such as bear, moose. Local town facilities including gas,

food, hospital.

Non-AK Res.

X X X Wildlife encounters! Weather, backcountry navigation Non-AK Res.

X X X Wildlife encounters, driving directions so we didn't get lost, bad weather Non-AK Res.

X X X Wildlife interactions, roadside safety, and general laws Non-AK Res.

X Wildlife safety, particularly bears and moose. mosquito issues. Non-AK Res.

X Wildlife, remote areas Non-AK Res.

X X X Wildlife, Weather, Crime Non-AK Res.

X X Wildlife, weather, navigation Non-AK Res.

X X 1. Hiking safety

2. Road conditions along the Denali Highway

AK Res.

X Accessibility Non-AK Res.

Continues 
211 | P a g e Animal Issues

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Concerns Researched Residency

X X Bad weather, fires, health concerns for people traveling with me. Non-AK Res.

X Boat safety AK Res.

X X Boating safety, gun regulations AK Res.

X Camp provided all the information we needed Non-AK Res.

X Cell phone coverage Shelters AK Res.

X Communication and general public safety Non-AK Res.

X Concern for personal safety. Non-AK Res.

X X Help with vehicle break downs, hospitals Non-AK Res.

X I didn't search any. Just know from previous trips, what is safe Non-AK Res.

X Injury Illness Getting lost Non-AK Res.

X Lifeboats Non-AK Res.

X X Medical, accidents, Non-AK Res.

X X Medivac capability Non-AK Res.

X Related to camping: burns, cuts

Related to hiking: sprains

AK Res.

X X Road conditions and weather Non-AK Res.

X Safety issues while driving personal car on Denali road during lottery days Non-AK Res.

X Safety of tour bus seating for toddlers Non-AK Res.

X X SPOT, GOES, Boat US Insurance Non-AK Res.

X Water AK Res.

X X X Weather conditions, street safety, and currency exchange. No major 

concerns.

Non-AK Res.

X X X Weather, boat safety, bear safety AK Res.
212 | P a g e

Responses to Open-Ended Question: Please Describe Your Safety Issue 

Table 89. Responses Describing Safety Issues. Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X X X 1. grizzly = good outcome

2. 5 consecutive days rain= 5+ indirectly 3

4. No service = no 911 or ability to report washout + debris flow

AK Res.

X X 1. Richardson highway needs potholes filled

2. Cell coverage to make emergency calls

3. Emergency services very far away, need hospital closer to outlying areas

AK Res.

X a lady next to our camp had a heart attack and had to call 911 because could 

not find any signs on RV park to find nearest doctor

Non-AK Res.

X Afraid of Bears Non-AK Res.

X Again...concerned about bears, especially...didn't feel comfortable hiking in 

Denali without bear spray. In Denali and other areas, also concerned about 

moose. We watched the Denali 12 min. video about how to deal with this, at 

least 3 times--very helpful

Non-AK Res.

X X bear came out of nowhere and scared kids. Cell coverage bad so couldn't 

share beauty on social media

Non-AK Res.

X bear encounter x3 Non-AK Res.

X X bear popped up from tall grass within 10 feet, Dumpling Mountain trail -

difficult footings. Not used much yet this year.

Non-AK Res.

X Bear s were on our mind but no problem Non-AK Res.

X X X Bears , proximity to fuel, cell reception in case of emergency Non-AK Res.

Continues 
213 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X X Bears and poor road conditions Non-AK Res.

X Being accustomed to cell access I would like to have cell phone service for 

emergencies.

Non-AK Res.

X Better cell coverage would be nice Non-AK Res.

X Better cell phone and internet connectivity would greatly enhance safety in 

being able to contact emergency services, roadside assistance, ranger/park 

service personnel/campground facilitators, law enforcement, and other 

rescue and assistance organization.

Non-AK Res.

X X Bicycles were spread out across road instead of a single line. Cell coverage is 

spotty quite a lot in Alaska (where we were - mainly in Ketchikan and 

Skagway; Juneau was good)

Non-AK Res.

X Came upon a moose and her calf unexpectedly. There was great signage 

warning us, but of course, it was still startling! I was on guard and truly 

appreciated having the warning.

Non-AK Res.

X Campgrounds too remote with no active campground hosts/supervision. 

Camping equipment left during the day while out hiking/sightseeing, etc. was 

stolen.

Non-AK Res.

X X Carried bear spray, delayed return to Bartlett Cove for 4 hours from getting 

lost, also turned around. bushwhacking back from bustavus forlands had GPS

AK Res.

X Cars stopping to view wildlife blocking traffic in two directions Non-AK Res.

X Cell phone coverage at Mendenahall glacier was not good - we almost missed 

our bus at the visitor center because we could not contact 2 of our group of 

17 - they were only 1 mile away - there was some coverage at the visitor 

center, but it was gone by the time you went towards the waterfall

Non-AK Res.

X Cell service could be better, but lack of technology was also a reason we 

came to Alaska.

Non-AK Res.

X Cell service not available in some areas. We did not have an emergency. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
214 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X X Concern about stream crossings on roads with water in rainy weather. Prefer 

roads be paved on main(secondary) roads

Non-AK Res.

X Crime in Anchorage down town Non-AK Res.

X Encounter with female moose and calf along trail. However, were briefed 

previously by Park Service and followed directions

Non-AK Res.

X Expected road construction but not on this scale. Was concerned we would 

surely get a flat. But it was just a concern and it didn't turn into an actual 

problem.

Non-AK Res.

X Fast moving bikes on trails shared by hikers. Some bikers did not announce

"On your right" or other announcement.

Non-AK Res.

X Fire danger Non-AK Res.

X Getting approached by dangerous wildlife while hiking Non-AK Res.

X X X Grizzly bear near our camp when eating, storm approaching, eroded trail in 

Kesugi Ridge. Lack of service in road, difficult finding directions.

Non-AK Res.

X X Haul highway-mud

vehicles- in odd places

hall highway- used more gas because of road conditions

cell phone- comfort of knowing you could get help

Non-AK Res.

X Hard to receive a mobile phone signal in some areas Non-AK Res.

X X Heavy rainfall made Turnagain Pass a little hairy. AK Res.

X Hiking trails-- not well marked at junctions, so got lost every turn(7 lakes 

especially)

Non-AK Res.

X How to best handle a bear encounter or avoid one Non-AK Res.

X I did not feel comfortable by seeing all those people carrying the gun in the 

gas station or supermarket.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
215 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X I do hit plenty of "dead cell" zones when I travel, and I always worry that I 

will have an issue and be unable to call out for help.

AK Res.

X I do not feel that lack of cell phone coverage in the area was a significant 

safety concern. I go out there to get away from the city and it's trappings.

AK Res.

X I felt safe, realizing that I should pay attention and be aware of my 

surroundings, especially regarding wildlife.

Non-AK Res.

X X X I was concerned that I might have a flat tire or run out of gas along the Denali 

Hwy. I took extra gas and my tires are in good shape. I also carried a firearm 

for bear protection. It would have been good to know the lodges have 

gasoline for sale.

AK Res.

X I was having problems with vertigo, but where I was staying has very poor 

cell service and it was difficult to nearly impossible at times to call out or 

have a phone conversation without getting disconnected.

AK Res.

X I would have liked more information about potential bear encounters, or 

recent bear encounters.

AK Res.

X I would have liked more Wi-Fi to find directions Non-AK Res.

X If an emergency had come up, our only means to contact someone for help 

would have been marine radio.

Non-AK Res.

X in case of emergency not having way to get help Non-AK Res.

X Interface with wild animals - but it was not a problem Non-AK Res.

X It rained like crazy and was windy; bet it is a rain forest, so we were prepared AK Res.

X Just general safety concerns in case of accident while off road Non-AK Res.

X Lack of cell coverage a risk in an emergency. Non-AK Res.

X Lack of cell service along the major highways for emergencies as a great 

concern.

AK Res.

Continues 
216 | P a g e Animal 

B Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X Lack of cell service in national parks, etc. was 100% understandable and kind 

of nice (made everyone put their phones away) but concerned some 

members of the group. No safety issues were encountered, wildlife stayed 

far away.

Non-AK Res.

X Lack of phone coverage Non-AK Res.

X Land Mark Gap trail is in very poor condition. Very rocky and trail wide, deep 

puddles.

Non-AK Res.

X Limited cell phone coverage Non-AK Res.

X X X Lot of wildlife, water availability in remote areas, need info about drinking or 

pot. Some roads were hard to travel (St. Elias). Gas station didn't except my 

card, or no station at all, no reception for cell at all.

Non-AK Res.

X X Lots of bears in area. No cell phone coverage in area. AK Res.

X Lots of construction Non-AK Res.

X X Lots of rain, roads not in good repair, cyclists take advantage, cell phone 

coverage poor

Non-AK Res.

X Making sure we had a plan in place if an unsafe condition occurred. Non-AK Res.

X Making sure we knew how to keep safe around the bears Non-AK Res.

X Met a mother bear with two cubs on the path to Brooks Falls. we followed 

the training provided by the rangers and left the path as she was not going 

to. Luckily she kept going. Very scary.

Non-AK Res.

X Minor since with a group including NPS staff Non-AK Res.

X Need more cell phone towers, some tourists drive like idiots Non-AK Res.

X No AT&T cell coverage Non-AK Res.

X No cell coverage AK Res.

X no cell coverage at all AK Res.

Continues 
217 | P a g e Animal 

B Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X No cell phone coverage, no ability to call for assistance. However, I am very 

aware of the impact of humans that need cell towers in remote, untouched 

wilderness. Requires humans to be pre-prepared. I am o.k. with this. If one 

isn't prepared & aware of the risk, then one shouldn't be in this area.

Non-AK Res.

X No cell phone service. AK Res.

X No service AK Res.

X Not enough fuel, car getting stuck Non-AK Res.

X X Nothing too significant. Primarily related to marine navigation, small boats 

and weather

Non-AK Res.

X Poor weather created difficulty following the trail. AK Res.

X X Pot holes in road/frost heaves.

Would like more cell service

Non-AK Res.

X Rain toooo much Non-AK Res.

X X X Rainy wet roads, bear and goats on road, loose gravel and potholes Non-AK Res.

X X Reaction of bears; flying out of camp in bad weather Non-AK Res.

X Road condition very rough for vehicle, had to reduce speed significantly at 

times.

Non-AK Res.

X road going in from Steese very poor. Steese to Davidson Ditch bad to river AK Res.

X X Rough roads, no phone service Non-AK Res.

X Russian River campground road in poor condition. Non-AK Res.

X Same people tried to cross in front of bus! Non-AK Res.

X Saw a mother bear and her two cubs about 50 feet in front of us. 

Lack of cell service was not a problem. I kind of enjoyed it.

Non-AK Res.

X slippery trail; trail not marked well. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
218 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X Some trail boards were torn up or wobbly. Non-AK Res.

X Storm came in but we finished just in time AK Res.

X X The access road from the contact station through the campground and day use 

parking areas is in terrible condition. It has been this way for several years.

AK Res.

X X X The concern for bear encounter was mitigated by carrying bear spray, concern 

for weather by bring proper clothes, slowed down on the road to avoid 

numerous potholes, on trail we avoided the washed out and deep muddy 

sections by making our way over vegetation off the trail

AK Res.

X The Dalton Highway needs to be fixed, we went to Coldfoot two times, and road 

was the same

AK Res.

X The need for bear spray Non-AK Res.

X The only real concern we had was wildlife encounters during hikes. Non-AK Res.

X There was road construction on the drive to Exit Glacier in which only 1.5 lanes 

were available. I almost glazed the side of cars going the opposite direction, 

trying not to hit the orange road construction barricades.

Non-AK Res.

X There were a number of times while in Gustavus that we had limited cell phone 

reception

Non-AK Res.

X X Trail washed out. Woman had roller her 4 wheeler. She was not hurt bad but 

there was no phone service

AK Res.

X trails were not even good enough for people with slight walking problem Non-AK Res.

X X Typical boating and navigation issues. Fuel, signaling, food, water, exposure 

gear, etc.

Non-AK Res.

X Vehicle breakdowns

could not use cell-No coverage!

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
219 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X very dangerous biking-but not on public lands, only on bike trails around 

Soldatna, K. beach road, cars do not pay any attention to the bicycle riders.

Non-AK Res.

X Very difficult trying to cross on foot a major highway to see Beluga whales. One 

driver honked and flipped us the bird, would not slow down.

Non-AK Res.

X X Wanted to educate other family members about wildlife encounters and how to 

behave in such a situation. Also checked on weather conditions - we would not 

have gone hiking in high heat, heavy rain or thunderstorms. Reviewed safety 

info with youngsters, especially what to do if separated.

AK Res.

X Wanted to use 4G on my cell phone for directions and info Non-AK Res.

X Was not able to use my phone at all. Had a carrier that could not get reception 

while others could.

Non-AK Res.

X we carried extra fuel and added it once to make sure we had enough to get to 

the next fuel station.

Non-AK Res.

X We didn't really have safety concerns so much as we observed that there were 

pedestrians or other disabled vehicles or bicycle us on the side of the road. 

Commonsense tells us to slow down and be aware... And everybody was safe

AK Res.

X We had a close encounter with a grizzly sow and her sub adult while in Denali 

but were helped by a Parks van who drove us out of danger

Non-AK Res.

X We saw bear poop on the trail, which reminded me to make noise for bears. A 

few hundred yards further, we actually saw one. This make me think a sign at 

the start of the trail reminding people about the possible presence of bears 

would be good. I when told a local AK Res. about the encounter, she also 

commented that she walks that trail all the time and had never thought she 

might encounter a bear there. After hiking a bit further, I saw that there were 

signs at the campground about bear proof devise, etc. but we started at the 

other end.

AK Res.

X We were hiking and a grizzly was over Ridge with 20 yards of us. a ranger guided 

us to safety.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
220 | P a g e Animal 

Local Info.RecreationRoad cond.WeatherCommunicationsMisc.

Responses Describing Safety Issues Residency

X We were the party that rescued the woman who had a brown bear encounter 

on the Kenai River Trail on July 3. It all worked out OK, but the decision to 

evacuate her ourselves to the hospital was dictated by the lack of cell phone 

coverage. I am definitely not advocating for cell towers in either the Forests or 

Refuges! It just was a factor in our experience. Had not members of our party 

had experience with the Kenai, we would have no way of knowing where the 

nearest emergency facility was. An "H" sign along the highway would be very 

useful!

Non-AK Res.

X We weren't sure if we took the correct fork in the trail in order to reach the 

summit.

AK Res.

X X what to do in unexpected animal encounters, being aware of surroundings, 

what to be prepared with when hiking,

AK Res.

X When in a remote area, not being able to phone for help should it be needed in 

an emergency. Our guide did have a satellite type device but if something 

happened to him, I didn't feel secure that I would be able to work his device.

Non-AK Res.

X While fishing got caught in rain storm--lightning Non-AK Res.

X Wife is concerned about bear problems. AK Res.

X X Worried about bears and lightening Non-AK Res.

X Worried that heavy rains would start while we were hiking AK Res.

X Would like to be able to have cell phone coverage at all times Non-AK Res.
221 | P a g e

Responses to Open-ended Question: Provide Additional Feedback on Your Travel Experience 

 

Table 90. Additional Feedback on Travel Experiences. Basic Local Info Recreation Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X A great job was done to repair the landslide on the Denali park 

road and allow passage at specific times. The bus traffic was a 

little concentrated for wildlife/wilderness experience but I am 

assuming this was primarily due to the landslide problem and 

his was a small compromise and the experience was still great.

Non-AK Res.

X access road to campground was very rough with potholes AK Res.

X Alaska Conservation Center should move their main entrance 

away from intersection of Seward Highway and Portage Rd to 

Whittier

AK Res.

X Alaska has the worst roads in North America. The condition of 

the highways broke the right-height rod and a shock absorber 

in half. Currently in Edmonton waiting for parts for our RV. If 

you want to damage your RV and car, drive to and in Alaska!

Non-AK Res.

X Alaska is extraordinary. I hope it continues to be protected. I 

found all the Federal facilities to be very helpful.

Non-AK Res.

X Alaska is amazing with the best parks and National Forests, our 

National Gems

Non-AK Res.

X All transport was great! Non-AK Res.

Continues 
222 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Always nervous along Turnagain Arm. With the fire at 

McHugh Creek, felt more dangerous.

Non-AK Res.

X X As a web savvy, DIY guy I found the Alaska Marine Ferry 

website tough. I really wanted to roll my own multi-stop ferry 

trip. Took me a LONG time to figure out that if I left on a 

Saturday I could hop from ferry to ferry. Surprised there 

weren't any premade tour schedules. Didn't like getting up 

super early, or not being able to crash at the ferry terminal 

between the late night arrival, and the early morning 

departure from Skagway to Juneau, Juneau to Prince Rupert...

Non-AK Res.

X Bad roads due to upheaval Non-AK Res.

X Bartlett Cove boat launch need to have an adjacent float to 

allow more reasonable single person boat launching case and 

safety

AK Res.

X X Biggest issue was ATV damage to roads. Erosion and off road 

ATV damage was the only major detractor from my 

experience.

AK Res.

X Busses in park were not comfortable and could not see well. 

Too crowded.

Non-AK Res.

X Caught public bus in Fairbanks and got dropped off at 

supermarket and then was unsure of where to catch return 

bus

Non-AK Res.

X Cell coverage Non-AK Res.

Continues 
223 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Construction/road realignment/flood damage roadwork 

delays and priority to heavy transport. Generally very 

reasonable but private company hired to control traffic very 

inconsistent. One woman at sign very good, one man 

unfriendly and arbitrary.

AK Res.

X Could not find adequate campground space to accommodate

a truck and 20 foot travel trailer in many places, so could not 

dry camp much. We were travelling for 3 months, and were 

hoping there would be more accessible camp sites

Non-AK Res.

X Denali was awesome and the park was magnificent. Coach 

tour bus and Denali park bus were excellent. No problems, no 

complaints, only praise for our experience

Non-AK Res.

X Did not have ANY travel/transportation issues AK Res.

X Dirt roads were very bumpy traveling in RV, scary at time. 

Once u pass the initial sign there are no additional signs as u r 

traveling to the destination. Often times we thought we were 

lost until at the very end of the road we finally arrived

Non-AK Res.

X Don't limit flying over the parks/land. This is the best way to 

see for older and disabled people. They should have just as 

much right to see the country as hikers.

Non-AK Res.

X Drivers in Alaska were unsafe. They pulled out without 

looking, darted in and out of other cars, etc.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
224 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Elliot Hwy sucks! AK Res.

X Everything as well as could be expected for a 2-month boat 

trip from Prince Rupert, BC to Glacier Bay & return to PR. 

Trailer-boat from Blaine, WA to PR, ~ 950miles one-way. All 

problems self-solved - as to be expected.

Non-AK Res.

X Everything was perfect--hated to leave Non-AK Res.

X Excellent service from Ann to bring me from Skagway to DYEA. 

However $20/person for a 20 min ride is expensive. Having 

other options would have been nice.

Non-AK Res.

X Excellent. Glacier Bay is our national treasure...I am very 

thankful to the NPS for maintaining the park. I acted as a 

volunteer for sea otter research on my trip. Being able to visit 

via state ferry has been a real bonus-less whimsical to weather 

than flying.

AK Res.

X Extremely high rates for car rental plus the basically required 

insurance due to having to pay for the car while it's in the 

shop. Blew out a tire on a big rock on a main road into 

Palmer. No other issues.

Non-AK Res.

X Fantastic trip -- weather perfect -- citizens and seasonal help 

well above expectations in almost 100% of the cases.

Non-AK Res.

X Fortunately, we had no issues with our travel -- construction 

delays had a minimal impact on our agenda

I'm not a fan of increasing use of ATV/motorized vehicles 

within the parks

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
225 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Found both car rental and camper rental employees helpful Non-AK Res.

X Frost heaves a big problem if you tow a trailer, I snapped a leaf 

spring in half and the other 3 are all bent

Non-AK Res.

X Glacier park was amazing...thanks....loved the small boat 

interaction (un-cruise )

Non-AK Res.

X Great experience, great country with very good touristic 

information!

Non-AK Res.

X Great trip AK Res.

X Great trip. We will be back. Non-AK Res.

X Had a great trip. Everyone was very friendly and helpful. Will 

definitely visit again.

Non-AK Res.

X Had no problems Non-AK Res.

X I commend the Park Service. I was in Denali NP when a major 

mudslide occurred on the main road. The park service opened 

the road in amazingly good time considering all the conditions.

Non-AK Res.

X I didn't have any problems Non-AK Res.

X I found the speed limits a bit high, given that tourists would 

like to gawk. I did appreciate the number of turnouts for 

slower moving traffic and parking areas for viewing.

Non-AK Res.

X I had no problems or issues with transportation AK Res.

Continues 
226 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X I have a comment about. A previous trip to Denali. The 

inability to drive into Denali is very limiting. I understand the 

issue but the bus system is not a comfortable way too see the 

park. I have done it once and will never do it again. The bus 

takes too long, and the only other way to see the park is too 

expensive.

Non-AK Res.

X I love Alaska and am lucky to get to spend a month or more 

there a year for work. Let's not screw it up!

Non-AK Res.

X X I loved Alaska. I love the freedom it allows but I would 

appreciate a little more guidance, such as detailed trail 

markers and gas station locations (i.e., how far away the next 

one is).

Non-AK Res.

X I loved Alaska. We were lucky, no problems. Non-AK Res.

X I researched the Denali Hwy before I travelled there so I knew 

to expect a very rough road with a top speed of maybe 

35mph. I was disappointed that much of the road was bad 

enough that I could only go 10 to 15 mph in my old 

motorhome. So I just puttered long and enjoyed the sights.

AK Res.

X I think that RV travel needs to be catered to more. Turn 

around space, parking space. Some units and trailers need a 

bit more room to maneuver. Perhaps more signage or line 

marking would help.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
227 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X I think you have struck a good balance between public safety 

and leaving the wilderness wild. To many handrails, steps and 

highly improved trails would spoil the natural, rugged splendor 

of the parks.

Non-AK Res.

X I usually try to visit my ailing, elderly mother once a month via 

the state ferries. However, that has not been possible due to 

cutting back of ferry service this year. As a consequence, I've 

had to bear the extra expense of flying at least one way, which

I cannot afford as I am a disabled retiree on a fixed income.

AK Res.

X I was a little concerned about having to take the shuttle bus in 

Denali, but I was pleasantly surprised, it was great seeing that 

much land with only one road.

Non-AK Res.

X I was quite pleased on how well trail heads and photo 

opportunities were marked. Better here than a lot of places in 

the lower 48. While cell phone was spotty it was expected so 

we had alternate sources including milepost mag ready to 

provide information

Non-AK Res.

X I was scared witless when Denali buses had to pass each other 

alongside cliffs (but then I felt the same way in the same 

situations in the Andes)

Non-AK Res.

X X I was very impressed with the quality and access to remote 

sites and scenery that the park service is providing now. I wish 

it had been like this when I lived here!

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
228 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X X I was very impressed with the roads. I like the passing lanes and 

think there could be a few more of those on the highway to 

Denali. I didn't expect to have total cellphone coverage, I don't 

even have it where I live now in California. I was there in the fall 

and the bulk of the tourists were gone so things didn't seem so 

crowded. Anchorage traffic was a mess, but it is not a Federal 

land.

Non-AK Res.

X I will plan more time, it was vast and I wish to see more. All the 

educational staff was positive and very helpful.

Non-AK Res.

X I would have preferred to visit Prudhoe Bay without an oil 

company escort. That was less than a good experience.

Non-AK Res.

X X I would have relied on trains, buses, and shuttles and not have 

rented a car if I could do it over again. Information on traveling 

with firearms was incomplete and left us with researching so 

many details on our own and not having clear information from 

PS. We ended up renting a car when we really didn't need to --

just so we could transport the firearm.

Non-AK Res.

X I'm 53 years old and when I was 22 I had trouble with the law and 

coming in to Canada, made it hard to get through it. Happen 30 

years ago and you would think they would not be so hard on you 

that something happen so many years ago.

Non-AK Res.

X Improve boat ramp at Jim's Landing AK Res.

Continues 
229 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X In Homer and Sitka, Hop-on, Hop-off tour companies had one 

shuttle which made for long waiting times and sometimes no 

room on the shuttles. It should be told to customers before they 

decide to buy the tickets.

Non-AK Res.

X In the Yukon there was a long Stretch between gas stations . The 

Mile post was not current . In Denali / Alaska no problems .

Non-AK Res.

X X Internet service on AMH ferries. Non-AK Res.

X It seems that wash boarded or roads and sharp objects in the 

road created problems with our older vehicle.

AK Res.

X It was great Non-AK Res.

X I've no idea what one would do in case of car trouble and no cell 

phone.

Non-AK Res.

X Just dusty gravel roads--hard to see Non-AK Res.

X just not what I expected Non-AK Res.

X Lack of road signs Non-AK Res.

X Loved everything about Alaska! Non-AK Res.

X Loved everything about it! Rangers were so nice. Saw some big 

bull moose . It was cloudy so seeing Denali was a no go. Other 

than that had an amazing experience. Hope to come back next 

year!

Non-AK Res.

X Loved the trip to beautiful Alaska Non-AK Res.

X Main problem would be lack of Ferry service to Sitka AK Res.

Continues 
230 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X More ability to communicate using cell phones, etc. Non-AK Res.

X More cycling trails - not mountain bikes, just normal ones would 

be appreciated. Now in Canada and I think they do this better.

Non-AK Res.

X More info for families with special needs AK Res.

X more public bus transport connections Non-AK Res.

X Most of our trip was either in cities/towns or major roads. We 

had no problems of any significance.

Non-AK Res.

X Motorized watercraft was extremely noisy and drivers(boat) were 

disrespectful on river in Fairbanks--we were in a canoe. It kind of 

ruined the outdoor peace and quiet.

We liked the numerous areas where vehicles could pull off to take 

pictures, etc.

roads are in good condition, construction was an inconvenience 

at times, but not a problem.

Non-AK Res.

X My out of state cell phone would not work for a 9-1-1 call I had to 

make.

Non-AK Res.

X My son and I were impressed with the overall concern for the 

environment and the wildlife. We recognized that Alaska is a big 

place and that utilities and road conditions would be rough, but 

were surprised by how good they were. Alaska is a very rugged 

lace, demands respect and thinking ahead.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
231 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X My son lives in anchorage and travels the state a lot, so he drove 

and guided us. I noticed lots of good improvements on road 

conditions--public pull over since my list visit- Great accessibility 

to fishing spots.

Non-AK Res.

X n/a (2x) AK Res.

X N/A Non-AK Res.

X Need some rolling water bars to prevent erosion on trails. 

Drainage channels needed from low points as well.

AK Res.

X Never wanted to leave Non-AK Res.

X No issues (7x) AK Res.

X No issues (14x) Non-AK Res.

X No additional feedback to share AK Res.

X No opinion on transport. I did find it hard to find a good trail map 

- REI does not sell them.

AK Res.

X No problems with travel or transportation. Please note that the 

cruise ship we used was a smaller 'Uncruise' boat, which was 

excellent. We thought that the giant cruise ships were too big for 

this area and looked out of place!

Non-AK Res.

X No problems, except weather...We LOVED our Alaska experience. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
232 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X No problems, however the closely shaved rock walls on the 

highway between Anchorage and Seward were way too close to 

the roadway in several spots...easily to have large rocks fall onto 

passing cars; similar concerns about the train ride in the canyon 

from Denali to Fairbanks; looking straight down from the train 

window the river was directly visible...no land visible.

Non-AK Res.

X no problems. I love Alaska! Non-AK Res.

X No problems. 3 commercial flights, ferry from Juneau to Skagway. 

Several rail journeys. Public bus from Carcross to Whitehorse.

Non-AK Res.

X No real problems. Some minor problems relating to our travel 

document on the Bennett to Skagway train, but conductor was 

very helpful

Non-AK Res.

X No signs on road, if yes no info about distance at all. Non-AK Res.

X No transportation problems other than that its very high cost. I 

appreciated that the 1st trip was cancelled due to inclement

weather - they valued our lives as well as cost to replace their 

float plane. We were lucky to obtain an opening and flew out the

next week. So we paid for the 2 nights lodging the night before 

and night of the trip for no reason, but that was no one’s fault, 

although an added cost to make the trip.

AK Res.

Continues 
233 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Noisy jet boats with high powered motors AK Res.

X None the Northern highways are what they are... Safety no 

matter what we do will always be a concern

AK Res.

X On one green bus ride out of Denali Park, the driver had to slam 

on the breaks to avoid hitting a critter, which I appreciate, but the 

bus skidded quite a bit and made everyone feel we might go over 

the cliff. There are some places along the road that are extremely 

narrow.

Non-AK Res.

X Only a minor inconvenience is that when traveling from south to 

north over Anchorage, the city of Anchorage cannot be bypassed.

Non-AK Res.

X X Other than parking, some crowding on trails, overcrowded 

restrooms and loud aircraft overhead (helicopters!) the 

experiences were good. None of the minor issues were showstoppers. Staff and park rangers were helpful, knowledgeable, 

polite and fun to chat with! Restrooms were clean, in spite of the 

crowds.

AK Res.

X Our tour guides from WhaleCoastAlaska arranged group transport 

and did a great job. Loved the video screens in the Denali park 

bus. Driver great job showing wildlife particularly bear mama with 

2 cubs passing single bear.

Non-AK Res.

X Our trip was amazing and exceeded all expectations. Non-AK Res.

X Overall a good trip! Non-AK Res.

X Please keep protecting the landscape. It was amazing. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
234 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Please rebuild and recondition the road. AK Res.

X Please review the current regulations and trail specification on 

the trail running from Wickersham Dome Trailhead to 

US/Nome/McKay Creek trailheads. This would make a very 

interesting overland responsible motorized use trail as all but a 

very short section of it is already motorized. However since the 

current boundary catches a very short section of the trail, it 

cannot be used as a through trail. The distance of non-motorized 

is very short. I don't understand why such a short section of trail 

in the middle of motorized trail on either side would be so 

important to keep non-motorized. Please, if possible in any way, 

get my concerns to the people who could review and revise the 

current boundary and trail use specification for the area. Thank 

you.

AK Res.

X Poor communication with pacific airways about luggage being 

delivered to another destination

Non-AK Res.

X Poor road conditions, ruts, uneven pavement, not enough passing 

lanes and pull-outs

Non-AK Res.

X Poor road maintenance AK Res.

X Poor signage and trails at the beginning of the route. AK Res.

Continues 
235 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X X X Problems encountered were campground theft, lack of phone 

service and lack of public internet/Wi-Fi services. Also crowds 

from cruise ships spoiled the experience. Should limit to one or 

two at a time.

Non-AK Res.

X Public transportation did not seem to stop at Federal visitor 

center in Homer where I did verbal survey. It did stop at city 

visitor center.

Non-AK Res.

X Requiring 2 hour arrival prior to departure for the ferries is 

inconvenient. The wording sounds like your reservation will be 

given away if you do not arrive 2 hrs prior to departure. The 

wording of this "threat" should be modified.

Non-AK Res.

X Road condition poor AK Res.

X Roads to camping area contained significant potholes in a few 

locations. These uneven surfaces cause severe stress on campers, 

motor-homes and regular vehicles as well as obstacles for pedal 

bikes. They should have been filled before major use times such 

as holidays and long weekends.

AK Res.

X Roads were a lot better than we expected. The Denali Highway 

was pretty rough but that was expected.

Non-AK Res.

X Roads were in excellent condition! Non-AK Res.

Continues 
236 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Sea winds floatplane tour and pilot Steve were excellent. 

Fantastic trip to misty Ford and then to the crab feed. This was a 

fabulous floatplane trip in an great beaver aircraft.

Non-AK Res.

X Several of the roads were under construction, so we experienced 

delays several times. fortunately, we were not on a tight 

schedule, so no big deal.

Non-AK Res.

X X Since I was traveling by ferry without a car, I sometimes faced 

challenges (during trip planning) figuring out how I would get 

from the ferry terminal to my ultimate destination. This forced 

me to change some plans or, in other cases, created stress during 

my visit since I wasn't always sure when a left the ferry how/if I 

would get where I wanted to go. Also, some of the taxis (e.g., in 

Juneau) were filthy (inside), dilapidated vehicles in which I didn't 

feel safe, as if there are no standards or codes for such operators.

Non-AK Res.

X Some areas had too many steps for one member of my party to 

use, but we were expecting that and was fine with it.

Non-AK Res.

X Some of the remote roads were very rough and narrow. Non-AK Res.

X Takes too long to get there Non-AK Res.

X Tangle Lakes campground has a sign that says "no dust." People 

need to slow down in there and I had to remind a few drivers to 

do so.

AK Res.

Continues 
237 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X The Anchorage-Denali railway is prohibitively expensive. 

Roundtrip for two people is $676 ( $169 x 4), whereas our Turo 

car rental was only $213 for 7 days. We are college students on a 

budget.

Non-AK Res.

X The boot brush at the trail head was great! AK Res.

X The bus into Denali was adequate- I'm used to having my own 

vehicle in Nat'l Parks, but the bus was a good alternative.

Non-AK Res.

X The bus ride from Anchorage to Denali with Howard the driver. 

He was an incessant talker. If he talked about Alaska that would 

have been fine, but he jabbered on about his wife and six 

daughters. That got old. Silence can be golden.

Non-AK Res.

X The cost of the train from Seward to Denali was too high and we 

weren't able to utilize the train and forcing us to rent a car. We 

visited the first week of June.

Non-AK Res.

X The delays caused by construction were definitely irritating, but 

I'm not sure what can be done since this is the time of year the 

roads can be fixed.

Non-AK Res.

X The Denali Highway mile 0 thru 15 has a lot of heaves (dips in 

road from permafrost). When pulling out RV, this is rough!

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
238 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X X The Elliott was in better shape than expected, due to recent 

repairs. The trail was also a bit better than expected (to 

WIckersham Dome via the Summit Trail) due to addition of 

geotech plastic gridding. It was very poorly redone about 10 

years ago, with an obvious lack of understanding of the local soils 

and drainage patterns (back when old boardwalk was ripped out.) 

Things have improved a lot since, but it could have been done for 

far less money and less hassle with better design from the outset!

AK Res.

X X The ferry was a great way of getting around SE Alaska. Would 

have used it more if the schedules were more frequent or more 

ferries available.

Non-AK Res.

X The highway from Anchorage to Denali could use more frequent 

passing lanes, or slow vehicle turnout. Getting stuck behind a 

slow semi or camper was at times frustrating.

Non-AK Res.

X The issue with the ferry delay was frustrating as it meant we had 

little time to see Skagway. However the weather was nasty so we 

would have done little outside activities anyway and would have 

focused more on history.

Non-AK Res.

X The off road vehicle accessible trail have very large stones/rocks 

along the route which made the ride very tough. I'm sure walking 

on these same trails was difficult too.

AK Res.

Continues 
239 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X The requirement to book camp sites online or via phone is 

terrible. Another feature is needed at sites to permit those 

without this technology the ability to stay at sites, particularly if 

ferries arrive late.

Non-AK Res.

X X The road conditions are vastly improved since my first trip to 

Alaska in 1975. The traffic is certainly heavier, but managed well 

for the most part.

Non-AK Res.

X X The road to Lake Louise is in very bad condition and we had to 

turn back almost nowhere an information about trail elevation 

and profile could be found.

Non-AK Res.

X The roads were what we expected. Some with a few potholes, 

some with lots of frost heaves, some with no shoulders but all 

part of the adventure!

Non-AK Res.

X The roadway into Nome Creek is often rutted and not well 

maintained.

AK Res.

X The satellite coverage for the GPS was occasionally poor. This may 

have been related to the GPS we were using, but it was brand 

new and purchased in the U.S.A.

Non-AK Res.

X The signs for pull outs are not posted back far enough away from 

the site so that you can stop in time. The sign is posted and then 

the site is almost immediate. Need to set back further from 

turnout. We found that if we followed travel warning signs wed 

be fine. No damage to vehicle or camper entailed while traveling.

Non-AK Res.

X The tour was well organized with timely departures and arrivals. 

There were no incidents, all was well organized.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
240 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X The trip to Alaska was wonderful + people very friendly Non-AK Res.

X There is no public transport in Fairbanks. what a pity!

I find museums really good. Native exhibition great! Community 

specially friendly, amazing university! the Power Alaska owns: the 

people!

Non-AK Res.

X There was a lot of road work while we were traveling to Denali 

from Anchorage and it was raining so it made it a little difficult 

and lengthened our travel time.

Non-AK Res.

X There were no real issues. We were just two old people on a 

cruise ship that walked around the towns that the ship docked at 

and took one glacier tour. Other than the prices charged we had 

a good time. I have told everyone that I work with that Alaska I a 

bucket list item

Non-AK Res.

X X There were no transport issues on our trip which was mostly 

train, ferry coach and plane. All worked smoothly and to timemost impressive.

Non-AK Res.

X There were none, we were happy with our trip. Met and 

exceeded our expectations

Non-AK Res.

X This was a visit to Nat'l Park in Sitka- I was able to use a carrier 

(bus) operated by thing is in Sitka to get to Nat'l Park

AK Res.

X X Though not transportation related, the great number of HUGE 

RV's and travel trailers is disheartening. Especially when they run 

generators in lovely wilderness campgrounds morning and night. 

Not pleasant for tent campers

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
241 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X Too many one way streets in Anchorage Non-AK Res.

X Took city buses to local areas instead of tour companies. 

Schedule and wait times here sometimes long.

Non-AK Res.

X X Took the Kantishna Experience tour in Denali. Using school buses 

that are designed for children to transport adults is quite 

uncomfortable. We are very tall and had to use the aisle for our 

legs. I appreciate that the seats were not bench though. :) I am 

so happy that transportation into Denali is limited so that nature 

can catch a break (unlike bear jams in Yellowstone). We drove 

almost 2000 miles in a week, and found that 90% of the area was 

free of roadside trash. There was just one overlook that was very 

littered.

Non-AK Res.

X Trail is in poor condition. AK Res.

X X X Transport to & around park land had no issues at all, trailheads 

were easily accessible by car or bus and trails were well-marked 

and maintained. Utilized Rust's Flying Service multiple times, they 

were great. Posted wildlife encounter info was clear (bear/moose 

safety signs) and welcomed. Scenic stops and restrooms were 

well-marked and accessible from road.

Non-AK Res.

X X Travel has been great for us I'd prefer that 'inaccessible' places 

remain so -- requiring adventure to get there, allowing the 

relative pristine nature of those places to remain so.

AK Res.

Continues 
242 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X X Traveling on our own, we depended on public transportation, 

walking, or taxi to get around the towns. Just getting from our 

guest house rental to boat for glacier bay excursion was $15 for a 

few mile ride. We were impressed how friendly and helpful 

everyone was. We really enjoyed our visit!

Non-AK Res.

X Very frustrated with lack of transportation options at ferry 

terminals especially Juneau. Cannot understand why bus doesn't 

come a few more miles to pick up passengers getting off ferry.

Non-AK Res.

X Very happy with services provided. Non-AK Res.

X Very impressed by cleanliness and upkeep of points of interest 

despite volume of tourists, many of whom are not so considerate.

Non-AK Res.

X We always try to be prepared and so we have avoided any 

problems.

Non-AK Res.

X We did not have any transportation issues. Non-AK Res.

X We did not have any transportation problems because we used 

own vehicles. we were also early in the season so overcrowding 

was not a problem

Non-AK Res.

x We enjoy exploring areas on ATV trails and hope that other 

people use common sense and respect when they use the trails 

too so that we can continue to go on these types of adventures.

AK Res.

Continues 
243 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X We enjoyed our 8 weeks in Alaska and can nor remember any 

transportation related problems other than the 2 hr. late arrival 

of the AMH ferry in Skagway and the 8 hour weather (fog) delay 

leaving Kodiak Island.

Non-AK Res.

X X We found some well-maintained scenic hiking trails, which were a 

joy. We wish there were more trails, more dog-friendly trails, and 

good trail maps. Problems that we encountered: trails not marked 

and hard to find or follow, terrible ugly clearcuts along rails. 

Clearcut logging shouldn't be allowed.

Non-AK Res.

X We had a great time and had no dire transportation-related 

issues. All went smoothly.

Non-AK Res.

X X We had a great time. Alaska delivered everything we hoped. 

railroad was really well done. great trip. fire south of anchorage 

and traffic congestion was well reported. never felt lost or 

confused. road conditions excellent. keep up the good work! an 

thanks

Non-AK Res.

X X We had no issues travelling across Alaska in our passenger 

vehicle. The roads were very smooth and ride to drive on.

Non-AK Res.

X We had no issues. We used charter planes to get into and out of 

the Arctic Refuge.

Non-AK Res.

X We had no problems as the guides, drivers, pilots were simply 

outstanding !

Non-AK Res.

X We had no real problems other than being weathered in at a 

camp in Kenai

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
244 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X We had no transportation issues. Non-AK Res.

X We had no transportation problems at all during the Denali 

National Park part of our trip. In fact the only real problem we 

had the entire 2-week trip was that out whale watch tour in 

Juneau was canceled due to high winds. It was a GREAT trip!

Non-AK Res.

X We had no transportation related issues either in Denali NP or on 

the Lindblad cruise.

Non-AK Res.

X We had no trouble, everything was fine. we would tell people to 

go to Alaska as it is a beautiful and safe place to visit

Non-AK Res.

X We have personal truck, boat and cabin so no real transportation 

issues

Non-AK Res.

X X We loved our trip to Alaska - we have become so reliant on cell 

phone coverage that we take it for granted - it is expected - I get 

that we were in the wilderness but maybe that will improve over 

time

Non-AK Res.

X We loved the trip. It was too short. AK Res.

X We managed to blow two tires on our camper. We had to leave 

our camper to try to find a tire repair shop in Cantwell.... And we 

were unsuccessful. That was our big issue for the trip. We were 

very surprised that there wasn't a fix it shop in Cantwell or even 

Talkeetna. We had to drive all the way back to Wasilla to get a 

new tire.

AK Res.

Continues 
245 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X We really didn't want to rent a car, but it turned out it was so 

much cheaper than taking the train. So our biggest problem is 

that the train was expensive I guess! We also ran into some road 

construction delays, but it wasn't much of a problem. Also, this

may be beyond the scope of this survey, but we wanted to bring 

our own bicycles, but that is also prohibitively expensive, so we 

just rented them for a few days to bike the Denali park road, 

which was fine, but our own bikes would have been better!

Non-AK Res.

X We really love everything about the Federal Public Lands in 

Alaska, wouldn't change a thing!

Non-AK Res.

X We thought it odd that information on the cancelled AMH ferry 

service wasn't conveyed to us by text or email when we held 

reservations for the trip. We learned of the cancellation only 

after getting to the ferry terminal the day of the voyage.

Non-AK Res.

X X We thought the Alaska Marine Highway Ferries were fantastic 

and liked the facilities for people to prepare their own food and 

the relaxed way in which people could make themselves 

comfortable sleeping in the lounges etc. at night

Non-AK Res.

X We travelled on a ship from Seattle calling at the main ports 

where we went either on foot, public bus or with a ship's tour. 

The weather was exceptionally sunny and we enjoyed the trip 

enormously.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
246 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X X We used the AMH ferry system and were pleasantly surprised. 

The ferries were always on time. We traveled from Juneau to 

Sitka to Petersburg, Wrangell and Ketchikan.

Non-AK Res.

X We wanted to take the train, but it was equal to renting a car for 

2 people to all the places we wanted to go and did not give us 

access to other public lands, trail heads except Denali Nat'l Park. 

Unable to find bus information.

Non-AK Res.

X We went to Brooks Falls and on the road one uses to walk to the 

falls, there were some 4 wheelers with park staff driving past a 

number of times. I wondered how many of those trips were 

really necessary.

Non-AK Res.

X We were at the Kantisha lodge we could get to as many of the 

park as we wished so I am coming back with a guide that can help 

me to vamp out in the park.

Non-AK Res.

X We were cruise ship based, so we didn't have much experience 

on the roads.

Non-AK Res.

X We were in Ketchikan and there is only about 25 miles of road so 

there wasn't a lot of opportunity for problems!

Non-AK Res.

X We were in Soldotna trying to find the Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge and the signs were terrible. We almost gave up but did go 

back and find it. Glad we did but you need a lot of signage out 

there.. Great trip otherwise.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
247 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X We were lucky enough to have a friend who lives in AK loan us 

their car otherwise we may not have taken the trip as car rental 

is Outrageous!

Non-AK Res.

X X We were really impressed with the Chena River State 

Recreational Area North of Fairbanks. Look at providing a similar 

experience with river access, lake access, and camping areas with 

road management. Some area management without recreation 

facilities would work great on federal lands in Alaska. Use small 

towns and businesses as getaways to these areas. It would be a 

win-win situation for both Alaska residents and tourists. (PS) All 

remarks made due to WET, RAINY conditions on our trip.

Non-AK Res.

X We were surprised about the existing infrastructure, which was in 

excellent shape. No issues at all.

Non-AK Res.

X We were traveling on our personal sailboat & were thoroughly 

impressed with everything we experienced in AK.

Non-AK Res.

X We were very pleased with the transportation private and public 

that we dealt with during our various stays in various towns in 

Alaska. All were very friendly and helpful and presented us with 

many helpful tips and ideas on what to do as well as local favorite 

places to eat while visiting their cities.

Non-AK Res.

X We were very pleased with transportation through federal public 

lands on our vacation especially the Alaska Train. The handing 

and delivery of our luggage and our hotel was excellent. Also the 

guides/hostesses were very pleasant. We have no complaints.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
248 | P a g e Basic Local Info Recreation

Travel/Transportation Ferry

/AMHS

CommunicationVery SatisfiedNoneMisc.

Additional Feed Back on Travel Experience Residency

X We wished there were more frequent express ferry options to the 

different islands from Juneau.

Non-AK Res.

X When boating on the refuge some federal employees act as if it is 

there refuge not the ours. Even to go so far as telling me to 

leave. This has happens more than once.

AK Res.

X Widen the Dalton highway so a guy with a flat tire can have 

somewhere to go and not create safety hazard, those trucks 

cannot stop on a dime even in good conditions, let alone heavily 

loaded and on ice.

AK Res.

X Wonderful! Would like to visit again Non-AK Res.

X Your state is Wonderful! Non-AK Res.
249 | P a g e

Responses to Open-ended Question: Suggestions for How Travel to/through Public Lands can be Improved 

Table 91. Other Suggestions for Improving Travel to/through Federal Lands. Recreation Travel/Transp. Related Basic Local Information Regulations Communication Very Satisfied Misc. None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X 1. Make finishing the Wickersham dome trail-hardening 

project a priority over more distance projects such as Denali 

Park/Wrangell St. Elias/etc.. where tourists dominate people 

of Alaska want to use trails near their towns.

2. Re-instate trash service at Tolovana River access to White 

Mountains, better to upgrade the toilet facilities while you 

are at it, I have had to use the woods at least 85 of the last 

100 visits to the area.

3. Trail-hardening or at least drainage for Mt. Prindle Trail at 

a spot about 1.5 miles in from campground and Nome Creek 

rock crossing

AK Res.

X A tire repair shop in Cantwell would have been beneficial to 

us during this trip.

AK Res.

X Above car level bus stop signs in supermarket car parks. Non-AK Res.

X Add more ATV trails. Trails along ridges like Compeau Trail 

can be easily maintained and are quite popular

AK Res.

X Additional parking would be helpful - creatively placed to 

minimize impact on space and views. It would be nice to 

somehow limit the number of buses going through parks and 

forests, but I'm not sure how that can be done without 

causing issues.

AK Res.

Continues 
250 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Again, perhaps beyond the scope of the survey, but make 

the train cheaper than renting a car and make airlines 

change their bicycle shipping fees! Good luck with both 

those goals ;)

Non-AK Res.

X Allow more private vehicle access, especially for Denali. The 

park is beautiful and not all are able to ride on the bus tours.

Non-AK Res.

X Allowing private vehicles further into Denali National Park. Non-AK Res.

X As we had nothing to do with transport we cannot answer 

this as we had no experience of roads etc.

Non-AK Res.

X At this time, I believe you folks are doing a great job to 

preserve The Last Frontier for future generations. Thank 

you!!

Non-AK Res.

X Baby friendliness on buses. Maybe more stops, longer stops. Non-AK Res.

X Better guidance on guns and how they can be stored, 

transported...and all of this being made more convenient on 

NPS lands (Denali). Seems there is a standoff-ish attitude 

toward communication about firearms -- like they don't 

want us to bring them so the leave us in the dark, which puts 

us at risk in a number of ways.

Non-AK Res.

X Better quality road construction so there will be less frost 

heaves

Non-AK Res.

X Better road maintenance Non-AK Res.

X Better Signage! Non-AK Res.

Continues 
251 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Bigger/longer camp sites. Given the amount of public lands, 

more and bigger sites should not be hard to come up with

Non-AK Res.

X BLM, Rangers, etc... are always appreciated when we need 

them and even when we don't

AK Res.

X Buses to trailhead Non-AK Res.

X Can you relocate some of those spectacular mountain views 

to Iowa?

Non-AK Res.

X Can't think of any. We drove 2300 miles in 16 days and 

never encountered any issues. We read up on the roads 

using the Alaska Milepost and other public information. 

Follow the map and the instructions and everything was 

expected.

Non-AK Res.

X X Denali was crowded, but we knew and expected that. The 

Denali transportation system was crowded and bumpy and 

dreadfully slow, with my sister's bus arriving 2-3 hour late, 

causing us anxiety. With no cell coverage she was unable to 

call and tell us of the delay.

Non-AK Res.

X Develop regulations governing excess noise:

1. lack of mufflers + "jake brakes" on heavy truck diesels.

2. Very inadequate mufflers on most aircraft engines.

3. Use of supersonic prop. blades in wilderness airspace e.g. 

2 blad C-185 and many helicopters.

. Minimal overflight in wilderness 2000 ft afl.

This took 47 minutes ("less than 20 min") hah!, it deserves 

more thoughtful answers than that.

AK Res.

Continues 
252 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Don't change anything! Leave it wild. Non-AK Res.

X During high volume more picture spots for various times will

help too many to be at the same spot at one time

Non-AK Res.

X Everything was good. Non-AK Res.

X Fill in some of the pot holes on the roads Non-AK Res.

X Fix Dalton Highway AK Res.

X Fix road AK Res.

X Fix roads. We really had a wonderful 6 weeks in Alaska Non-AK Res.

X fix your bad roads Non-AK Res.

X For hiking or other back country endeavors, many people 

seemed unprepared for the for the time commitments or 

physical ability required to complete some of the activities. 

While my party has back country experience, we met others 

without that experience struggling on trails that were 

beyond their capabilities. Perhaps a simple rating system 

marking trails as "easy" or "expert" might be useful. A 

picture representation like the green circles and black 

diamonds found at ski resorts, as language may have been a 

barrier in some cases.

Non-AK Res.

X Glad there is limited traffic in Denali...we were 90 miles 

inside.

Non-AK Res.

X Had no problems, great time Non-AK Res.

Continues 
253 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Have a free shuttle available, such as Acadia National Park's free 

"Island Explorer Bus."

Non-AK Res.

X Have commercial boat shuttle access to Brooks Falls. There 

formerly was one.

AK Res.

X Have SE AK be its own state- Thank you AK Res.

X I believe the exit glacier parking lot was full shortly after we got 

there.

Non-AK Res.

X I do like frequent passing lanes. AK Res.

X I do not. Non-AK Res.

X I don't understand how the roads in northern Canada can be so 

much better than those in Alaska. They experience similar 

weather. When I drove the Top of the World road from Dawson 

City, I was ashamed at how poor the US highway was compared 

to Canada. The speed limit is 50 MPH. I was doing 25 MPH and 

asked my husband if he thought I should slow down more.

Non-AK Res.

X I fully endorse the traffic policies that are in place for the Denali 

park road.

Non-AK Res.

X X I like the way you monitored the number of visitors on the bear 

viewing platform. However photographers took up much space 

without sharing the space with others. I wonder if you should 

have a separate area for serious photographers and all of their 

equipment. I am short and it was difficult for me to see and to 

find a space. Perhaps you are allowing too many people on the 

platforms at once or maybe you could ask people to stand at 

the front for a limited period of time.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
254 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

x I really don't have any major complaints. Our trip was great! Non-AK Res.

X I think the State as a whole has done a Fantastic job Non-AK Res.

X I think there should be some sort of public bus system between 

hotels and food locations in Denali. The hotels run shuttles to 

scenic areas, but you are trapped in hotels for low quality, high 

cost food. I would have liked to be able to have other choice, or 

hotels have to up their game because of competition.

Non-AK Res.

X X I thought it all worked very well -- if volume of traffic is 

increased it will spoil the nature of Alaska

Non-AK Res.

X I was generally satisfied with my experience within Federal 

public lands (most problems were with getting to those areas, 

not while I was there). That said, a shuttle service between 

Gustavus and Glacier Bay would although some different 

vacation options for that leg of a trip. Klondike Gold Rush and 

Sitka NHPs were both very walkable, so transportation was not 

an issue; I required a rental vehicle to visit Mendenhall Glacier, 

and that really seemed to be the only option since I was staying 

at a hotel near the airport.

Non-AK Res.

X X I would have loved to see more of Denali via road 

transportation but also like that there are not a lot of 

cars/campers inside the park. Small planes are too pricey for 

families. Not sure if more of the park can be accessed without 

ruining it.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
255 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMISCNone

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X I would like non-campers to be able to park in National 

Campgrounds for fishing access, restroom use, etc.

Non-AK Res.

X I would like to see more hiking trails. Although I probably won't 

return to Alaska again, I think others would like to have more 

hikes available. If I still lived there, I would like more trails.

Non-AK Res.

X I would love to see more hiking trails, preservation of old 

growth trees and forests, and an end to clear-cutting. The forest 

service brochures describing trees, plants, animals are excellent 

and should be continued. Also cut down on the number of large 

cruise ship visits to the Alaskan coast.

Non-AK Res.

X If all forms of transportation could be like the gold star Alaskan 

railroad it would be perfect! We loved the naturalist onboard, 

the food and drink and the ride. Plus, they picked up and 

delivered our luggage to the hotel in Seward! Harbor 360. That 

was wonderful. We did 3 rail trips. All A+ Thank you!

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
256 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMISCNone

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X I suspect road construction is a never ending constant 

condition. Hard to plan daily travel distance without knowing 

construction delays. I would love to go again but Canada is a 

long way to get to Alaska. Perhaps I would cruise and also take 

a companion.

Better planning on my part--be good to go with someone who 

has been there and done that

I hike, bike, tennis, golf and kayak. I am also 75, so time is not 

on my side.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
257 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X If there was a way to know the weather better for the flight crew as well as the 

customers it might be helpful. It would be better if it had been listed or we'd of 

been told exactly where the plane was to land on a map, and if other activities 

would have been listed - such as it would have been ok to pack my rod & reel 

and also if I would have known that there was lodging available and we could 

have spent the night there and gone home the next or another day. Because 

the trip from Anchorage to Katmai - (which involved 2 trips to Homer because 

1st trip Cxld due to weather) We drove to Homer - gas. Had to arrive day before 

for check in and bear safety with Commercial Plane company, this required 

arrival the day before- motel and meals expense overnight. Having expected a 

return close to 7 pm we had booked the 2nd night motel too. On the 2nd trip, 

same 2 nights, plus planned to fish the day before so left Anchorage earlier in 

morning on 1st day. The trip for 2 from Anchorage to Katmai cost just over 

$2400 total I can fly with a companion to Hawaii, spend a week in a good 

motel, eat and have a rental car and spend less than I did on the Katmai trip, 

and we were only on the ground 4 hours at Katmai! I had checked the going 

flights from competitors, checked other hotel prices and there was no "better" 

deal. I cannot believe that the price of a motel on the Kenai peninsula cost over 

$180 when booked over 2 months in advance or day of, made no difference. 

So, if there was a shuttle bus avail from Anch. to Homer, an economical 

accommodations in Homer as well as transportation made avail by plane or 

boat to Katmai, lodging accommodations and meals available once there - all at 

affordable rates it would be an improvement. Also, there were 3 platforms 

available, 1 was not used by anyone. The Brooks Falls platform was so crowded 

that no videos could be taken without hearing all the other people talking, it 

was difficult to get up front in order to film the falls and bears (its

AK Res.

Continues 
258 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Improve buses. Non-AK Res.

X Improve dust binding on non-paved vehicle roads Non-AK Res.

X Improve trail maps. There are so many ways to shared trail route information 

now. Google earth files, downloadable GPX file, web maps with photos, mile

markers and other information, downloadable pdf trail maps with topographic 

information.

AK Res.

X improve your roads Non-AK Res.

X X In my opinion there are not enough roads to remote areas in Alaska. For 

instance Colorado has many more dirt roads allowing access to remote camping 

areas. In Alaska one tends more to stay in campgrounds because of the lack of 

roads into more of the interior.

AK Res.

X X In Sitka and Ketchikan we've used the public bus system. Very good servicepleasant drivers. especially in Ketchikan we encountered the friendliest bus 

driver ever. Valerie is exceptional: friendly, helpful, caring and is the best 

ambassador for her city.

Non-AK Res.

X Increase travel on the Marine Hwy. System so people can visit their families in 

remote areas more often.

AK Res.

X Instigate a method of contacting reservation holders when ferry service is 

delayed or cancelled.

Non-AK Res.

X X It needs to stay the same. It has the perfect feeling of adventure Non-AK Res.

X It was very organized and allowed for a lot of visitors without too much impact 

on the land.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
259 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X It would be nicer if float planes had designated take-off/landing areas when they're 

in major waterway channels. Or at least be able to communicate with boats via 

VHF to alert them of their take-off or landing path. For us not used to sharing the 

waterways with planes, it was a bit nerve-wrecking.

Non-AK Res.

X It's really pretty good (in my non-Alaskan estimation) Non-AK Res.

X Just a little more road maintenance please Non-AK Res.

X Just continue to do things like this - obvious concern for users. All Federal 

employees were great.

Non-AK Res.

X X Keep it as remote as possible. Don't spoil the wilderness. Disallow large vehicles, 

especially motor homes.

Non-AK Res.

X keep it beautiful! AK Res.

X Keep multi use land use available. Allow for some areas to be remote and 

undeveloped, so overcrowding does not occur.

AK Res.

X Keeping roads well graded and free of debris. Hard at times, I know. AK Res.

X X Less restrictions better roads. AK Res.

X X Liked the public transportation Non-AK Res.

X X Local residents should be allowed to/from boat access within Glacier Bay NP's 

Bartlett Cove without restriction for safety, moorage and refueling from outside 

the Park. Local residents should be allowed boating use within Glacier Bay within 

needing a permit

AK Res.

X X Love boardwalks and improved walking surfaces in tundra areas. Less ATV access. AK Res.

X X Maintain road access to campgrounds and signage to concentrate usage 

particularly of ATVs.

AK Res.

Continues 
260 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Make a better effort to include private services, such as lodges with gasoline, 

tire repair, food and lodging. I know you cannot vouch for their services or 

even guarantee that they will be open for business but a brief description of 

services and a telephone number to call would be helpful.

AK Res.

X Make college students aware of what to do with disabled people. They could 

have cared less at Denali

Non-AK Res.

X Maps at trailheads/parking would be a nice bonus but not totally necessary. 

Wasn't always sure of how much distance some loop/out & back trails covered, 

had to look online before heading to the parks. Otherwise - encountered no 

issues.

Non-AK Res.

X Marking turnouts in advance so people would know what is coming up without

stopping suddenly when they see them. Traffic flow might be smoother.

Non-AK Res.

X Maybe have vehicles for rent at some of the federal land areas (can take the 

train to get to Denali but have van for rent inside the park)

Non-AK Res.

X Minimize roads to maintain wildness Non-AK Res.

X More ATV trails AK Res.

X More bike paths and mountain bike trails. More developed remote campsites 

and public use cabins.

AK Res.

X More camping opportunities. Non-AK Res.

X More funding for recreation so that trails can be maintained. AK Res.

X More hiking/biking trails at Glacier Bay Nat'l Park. One of Point Gustavus 

w/bridges from Dude Creek would be nice

AK Res.

X More information on procedures for first time visitors Non-AK Res.

X More information on nearest gas station. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
261 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X More paved roads & more signs do that visitors know that they are heading the 

right direction

Non-AK Res.

X X More paved roads and more trails for 4-wheelers AK Res.

X More pull outs . We wanted to drive slow and caused back-ups . This was on 

the 14 Mike stretch into the big rock at Denali .

Non-AK Res.

X More rest areas, more litter boxes Non-AK Res.

X More science on the impacts to hydrology, vegetation, and other users' 

experience from ATV traffic. Especially during rainy wet years, they seem to 

destroy trails, create new drainage patterns, destroy overburden vegetation 

and lead to thermokarst. There are more of them all the time creating new 

trails, they stink and are noisy. I believe their use should be restricted to the 

elderly or disabled on many public lands.

AK Res.

X X More systems like you have at Denali to minimize human impact on the last 

great frontier. Although, I believe the transportation provided by the park 

should be affordable. Perhaps these systems should be privatized.

Non-AK Res.

X More tours Non-AK Res.

X More towers Non-AK Res.

X More trail markers on the Chilkoot. Non-AK Res.

X More trails including trails dedicated to bicycling. Use of private aircraft should 

be encouraged and more airfields suitable for small private aircraft should be 

provided or a means devised so that the public can develop airstrips.

AK Res.

X More transport-less expensive trains Non-AK Res.

Continues 
262 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X X More wet weather secondary roads. Provide recreation opportunities through 

road design and management. Really nobody can afford additional rec facilities 

and their maintenance costs.

Non-AK Res.

X No (16x) Non-AK Res.

X No (4x) AK Res.

X No- have a great trip, great job! Non-AK Res.

X No-- large state, small population; environmental challenges with building and 

maintaining--We think the road from Boundary to Chicken needs to be graded 

more often then it apparently is...and that is state not fed.

Non-AK Res.

X No- we had a great travel experience! Non-AK Res.

X No, it was truly wonderful. Non-AK Res.

X No. Parking was adequate and I backpacked the entire trip. AK Res.

X X X Not at Nome Creek, very pleased with the services, trails & campgrounds here 

in the white mountains. Except for no cell phone coverage in case of an 

emergency.

AK Res.

X not rush everything...seems tours give u little time to get off bus or whatever. 

take pic then hurry back on...we had nooooo time to enjoy areas

Non-AK Res.

X X No. All modes of transport were excellent and on time. Roads all in good 

condition. All commercial flights were full; this was July and presumably the 

busiest month of the year.

Non-AK Res.

X No. I think the way Denali National Park is set up so that private vehicles can 

only drive to Mile 15 is appropriate. Allowing private vehicles to travel freely 

through the park would ruin it, in my opinion.

Non-AK Res.

Continues 
263 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X X No-we were pleased with the way roads etc. were laid out/designed. Non-AK Res.

X Offer more options to get to Chilkoot trailhead. Non-AK Res.

X Open additional driving options into Denali. Non-AK Res.

X Other than the above, no; Alaska is captivating and has such a strong appeal to 

look closer and experience the scenery first hand.

Non-AK Res.

X Our main transportation was the cruise ship as well as the private and public 

buses. We also did some fishing and road the train. Each of these were great 

experiences (except we didn't catch any fish). We loved that we were allowed 

to go as close as possible to the glaciers since that area is very protected. We 

also appreciated the cruise ships explanation of the various protected areas, 

even asking us to be quite and just enjoy the beauty of what we were viewing.

Non-AK Res.

X Phone or internet service. Non-AK Res.

X Please mentions at Denali visitor center, that mount McKinley is now mount 

Denali and do not ignore the first nation and their history in that area.

Non-AK Res.

X X Please use an intelligent approach to classifying areas as "non-motorized". 

There are a lot of users who are alienated from public lands due to an inability 

to operate off-road/off-highway vehicles responsibly on public lands. In Alaska, 

where most of te state is roadless already, it seems like the necessity for trails 

to be classified as non-motorized should be limited.

Thank you for your time.

AK Res.

Continues 
264 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Post schedules at hotels AK Res.

X Reduce hunting to the point that natural balances of nature's creatures can 

occur

AK Res.

X Road improvements are necessary. We just have to wait and not be in a hurry. Non-AK Res.

X See above AK Res.

X See above Non-AK Res.

X See above. Trails that are properly designed to drain water and that are nonmotorized can be very cheap to build and maintain. I used to do this work in 

the eastern US. 

Thanks for the survey!

AK Res.

X Seemed fine to me Non-AK Res.

X Seward highway traveling north from Anchorage to Denali was almost 

impassible during light to moderate rain. The lane grooves from traffic were 

pooling with water and led to dangerous hydroplaning conditions.

Non-AK Res.

X Signs or markers indicating historical areas. AK Res.

X T Non-AK Res.

X The design of the windows on the Denali bus system are identical and 

unchanged since the school buses that I used as a child in the 1960's. Windows 

work poorly and pose a danger to those who have to stand and manipulate 

them. The windows have to be able to open repeatedly during every trip, so 

they are very important to the people who want to take pictures. The window 

design has always been bad and needs to be replaced. I am certain that a 

better engineered design could be employed.

Non-AK Res.

Continues
265 | P a g e

Continues Recreation Travel/Transportation 

RelatedBasic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X X The Forest Service CG in Sitka is closed to thru traffic, but open to go to the artesian 

well. Their reason it’s hard to maintain the road. That's hard to believe when they are 

just now completing a multi-million dollar office complex here. To boot, they don't 

even brush out their signs to the campgrounds and picnic area. Our responses to this 

survey are based on hiking in the Totem Historic Park here in Sitka.

AK Res.

X X The green bus in Denali is a fantastic way to see the sites and who could ask for a 

better price! Needs more advertisement. The Wilderness bus was great too, but I 

enjoy more of "my own" handling in places like Denali.

Non-AK Res.

X The horse trails should be cleared of burnt and down trees. Today most old trails 

can't even be found. Like the ones to and around Tustumena lake. More lakes should 

be open to float planes.

AK Res.

X The less regulation the better. AK Res.

X The tangle lakes are a moose calving ground. there is an abundance of other wildlife. I 

believe you should have a 10 horsepower boat motor limit. this is a place to hear 

when you listen, to see when you look, and to feel when you touch. A place worthy 

of our protection

AK Res.

X There will always be balance between what people want from federal lands. Even 

so, I was surprised to see how cavalier folks who were camping at Hidden Lake 

campground were about bear safety (Much more so than at other public 

campgrounds I have stayed i in Alaska. ) USFW should maybe step up their game 

there, perhaps with more officer intervention and education. (Signs don't seem to be 

keeping coolers off of picnic tables!)

Non-AK Res.

X Traffic through Anchorage might be improved by developing some overpasses, 

effectively avoiding same level crossings in down-town.

Non-AK Res.

X Trails need better maintenance. AK Res.
266 | P a g e Recreation Travel/Transp. Related

Basic Local InformationRegulationsCommunicationVery SatisfiedMisc.None

Other Suggestions for Improving Travel 

to/through Federal Lands Residency

X Transportation. Examples, in Yosemite, Grand Canyon, there are buses that do a 

loop so one can get to a trail head, go to another part of the park, etc. I realize 

those parks have a lot more population density.

Non-AK Res.

X True treasure. Thank you for being the keeper. Non-AK Res.

X Unfortunately can't control rain, fog or high waves. We had a great trip. Non-AK Res.

X Use D1 Rock on the trails. AK Res.

X Very satisfied . Excellent trip through Alaska during our 11 weeks and 5000+ miles. 

Beautiful Country

Non-AK Res.

X We had no problems traveling in our own private boat except for bad weather 

preventing us from traveling. But we expected it would happen on occasion.

Non-AK Res.

X We walk, use local transportation, or hitch a ride . Non-AK Res.

X What a wonderful experience to visit Alaska. A fest for the eye around every corner Non-AK Res.

X Work with the DOT to improve the road. The campground host at Tangle Lakes was 

a very good campground host!

Non-AK Res.

X Would like to see more improved trails throughout Denali Park for hikers that don't 

backpack, i.e. day hikers

Non-AK Res.

X Would prefer to keep the transportation more primitive even if that does mean a 

less smooth ride

Non-AK Res.

X You are doing a great job!, Non-AK Res.

X You're doing a great job. keep it up! Non-AK Res.

X Thank you Non-AK Res.

X Thanks for the survey! Non-AK Res.

X Trail guides on website, more information regarding Green and Brown line buses 

favoring the brown bus. Include what trails are at each stop on the green line in 

Denali

Non-AK Res.
267 | P a g e

Question 12 Follow up 

12. Which activity(s) were you and your personal group not able to participate in? 

There were 60 people who indicated that there were activities they were unable to participate in. Of 

those six mentioned, boating, 10 flightseeing, three sightseeing, seven fishing, 12 hiking, three 

mentioned camping and 20 mentioned specific places for the activities. 

Code: Non-motorized Boating 

 Whitewater boating 2. Tundra hikes and mountains 

 as mentioned, the rivers were too high for planned canoeing/ kayaking trip 

 Kayaking, fishing, mountain biking, hiking 

 Kayaking, weather and ran out of time. 

 Unable to sail in to Tracy Arm fjord 

 I had hoped to take a half-day sea kayak trip through the concessionaire at Glacier Bay NP, but 

as a single traveler, the concessionaire was unable to accommodate me (i.e., not the 

minimum number of people for such a trip). 

Code: Flightseeing 

 Flight to Denali and landing glacier 

 Flightsee cancelled due to weather 

 a visiting tour was cancelled, ten thousand volcans tour was delated. The bus was out off order 

 Air tour of Denali and Bear watching 

 Helicopter ride 

 Glacier tour due to inclement weather 

 Homer flying bear vieuwing 

 We did not get to visit Mendenhall Glacier as it was raining and there was heavy fog. The 

helicopters could not fly. This was the main reason for coming to Alaska (to go there). 

 Mystic Fiords float plane in Ketchikan 

 One overflight tour was canceled due to weather conditions. 

Code: Sightseeing (by land) 

 Busing all the way back 

 Drive into Denali - closed because of a bear incident with a stupid person. 

 Sight seeing 

Code: Fishing 

 Fishing 

 Fishing due to poor weather. 

 fishing, horseback trail riding, biking 

 *1 mention in other comment 

 I would have fished and seen more of the available country (surrounding land) that I was 

walking around in 

 Viewing salmon spawning, Calm digging 

 Rock climbing due to rainy weather, fishing 
268 | P a g e

Code: Hiking 

 Hikes x2

 Hikes, denali 

 Hiking at campgrounds due to bear at Savage River area. 

 Hiking in Denali Nat Park was limited due to heavy rain & fog. We plan on visiting again. 

Beautiful area! 

 Hiking primrose etc. and driving the last 3'miles of the 15 mile drive in Denali national park due 

to bear incident 

 hiking trails were closed due to bear activity 

 hiking/camping 

 Had hoped to do more hiking but it rained quite a bit while we were in Denali 

 Random hikes 

 We were limited on time or we would have spent more time at visitor centers and trail 

wandering1 

*1 mention in other comment 

Code: Place 

 Denali Park 

 Destinations in Skagway 

 could not see Mount McKinley. we were there 3 days. guess we have to come back!!! 

 Decided not to visit federal public lands in Skagway area due to weather and ferry delay 

 Visiting the sled dog demonstration at Denali. Lack of time. Had we known about it before 

we left home we would have probably been able to incorporate this into our trip. We wanted 

to do some hiking so that took precedent. 

 We simply ran out of time. We would have liked to travel deeper into Denali Park, but 

because of time constraints, we chose to hike no further in than Toklat River. 

 Sled dog facility at Denali 

 There was a landslide preventing us from getting all the way to Wonder Lake. 

Code Camping: 

 One night stay at Fures Cabin in Katmai National Park 

 overnight camping in wickersham dome area 

Code: Other 

 berry picking 

 could not always find a campground space for our 20 foot trailer 

 Day guided trips due to lack of handicap access 

 Finishing the hike. too much fog/rain/water flowing down social trails. Younger set had to 

head back. We got to tors but couldn't see well enough due to constant rain and fog to get to 

the end of the trail. still a fun trip. 

 Indian dancing 
269 | P a g e

 My group wanted to ride our motorcycles from Wickersham Dome Trailhead to McKay 

Creek/Nome Creek/ US Creek Area. This would be an exceptional off-road ride and we are 

quite prepared for the challenge/difficulty it would present physically. Our issue is hat 

according to all the maps we can find, there is a short section of non-motorized land (Beaver 

Creek Wildlands Area) that interrupts the existing trail. We would like to use this trail but are 

unwilling to break the law to do so. Please help! 

 Not allowed boat access 

 Part of trails 

 Rained out 

 Ran out of time to do it all. Way bigger than planned for! 

 Several guided tours, cause it was too expensive. 

 Trail blocked by snow. Could not go as far as planned. snow pack had not melted for season. 

 Trails closed to UTV 

Question 13- “Other” response

Which of the following reasons explain why you did not engage in the activity? Other (please specify: 

As for the 12 people did not engage in an activity due to a circumstance not listed, 3 were due to a lack 

of information, two were due to a mechanical issue. 

Code: Informational 

 lack of good information form NPS and Denali NP 

 No maps 

 arranging transportation was difficult, I did not learn early enough about the bicycle trail 

availability to fully take adavantage of this resource as much as I would have liked once I 

discovered it. 

Code: Mechanical Breakdown 

 Ferry broke down and caused delay. 

 our POV broke down :( 

Code: Other 

 The bus was over 

 water level too low = rocks + grounding 

 money 

 I already know the trail shelter to be an unsatisfactory site for my new hiker to gain first time 

experience with overnight trip, probably do that at tabletop mountain 

 Injury 

 Insufficient number to book tour. 

 Berries not ready 
270 | P a g e

Question 16 Follow up 

During your trip, did you experience any delays or other problems making connections from one form 

of transportation to another? For example, a weather delay making a connection from a bus to a 

train? 

___ Yes  IF YES, Please indicate the nature of the problem. Please be as specific as possible. 

As for the 60 who indicated that they experienced delays or problems making connections, 13 

experienced delays due to weather, four had trouble due to the computer issues Delta experienced, and 

seven had delays due to road construction or poor road conditions. 

Code: Weather 

 8 hour weather delay on Kodiak Island. Alaska Marine Highway ferry from Juneau to Skagway 

was 2 hours late arriving. 

 Not a big deal, but we were going to float the Kenai twice in June. By the second time, it was 

too high which I guess we can blame on teh weather. 

 We had reservations, the commercial airline cancelled them due to inclement weather & 

offered us choice of another reservation or money return. 

 weather delayed us from traveling 

 Weather prevented flying out on float plane 

 Wind 

 Yes, we got in to Juneau one-half hour late due to weather. 

 Yes. Weather on the way home delayed our flights. 

 flight home delayed due to weather in the lower 48 

 Initial delay reaching AK due to American Airlines delay initially allegedly due to the weather. 24 

hr. delay. 

 Bad weather 

 flight home delayed due to weather in the lower 48 

 Initial delay reaching AK due to American Airlines delay initially allegedly due to the weather. 24 

hr. delay. 

Code: Delta Computer System 

 Delta airline major computer system malfunction stranded us for 1 day 

 Delta Airlines meltdown as we commenced travel in Wisconsin and Minnesota. 

 Delta had serious computer problems, so our plane was significantly delayed to Seattle, and 

significantly delayed from Seattle to Detroit. We had no problems traveling within Alaska, with 

the exception of weather related cancellations. 

 We were delayed a day because of the Delta computer snafu that trapped so many travelers. 

We were unable to make our flight on time from Seattle, so we had to wait a day. 

Code Road Conditions/Construction: 

 Construction delays 

 Delays with road repairs but expected 

 Poor road conditions delayed us getting to the hotel 

 Construction delays 

 Road construction 

 YOUR ROADS ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR Valdez to TOK to the Canadian Boarder 
271 | P a g e

Code: Air 

 Airline Delay (not weather) 

 Airplane mechanical problems in Denver on the way to Alaska. 

 airport delay from ANC to MPS 

 charter flight was cancelled; had to reschedule on different airline 

 onnecting flight in ORD missed. Arrived six hours late to ANC 

 Connecting flight to anchorage had mechanical problems. 2hour delay 

 From Alaska Air to pontoon plane at Ketchican to Prince of Wales Island 

 when we left fairbanks airport the plane was about an hour late departing due to waiting for 

someone but it didn't affect us as we had a three hour wait planned at Seattle. 

 Only flying home from Vancouver after leaving alaska 

 Pacific airways delayed us at airport 

 plaine cancelled 

 planes being late 

 privat charter was full 

 Flight from Wrangell to Anchorage cancelled 6/23. Could not leave until 6/24 

 Just air flight 

Code: Boat 

 Alaska Ferry from Haines to Skagway delayed by 2.5 hours as we waiting for other ferry which 

was late to leave the dock free in Skagway 

 Alaska Marine Highway ferry cancelled due to breakdown on one day 

 Ferry, due to unable to connect on the internet, I was unable to make a reservation. Therefore 

we were on standby on the Ferry from Haynes to Skagway and were unable to get on, because 

the ship was smaller than used to be on did not take on as many cars, V, etc. 

 Our ferry boat broke down and we had to make a different reservation. This meant we did not 

have as much time to explore the inside passage. 

 delayed Alaska ferry departure from Bellingham, WA 

 Missed our original ferry connection from Juneau to Skagway. 

 Missed shore excursion at Sitka because of no one from cruise ship to give directions 

 Only a cancellation to Fox Island from Seward 

 Real slow checking in Alaska ferry in Prince Rupert-had to walk quute a distance to ticket booth 

and a very long time to get boarding pass 

 Scheduled ferry rant late. We were rebooked on another one, it was really no problem for us. 

 The Ferry has a schedule that is Marine friendly, not tourist friendly (early departures, 

terminals locked at night) 

Code: Ground Transportation 

 Buses in the Juneau area were a problem 

 city bus only ran every hour, rain delayed making our bus 

 Had to wait on shuttle native heritage car Juneau due to size of group 

 I had a 5 am taxi pick-up scheduled to get me to the airport (Juneau) for a 6:30 AM flight and at 

4:45, the cab company called to say the y had no driver available. I did make my flight because 

another cab company had a driver available. 

 In Anchorage the bus timetable posted was wrong and so we missed a bus and waited an hour. 
272 | P a g e

 There was a marathon blocking roads to train station in Anchorage and almost missed train. 

They should have accommodated one way to the transportation center. 

 Tour dhuttle from Sitka ferry terminal to downtown required wait for another bus becuase 

there were too many passengers; Alaska Airlines flight from Juneau to Gustavus delayed due to 

mechincal problems which delayed arrival to meet bus to Glacier Bay Lodg (although bus 

waited) 

 Gray Line did not make a reservation for us on the Alaska RR. 

Code: Other 

 could not get through customs to make our connections from the ship 

 delay from portland to seattle to connect to Sitka 

 Forest fire near Anchorage caused 3 hour traffic delay. 

 Mother bear was standing between us and the trailhead. 

 We did not bring our passports. We had ready cards we thought would work to get into 

Canada 

 We had a couple flat tires along the way. 

Question 18 10 text followup 

During your trip, to what extent do you feel the following issues were a problem when you were visiting 

Federal public lands (e.g., National Parks, National Forests, National Recreation Areas, National Wildlife 

Refuges)? Other (Please specify:____________________) 

As for the 26 who had problems other than those listed, seven were about road conditions or 

construction, three had problems with facilities, and two had issues with off leash dogs and their waste. 

Code: crowds 

 At the cafe at Denali Park it was a bit confusing when ordering and paying . Lg crowds and 

slow food prep. 

 TOO MANY CRUISE SHIPS! THEY RUIN THE EXPERIENCE FOR THOSE OF US WHO WHOULD 

HAVE LIKED TO SEE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUGE SHIPS 

BLOCKING THE VIEWS!!! 

Code: Roads 

 bad roads, not enough warning for pull outs 

 Delays due to widespread road construction 

 too many bad roads 

 private corporations and construction causes main congestion and hazard 

 road into the ares was bad but then we saw they were fixing it and would be better 

 Paved roads were great. some dirt roads were very bumpy. 

Code Accessibility: 

 Help for disabled! 

Code Weather: 

 Denali always hidden in clouds. But that's hardly your fault. 
273 | P a g e

Code Trails: 

 Erosion on ATV roads 

Code Facilities: 

 Lack of camping in Denali 

 Lack of RV, larger vehicle room 

 Poor boat tramp at Jims Landing 

Code: Pets 

 leash law not inforces, dog fesce not picked up. 

 People with dogs off leash in bird nesting areas. Dog owners not cleaning up after their dogs. 

Code: Signage 

 Need a sign pointing to the Laughton Glacier outhouse! 

 Code Other: 

 used un-cruise boat 

 Non-parent hosts lack tolerance for children 

 To few places with drinking water 

 Unsightly clearcut areas 

 My party was appalled to see hunters with rifles walking down the trail towards us when we 

were on a hike to the Russian Falls on the Kenai Peninsula 

 Insufficient Resources 

 Didn't allow local residents sufficient use. 

 boats with huge motors 

Follow-up Question 19 

Thinking about your trip, would you have liked to have seen more of, the same, or less of each of the 

following on the Federal public lands that you saw or visited (e.g., National Parks, National Forests, 

National Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers)? Other (please 

specify:_____________________) 

As for the 12 who marked other three respondents had comments about roads (roadside pullouts, 

maintenance, safe surfaced roads), two wanted more access to off road motorized vehicles. 

Note: I only used 12 responses since one was NA and one was No Opinion. 

Code: Roads 

 more roadside pull-outs 

 Road Maintenance - potholes need filling 

 roads with "safe" surface. By "safe" a surface that I would not get stuck in rainy weather. Not 

familiar with secondary road conditions in Alaska when wet. 

Code: Access(Regulations) 

 Allow overnite rv parking. 

 I think there should be more motorcycle specific trails open to motorized. I.E.: trails less than 

48" wide and not open to ATV use which creates two-track. Ideally Singletrack trail open to 

Hikers, Cyclists, Horses, Motorcycles much like many public lans in the American West. 
274 | P a g e

 river access for fishing 

 use of atvs 

Code: Facilities 

 Interpretive/Natural info signs/ Ditto for nature trails 

 More public internet wi-fi services. 

 more trashbins 

Code: Other 

 used un-cruise boat 

 shop for reasonable price food 
275 | P a g e

Appendix F Non-Recreational Survey Results 

Of the non-recreational survey respondents, 64% were from Alaska, 32% from the United States but not 

Alaska, and 3.6% were foreign. 31 states were listed, with California and Washington State being the 

most frequently listed. Of the foreign respondents only 7 countries were listed: Brazil, Columbia, United 

Kingdom, Germany, Guyana, India, and the Philippines. 

Table 92. Non-Recreation Respondents' State of Residence for Non-residents of Alaska. 

State1 % of NonRecreational Users

California 18.2%

Washington 9.1%

Texas 3.9%

Florida 3.9%

Colorado 5.2%

Michigan 3.9%

Oregon 1.3%

Arizona 5.2%

n = 77; n = the number of respondents from the US, but not Alaska. 

States not shown (n = 33) had less than 2% response. 

Table 93. Non-Recreational Respondents’ Use of FLMAs in Previous Twelve Months. 

Agency

Don't 

know Never

Less 

than 

monthly

About 

once per 

month

About 

once per 

week

More 

than once 

per week

U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management

Winter n = 139 17% 32% 22% 15% 7% 8%

Summer n = 122 18% 26% 15% 13% 12% 16%

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Winter n = 139 10% 32% 27% 19% 4% 9%

Summer n = 122 15% 21% 17% 21% 12% 16%

U.S. National Park Service

Winter n = 147 4% 28% 28% 17% 7% 16%

Summer n = 137 4% 17% 26% 15% 11% 27%

U.S. Forest Service

Winter n = 153 4% 21% 16% 20% 12% 26%

Summer n = 136 3% 15% 11% 21% 12% 38%

There were 159 resident respondents, one completely skipped this question. Of the 158 who responded to at least one FLMA in 

a particular season, some did not respond for particular FLMAs, and hence the n varies by FLMA. The difference between 158

and each FLMA’s n might represent an undercounting of “never” or “don't know.” Questions about winter months were asked 

first on the survey. This question was asked only to residents. 
276 | P a g e

Table 94. Previous Site Visitation Not Including Today, Non-recreational Residents. 

Previous Visitation to Sample 

Site, Not Including Today Residents

Yes 89%

No 11%

n = 158. 

Table 95. Number of Previous Site Visitations in the Past Year, Non-recreational Residents. 

Number of times visited site in Past 

Year Residents

1 time 13%

2 – 3 times 14%

4 – 6 times 10%

7 – 10 times 8%

More than 10 times 55%

n = 139. 

Table 96. Seasonal Residence of Non-recreational Non-residents. 

Seasonal residence

NonResidents

Yes 54%

No 46%

n = 87. 

Table 97. Previous Visitation to Alaska, Non-recreational Non-residents. 

Previous Visitation to Alaska

Nonresidents

Yes 53%

No 47%

n = 87. 
277 | P a g e

Table 98. Number of Previous Visitations to Alaska in the Past 10 Years, Non-recreational Non-Residents. 

Number of times visited Alaska in 

Past 10 Years Non-residents

1 time 18%

2 – 3 times 29%

4 – 6 times 18%

7 – 10 times 9%

More than 10 times 27%

n = 45. 

Table 99. Types of Transportation Used to Arrive at Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. 

Mode of Transportation1 Residents Non-residents All Respondents

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) 74% 47% 65%

Foot/Hiking 23% 25% 24%

Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry 26% 12% 21%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, 

helicopter) 6% 14% 9%

Bicycle 4% 11% 6%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus 4% 7% 5%

Motorboat 6% 5% 5%

Other 5% 2% 4%

Cruise ship 1% 8% 3%

Private airplane 2% 6% 3%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle 3% 1% 2%

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys) 1% 4% 2%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad 1% 4% 2%

Denali Visitor Transportation System 1% 1% 1%

Kayak, canoe, or raft 1% 2% 1%

Resident n = 155, non-resident n = 83, all respondents n = 238. 

1The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 
278 | P a g e

Table 100. Types of Transportation Used Within Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. 

Mode of Transportation1 Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Foot/Hiking 69% 76% 71%

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) 45% 27% 39%

Alaska Marine Highway System 17% 8% 14%

Bicycle 13% 15% 14%

Motorboat 13% 5% 10%

Kayak, canoe, or raft 7% 10% 8%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, 

helicopter) 6% 8% 7%

Other 5% 5% 5%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle 3% 5% 4%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus 2% 5% 3%

Private airplane 2% 5% 3%

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys) 2% 2% 2%

Denali Visitor Transportation System 1% 3% 2%

Cruise ship 1% 3% 2%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad 1% 2% 1%

Resident n = 99, non-resident n = 62, all respondents n = 161. 

1The question allowed for multiple modes of transportation to be used, thus responses do not sum to 100. 

Non-recreational respondents were also asked about other transportation (but didn't distinguish 

between to and within) they used on this trip. In this free-response type question, non-resident nonrecreational respondents add taxi (2), private boat, train, utilizing bathroom, and water taxi. Residents 

added government vehicle (3, including a BLM pickup), drift boat, bathroom, IFA, “letting dig out”, rental 

car, school bus, shuttle bus (2), and walk. 

Table 101. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Arriving at Sample Site Non-recreational Respondents. 

Travel rating of 

experience arriving at site Residence of respondent

Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

Excellent 52% 63% 56%

Good 36% 33% 35%

Fair 10% 2% 8%

Poor 1% 1% 1%

Very Poor 0% 0% 0%

Resident n = 157, non-resident n = 84, all respondents n = 241. 
279 | P a g e

Table 102. Satisfaction with Travel Experience Within Sample Site, Non-recreational Respondents. 

Travel rating within site Residence of respondent

Resident

NonresidentAll 

respondents

Excellent 50.7% 70.5% 57.6%

Good 30.8% 21.8% 27.7%

Fair 8.9% 3.8% 7.1%

Poor 0.7% 0.4%

Very Poor 1.4% 1.3% 1.3%

Resident n = 146 (11 had not traveled within site yet), non-resident n = 78 (2 had not traveled within site yet), all respondents n 

= 224. 

Table 103. Age Composition of Non-recreational Respondents. 

Age range % of Respondents in age range

Residents Non-residents All respondents

18 - 29 years old 19% 44% 28%

30 - 44 years old 26% 27% 27%

45 - 64 years old 41% 17% 33%

65 or older 14% 12% 13%

Residents n = 156, non-residents n = 84, all respondents n = 240. 

Table 104. Gender of Non-recreational Respondents. 

Gender Residents

NonresidentsAll 

respondents

Male 49% 61% 53%

Female 51% 39% 47%

Residents n = 158, non-residents n = 84, all respondents n = 242. 

Table 105. Education Level of Non-recreational Respondents. 

Education Residents Non-residents All respondents

Less than high school 3% 2%

High school graduate/GED 13% 11% 12%

Vocational or technical 

school certificate 3% 2% 3%

Some college 17% 14% 16%

Associate's degree 6% 10% 7%

Bachelor's degree 34% 41% 36%

Graduate degree or 

professional degree (MA, 

MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA) 24% 23% 23%

Residents n = 152, non-residents n = 84, all respondents n = 236. 
280 | P a g e

Table 106. Income Level of Non-recreational Respondents. 

Income Residents Non-residents All respondents

Less than $24,999 18% 31% 23%

$25,000 - $34,999 6% 13% 9%

$35,000 - $49,999 10% 10% 10%

$50,000 - $74,999 16% 6% 13%

$75,000 - $99,999 11% 11% 11%

$100,000 - $149,999 16% 5% 12%

$150,000 - $199,999 3% 1% 3%

$200,000 or more 1% 7% 3%

Do not wish to answer1 18% 16% 17%

Residents n = 152, non-residents n = 82, all respondents n = 234. 

1This question had a “Do not wish to answer” as a response option. The percentages shown in this row are of the overall 

number of respondents, including those who selected “Do not wish to answer.” 

Table 107. Ethnicity and Race of Respondents. 

Ethnicity 

Race1 Residents 

Nonresidents All 

Respondents 

Hispanic or Latino2 3% 5% 3%

Race3

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 14% 1% 9%

Asian 0% 6% 2%

Black or African 

American 1% 5% 2%

Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander 2% 0% 1%

White 88% 86% 87%

Other4 4% 2% 3%

1This question followed the US Census Bureau standards for separately asking Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity question, then 

following with a race question. 

2Asked as a separate question, with a yes/no response option. Residents n = 154, non-residents n = 84, all respondents n = 238. 

3Asked as a check all that apply question. Residents n = 154, non-residents n = 84, all respondents n = 238. 

4Not included in US Census. 

Non-recreation respondents were asked to provide additional feedback on their travel experience and if 

they had additional suggestions to improve travel on federal lands in Alaska. One hundred fifty-three 

provided additional feedback (including 22 who stated “none”) and 165 provided suggestions (including 

27 who relied “none”). Responses are below. 
281 | P a g e

Table 108. Non-recreation Respondents' Additional Feedback on Travel Experience. Access Recreation Travel/Transportation AMHS/ Ferry Very satisfied None MISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x x Access to Chilkoot trail is limited AK Res.

x x Alaska marine highway is critical to my work life and personal life. Lack of schedule 

dramatically effects my day to day itinerary and my ability to make a living

AK Res.

x Alcan still has gravel patches, broke my windshield. Non-AK Res.

x x Allow more travel within public lands. AK Res.

x Always glad when road is passable AK Res.

x x AMHS schedule not always user friendly. (for locals) weekend travel must often be 

extended to weekday. Weather not always good enough for travel in small vessels

AK Res.

x x As a full-time resident of Seldovia, the importance of AMHS is essential to our 

community and way of life. Please continue to schedule and fund our portion of the 

state highway system. Thank you.

AK Res.

x As a resident with a car it's easy. I would love an affordable commuter train or better 

bus service to the parks especially in winter when I dont want to drive the icy roads to 

get there. However if you do not have a car accessing public lands is almost 

impossible.

AK Res.

x As in all of America, the roads are in desperate condition. Tourist are a valuable asset 

to the state. Fix the roads.

Non-AK Res.

x Been easy no issues Non-AK Res.

x x Better ferry service to Sitka AK Res.

x Better map of town Non-AK Res.

x Better signage AK Res.

Continues
282 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x x Bicycles limitations. AK Res.

x x Bike lanes AK Res.

x Blacktop gravel areas at icy straight AK Res.

x Campground host is a very humble job with a great view. AK Res.

x Can't read persons handwriting AK Res.

x City bus information is unknown Non-AK Res.

x Closed roads AK Res.

x Construction and potholes. AK Res.

x Construction was a little long but simple other than that. Non-AK Res.

x Could be more receptive to people who need to pass through lands/property for work 

purposes. They are an addition hurdle typically to working in AK

AK Res.

x Denali specific: I think that it is a great idea to have bus access only on our park road. 

User limits/bus schedule is good as is. I do not think that our daily bus numbers need 

to increase or extend past highway access for tour buses. I do think we could use a 

better shuttle service going into the "canyon" (the shopping district ~2 miles from the 

park entrance area.

Non-AK Res.

x Dirt road to trailhead needs to be improved AK Res.

x Docks need some repair AK Res.

x Downtown shuttle service Non-AK Res.

x Expensive bike rentals Non-AK Res.

x x Ferry is critical AK Res.

Continues 
283 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x x Ferry reliability and guest service AK Res.

x x Ferry schedule makes travel very difficult

Take off local fee at Mendenhall

AK Res.

x x Ferry schedule makes traveling very difficult 

Take off local fee at Mendenhall

AK Res.

x x Ferry system being cut back especially in the winter time AK Res.

x x Ferry system needs more small town stops and needs to come to Hoonah more AK Res.

x Fewer charter boats Non-AK Res.

x Fix a few of the roads Non-AK Res.

x Free Shuttle to totem park Non-AK Res.

x Frost heaves Non-AK Res.

x Getting access permit to get to my state mining claims AK Res.

x Getting horses on federal land could be easier. AK Res.

x Good AK Res.

x Good in general, no problems AK Res.

x Great experiences here, easily accessible AK Res.

x Great site! AK Res.

x Hitchhiking from Fairbanks to Haines was tricky. Non-AK Res.

x I am surprised to learn how much effort BLM puts into maintaining their recreation 

sites.

AK Res.

Continues
284 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x I had visitors in small cars parking in designated commercial vehicle spots. There were 

extra spots so it wasn't a problem.

AK Res.

x I love public lands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AK Res.

x x I personally appreciate utilizing the fast ferry and cutting travel in half since this has 

been in effect I have been able to reach all connecting travel arrangements outside of 

my (illegible word) travels

AK Res.

x I was surprised how easy it was to get here it's been a little harder traveling in AK Non-AK Res.

x I wish I had better tires, but the roads on prince of Wales are good for the most part Non-AK Res.

x I wish there were more camper buses in the park Non-AK Res.

x I work on the Marine highway ferry system AK Res.

x x If you have a booked confirmed and paid for reservation for a vehicle and 2 people on 

the ferry you shouldn't have to go standby at the terminal especially when you show 

up on time

AK Res.

x I'm a local and would love to have another transit method to go out the road such as 

link light rail in Seattle. Personal vehicle is the only way typically to get places. The bus 

takes too long to get places.

AK Res.

x I'm very concerned about ATV use on public lands. Seems to be destroying salmon & 

wildlife habitat. It needs to be addressed ASAP due to population growth.

AK Res.

x Issue with ohv usage over wet black spruce tundra AK Res.

Continues
285 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x Issues in accessing Anchorage. Non-AK Res.

x x It has been difficult over the last couple years specifically to travel through Juneau 

using the ferry due to infrequent departures from Skagway. We have used 

Whitehorse, Yukon more than Juneau over the last several years to access the lower 

48

AK Res.

x x It is really hard to travel here between the ever smaller ferry availability the distance 

and the prices of alternate transportation it can take $5000 per trip for even looking at 

a site

AK Res.

x It is wilderness and I wouldn't expect any public transportation. Non-AK Res.

x It's all been good. Non-AK Res.

x I've had poor experiences with/on AK public lands AK Res.

x Job well done. Non-AK Res.

x Keep up the good work, new hikers Non-AK Res.

x Lack of access in areas during emergency situations for responders including fish and 

wildlife.

AK Res.

x Lack of CB radios in increasing private vehicles may be a safety concern on the haul 

road

Non-AK Res.

x Lack of regular plane transportation. Non-AK Res.

x Logging trucks are deadly and terrifying Non-AK Res.

x Lots of toilet paper and feces AK Res.

x Love it AK Res.

Continues
286 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x Love the arosr Non-AK Res.

x x More ferry service in southeast would be great. Please make SE ferries a priority, they 

are important for our local communities and economies

AK Res.

x More timber sales- will rot if not harvested Non-AK Res.

x NA AK Res.

x Na Non-AK Res.

x Need bike rentals in Ketchikan Non-AK Res.

x Need less roads and more ferries- we are withering without ferry AK Res.

x x Needing more public transportation and bike trails AK Res.

x No (x5) Non-AK Res.

x No complaints AK Res.

x No fully respect them, place wouldn't be what it is without them AK Res.

x No issues. Other than weather conditions. AK Res.

x No traffic the entire way. Please cancel the wind for next time so I can make it out to 

kayaker's cove.

Non-AK Res.

x None (x10) AK Res.

x None just arrived here. Non-AK Res.

x None other than road construction AK Res.

x Not enough passing lanes, and not enough signs to say if there are more than four cars 

behind you pull over.

AK Res.

x x Not enough safety signage on road to DYEA Non-AK Res.

Continues
287 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x Ok AK Res.

x Only 'problem' is Maintenance Vehicles (not really a problem just a patience game. 

Speed of tour buses at times. Lack of understandings of pull offs intended for safe 

vehicle passage

AK Res.

x Other than a flat tire my time here has been wonderful. Non-AK Res.

x Our roads can have if possible better roads AK Res.

x Overall very good. Muddy trail condition in the boggy sections. The trail work last year 

helped tremendously.

AK Res.

x Ped crossing needed at Jeff Davis Non-AK Res.

x Pen air lost luggage for five days. Non-AK Res.

x Public transportation to DYEA is needed Non-AK Res.

x x Rest area issues- not cleaned by Pedro. Road issues- frost heaves. Non-AK Res.

x Restrictions off highway vehicles. AK Res.

x Road rough. Too many dirt roads. AK Res.

x Roads are congested for how little miles of road exist in Juneau Non-AK Res.

x Roads are so much better now than they used to be. AK Res.

x Roads are very poor going up to federal lands AK Res.

x Roads need repair AK Res.

x x Should have more transportations channels for bikes Non-AK Res.

x Signage for turning into cooper landing could've been better especially from the south. AK Res.

x x Slow ferry to Skagway is REALLY slow... Non-AK Res.

Continues
288 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x Sometimes a bumpy landing AK Res.

x Stop allowing bikes going through. Not enough room for them almost crashing. More 

pull out for RVs needing and more cops.

AK Res.

x Stubbed my toe once Non-AK Res.

x Support for local bus service should be kept up AK Res.

x TH sign needs more visibility for tourists and walkway entrance needs to be cleared AK Res.

x Thank you!! Non-AK 

Res..

x The Alaskan transportation systems have been very satisfactory thus far in my 

experience

AK Res.

x x The AMH is a critical and needed transportation resource for accessing Alaska's public 

lands

AK Res.

x x The AMHS is the only way to get to the site- I have a boat which is used at times AK Res.

x x The fast vehicle ferries are the best mode of transportation in the country, especially 

the Chenega

AK Res.

x The federal government isn't making it possible to do mineral studies on federal lands 

for mining.

AK Res.

x x The ferry has been really a blessing to me. I no longer have to fly by small plane AK Res.

x The roads are a bit rough but that's normal. AK Res.

Continues 
289 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x x x The roads are always breaking up and are trouble. Parking and access to public land is 

difficult. Need more trails in public land.

AK Res.

x The shuttle bus at this time has missed its time to transport us. A call was made so 

hopefully it shows up. Otherwise transportation is fine

AK Res.

x They're friendly. Non-AK Res.

x This is the best park ever! Non-AK Res.

x x Trails well kept Non-AK Res.

x Trash bins were good when they existed here. The let burn policies changed. Smoke 

from areas allowed to burn in area that may not need that as much. Produces a lot of 

smoke. Review let burn policies.

AK Res.

x x Traveled to Juneau 6/12 for a doctor appt, had to wait until 6/21 to get a ferry back AK Res.

x x Very concerned about the three fold increase in cost for taking a bicycle on the AK 

marine highway. I believe alternative non-motorized transport should be encouraged 

not discouraged

AK Res.

x Very unclear confusing survey AK Res.

x Want more trails AK Res.

x We didn't have any problems traveling. We got around great and the scenery is 

amazing.

Non-AK Res.

x West entrance of Skilak rec area very bumpy, potholes AK Res.

x Works as a travel tour guide. Come here because of what Alaska offers Non-AK Res.

x Worry about finding parking lot AK Res.

Continues
290 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMHS/ FerryVery satisfiedNoneMISC

Travel experiences on AK federal lands Residency

x Would be nice to have paved road all the way to the site. Non-AK Res.

x Would love to access Skilak road more, but I don't trust my vehicle on the road. Non-AK Res.

x x Wrong date on the ferry schedule so they missed their Sunday ferry. It was listed 

wrong on the board.

AK Res.

x YOLO AK Res.

Table 109. Non-recreation Respondents' Suggestions for Improvements in Travel/Transportation on Alaska Federal Lands. Access Recreation Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x A depth map for the river and the lake AK Res.

x A road to Juneau an Tenickie would be nice AK Res.

x Add roads and less paperwork AK Res.

x Adding more passing lanes AK Res.

Continues 
291 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Advertise so more people come, this air specific, no more roads AK Res.

x x AMHS has historically been the most dependable/affordable mode of transportation. 

Investing in ferry system would greatly benefit Alaska residents

AK Res.

x x Another parking lot for non-tourists, accessibility is great here AK Res.

x Avoid special permits to access, especially those associated with fees AK Res.

x Be more economical. Increase affordability Non-AK Res.

x Better access to mining claims AK Res.

x x Better access to trail for hikers AK Res.

x Better maintain AK highways AK Res.

x x Better parking AK Res.

x Better roads. More out houses. AK Res.

x x Better signage AK Res.

x Bigger wider roads Non-AK Res.

x Bike and foot paths Non-AK Res.

x Bike paths and bike rentals Non-AK Res.

x Build a road from Juneau to Skagway AK Res.

x Bus to be on time more accurately AK Res.

x Can't be better Non-AK Res.

x Can't read persons handwriting AK Res.

x Charge a high car tax Non-AK Res.

x x Chilkoot Trail shuttle AK Res.

Continues 
292 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Continue or even improve support for the marine highway. Do not cut AMHS schedule 

or expect to replace with roads

AK Res.

x Continue trail work on boggy sections with Eco-locking sections AK Res.

x Continue utilizing the fast ferry between all southeast hub/ports AK Res.

x Develop and engineering plan for trails program in all areas AK Res.

x Dirt road needs to be smoother in parts of US Creek and Wickersham Dome. But 

normally there isn't a problem.

AK Res.

x Don't know. AK Res.

x Don't use public transport Non-AK Res.

x x Easier access to glacier bay national park AK Res.

x Fewer road closures Non-AK Res.

x Fish and game chill out Non-AK Res.

x Fix potholes and the settling of the road. Non-AK Res.

x Fix Skilak road. My advertisement on where the visitor center is here. Non-AK Res.

x Fix the highway s little rough Non-AK Res.

x For cruise crew, there is limited time to get places and walking is time consuming Non-AK Res.

x For emergencies allow more access. AK Res.

x For mining historical access points are closed. AK Res.

x x For work purposes consider seat fares and going back to ranger boats for recreation. 

Stop cutting funding and ferry stops. Affordable transportation is a must for living here

AK Res.

x Free plane rides. AK Res.

Continues 
293 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Free shuttle to Dyea, Broadway should only be open to the smart bus and pedestrians Non-AK Res.

x Free shuttles to trail heads and parks Non-AK Res.

x Good signage is needed and safe pull outs on congested highways. AK Res.

x Government should give parks more money to maintain roads. Non-AK Res.

x Grade road AK Res.

x x Great trails AK Res.

x x Hard in AK for making our lands accessible to all because of the budget it takes to travel 

here and the cost of personal items: food, etc. to stay. I think AK public lands and NPS in 

general might be a certain class level? (C USFS and BLM). I think buses should be 

required in all parks and we need to reign in private vehicle traffic to limit areas or off 

limits to high use areas. Bicycles could also be used/loaned somehow. Denali and Zion 

are good case studies with USFS and BLM: I agree with creating a roadless are 

management system to mark areas

Non-AK Res.

x Help keep improving trails and well maintained along with native lands. AK Res.

x Hot air balloons to Dawson city AK Res.

x I like that we are cut off from the mainland AK Res.

x Improve old trails, fix bridges AK Res.

x Improve road divots Non-AK Res.

x x Improve roads and signs AK Res.

x Improve with more signs stating law and ,ore passing zones. There needs to be a 

minimum speed limit.

AK Res.

x Improved access i.e. Road or year round daily ferry AK Res.

Continues 
294 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Increase hiking trail access opportunities for NPS units is SE AK. Increased ferry service 

to small communities in Lynn canal and Icy Strait in SE AK

AK Res.

x Just keep maintaining good trail access and condition of public use cabins AK Res.

x x Keep ferry service going. Better maintain the roads in winter AK Res.

x Keep roads open for multi-use purposes. Regulate game bag limits – don’t manage by 

closing access.

AK Res.

x Keep the public lands as is. Do not add anymore roads. Non-AK Res.

x Keep up the good work and use reviews to improve what is necessary AK Res.

x Keep working on roads Non-AK Res.

x Leave pre-existing roads instead of destroying them AK Res.

x Less development AK Res.

x Local bus transport is needed! AK Res.

x x Me re ferry service from Oct- April would help AK Res.

x x More access roads into the Forrest AK Res.

x More airlines Non-AK Res.

x More bike trails/canoe/kayak. Maybe more public shuttles AK Res.

x More buses (x2) Non-AK Res.

x x More ferries (x2) AK Res.

x x More ferries and figure out funding for better schedules AK Res.

x x More ferries on the schedule AK Res.

x x More ferries to and from Hoonah AK Res.

Continues 
295 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x x More ferry options, run the ferry more AK Res.

x x More ferry service at peak times and have the fair weather provide service to 

Petersburg and down south

AK Res.

x x More ferry service to Sitka AK Res.

x x More ferry stops (x2) AK Res.

x x More frequent ferry service would be appreciated (x2) AK Res.

x x More hiking/backpacking only trails Non-AK Res.

x x More non-motorized access and trails. AK Res.

x More outhouses AK Res.

x More places to park. Especially RV's when they want to see a river. AK Res.

x More roads in the Tongass AK Res.

x More safety signage especially for tourists not being aware of road etiquette Non-AK Res.

x More signage to easement. AK Res.

x More signage would be great on road and trail, summit marker needed Non-AK Res.

x More signs throughout the road Non-AK Res.

x x More trails and bus stops down by bar harbor AK Res.

x More trains built

More restrooms, especially for women, Denali was good but not the same elsewhere. 

Even just an outhouse will do. Kept people from staying town and spending money 

because they needed to come back to pee!

Non-AK Res.

x N/A (x2) AK Res.

Continues 
296 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x N/A Non-AK Res.

x No (x6) AK Res.

x No (x6) Non-AK Res.

x No - paths are well maintained and clearly marked Non-AK Res.

x No pt enough trashcans Non-AK Res.

x No suggestions no without devastating system. Train imitation humans to respect places AK Res.

x No suggestions. Roads great and passing lanes are great. Non-AK Res.

x None (x6) AK Res.

x None just got here. Non-AK Res.

x None. Impressed with gas cans. Non-AK Res.

x Nope. Seems quite good. AK Res.

x Not sure Non-AK Res.

x Open more roads up- if they left culverts open on logging after done logging, could be 

used recreationally. Doesn't make sense to tear up the road after its already been put in 

place

Non-AK Res.

x x Open to horses for trails. Add more horse trails. AK Res.

x x Open up bars again on AMH AK Res.

x Pave ski hill road AK Res.

x Pave the Alcan Non-AK Res.

x Pave the road and ban the tour scooters. Honk horns and scare away wildlife AK Res.

x Pave the roads. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
297 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Paving the road completely to the site would encourage more visitors, I believe. Non-AK Res.

x Possibly a longer stay in Juneau- currently we arrive at 6:30pm- shop and appts on 

Tuesday- return to ferry at 5am Wednesday- BUSY

AK Res.

x Public bus service past Auke lake. Free trails AK Res.

x Public information AK Res.

x Rain bird trail needs regular maintenance AK Res.

x x Regular ferry service AK Res.

x Removal of large cruise ships from Glacier Bay and restoring comm. fish rights AK Res.

x x Restricting access and focus mitigation of damage on using atvs. Let people use the land 

more and open it up. Instead of using ferry would like the bans to be lifted for personal 

watercraft.

AK Res.

x x Road construction coming. Could use signs to warn drivers about the current state of 

the road.

AK Res.

x Road from here to Juneau AK Res.

x Road needs to be graded more than once a year AK Res.

x Road to pelican AK Res.

x Road to pelican, road from Juneau to Skagway AK Res.

x See #7 Non-AK Res.

x See previous comment. AK Res.

x Should be restricted to designated and clearly identified trails. No cross country travel. AK Res.

x Show the Katmai ends of the earth video on Alaska Airlines. Non-AK Res.

Continues 
298 | P a g e Access Recreation

Travel/Transportation AMH

S Ferry

Very satisfiedNoneMISC

Suggestions for travel/transportation improvements Residency

x Signage alerting drivers to road etiquette (pull offs in narrow road areas, signage about 

speed safety because of blind corners.

AK Res.

x Signs about frost heaves and guard rails by Eagle Summit. Non-AK Res.

x Single printed piece of info that describes attractions and shops and eating Non-AK Res.

x x Some ferry boats need to be updated AK Res.

x x Status quo is good for Forrest. Support ferry system AK Res.

x The pullout a are awesome and laws for backing up people are good. Non-AK Res.

x They said improvements slow down traffic. AK Res.

x Tram, trolley, train- some sort of constant loop going around a downtown loop/circuit Non-AK Res.

x transportation discount for cruise ship employees Non-AK Res.

x x Up keep on trails and roads AK Res.

x Updated maps Non-AK Res.

x Walking around is enough Non-AK Res.

x What I have said earlier. AK Res.

x Yakutsk has cool trails Non-AK Res.
Appendix D

Road to Tanana. Alaska DOT&PF photo.

Safety Exploratory Analysis and 

Baseline Conditions
1 

Alaska LRTP Implementation: Safety 

Exploratory Analysis and Baseline 

Conditions

Final Report
2 
3 

Contents

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Review of Data.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Results........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 8

Attachment A: Review of Alaska Safety Data Sources.................................................................................. 9

Attachment B: Data Preparation ................................................................................................................15
4 

Purpose

This study improves understanding of transportation safety issues in Alaska, and to a limited extent, on 

Alaska’s federal lands. This baseline information will help Alaska Federal Lands and partners identify 

safety issues and prioritize investments for transportation safety improvements and countermeasures. 

Future updates to this analysis may be used to quantify performance outcomes and to evaluate the 

performance of transportation safety improvements. 

Background

The Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was completed in September 2012 by 

the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, in partnership with the Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF). The process was facilitated by the Western Federal Lands Highway 

Division (WFL). The plan addresses the strategic identification and prioritization of transportation 

infrastructure and systems related to six goal areas: system management, user experience, mobility, 

environment, and climate change. Since completion of the LRTP, an implementation team has been 

implementing performance management regimes in four areas: visitor experience, asset condition, 

climate change, and safety.

The implementation team has been working over the last several years to characterize the most 

pressing safety issues facing Alaska Federal lands. Previous quantitative efforts to characterize safety 

issues have been hampered by inconsistent and/or incomplete data. The implementation team has 

convened a study team to conduct a definitive search for statewide, multimodal safety data.

Method

This effort sought to inventory potential sources of transportation safety and/or injury and fatality data. 

Any potentially useful multimodal and statewide data would be cleansed and analyzed using maps, 

charts, and infographics.

Review of Data

Travelers in Alaska use a diverse set of modes to navigate sometimes wild and undeveloped landscapes. 

Transportation safety issues extend beyond automotive-related fatalities and serious injury incidents, 

which dwarf incidents by other modes in the lower 48 states. Snow machines, off-highway vehicles 

(OHV’s), and all-terrain vehicles(ATV’s) are not only used for recreational purposes but are used by some 

communities as critical forms of transportation during some parts of the year. Alaska has about six times 

as many pilots per capita when compared to the rest of the United States and over 300 airports to allow 

residents to reach more remote parts of the State. Marine transport also plays a prominent role in 

Alaska with the State having over 5,000 miles of inland waterways and 8,500 miles of ferry routes 

compared to 12,000 miles of public roads. 
5 

The study team attempted to collect data that would characterize safety for the following modes of 

transportation:

- Automobile

- ATV/OHV

- Boating

- Bicycle

- Snow machine

- Aviation

- Rail

- Dog sled

- Hiking (pedestrians)

The team identified and investigated many sources of data (shown in the list below and described in 

detail in Attachment A). Several of these sources had been identified in previous efforts. Investigation 

techniques included online searches, phone calls, interviews, and hands-on review of available datasets.

- Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 

- Alaska Department of Public Safety

- Alaska Department of Public Safety Alaska Village Public Safety Officer Program

- Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Boating Safety

- Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Trauma Registry

- Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics

- United States Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety

- Alaska Marine Safety Education Organization

- Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

- U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration

- Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Division of Public Health’s Violent Death 

Reporting System

- Alaska Pacific Office of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

General limitations of the data sets provided by these sources include focus or bias toward specific

modes, lack of geographic detail, and/or focus on only certain types of safety issues. None of the data 

indicated whether transportation-related incidents or fatalities occurred on or off federal lands, and 

most data were coded to large jurisdictional boundaries rather than geocoordinates. Notable exceptions 

to this were the data from Alaska DOT&PF and FAA.

The study team found the most promising data for transportation injuries and fatalities to come from 

the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Trauma Registry and the Alaska Department of 

Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics, respectively. 

The Trauma Registry is a record of patient entries to 24 acute care centers in Alaska. Incident 

information is entered into the Alaska Trauma Registry. Personally identifying information is cleaned 

from the data. Patients admitted to other health facilities are not entered into the system regardless of 
6 

their injury severity. In the event that an individual is declared deceased off hospital site, they are not 

included in the Alaska Trauma Registry. Fatalities occurring in the field are entered into the Bureau of 

Vital Statistics only. Portions of the Trauma Registry data are available to the public however it is 

primarily a public health database. For this study, data was available for the period 2005-2011.

The Bureau of Vital Statistics (BVS) manages a data system that tracks death certificates issued in the 

State. The data platform was updated in January of 2014 and the change affects the type and amount of 

data available. Prior to the system change, specific location information may have been provided on the 

physical certificate but was not input into the system. The city of death was provided but this data was 

an indication of where the certificate was issued and not where the death occurred. With the new data 

system, physical location down to address or intersection is included. There is also a formal question 

about if the fatality involved transport and if so, what mode. BVS data is available online however the 

detailed narrative is not part of the available data. For this study, data was available for the period 1999-

2012.

Advantages of these data sets are that they include the outcomes of incidents reported in many of the 

other datasets above. Fatalities or serious injuries from car crashes, for example, are available in both 

the Alaska DOT&PF data, but are also in the Vital Statistics and Trauma Registry data. These two data 

sets are multimodal, and in using them the study team did not have to account for double counting or 

lack of coverage.

Data preparation methods for the two data sets are described in Attachment B. 

Results

The analysis explored the following concepts in maps, graphs, and infographics: 

- Summary of transportation mode involved with injuries and fatalities by borough

- Summary of transportation mode involved with injuries and fatalities over time, statewide and 

by borough

- Primary and secondary transportation mode involved with injuries and incidents by borough

Results of the analysis are shown in Appendix C.
7 

Analysis

Key findings during the analysis periods for each of the datasets are summarized as follows:

- Motor vehicles were involved in 1,309 (67%) transportation fatalities statewide from 1999 

through 2012. This was influenced largely by the most urban and populated areas including 

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matanuska, and Kenai Peninsula. Air transport, snow machines, and 

water transport fatalities each contributed about 10 percent of the total. 

- Motor vehicle crashes were the leading mode related to transportation fatalities in 20 out of 27 

boroughs. Boroughs in which automobiles were not the main mode involved tend to be largely 

remote, coastal, and/or wild. Water transport was the leading mode involved in four boroughs, 

Sitka, Kodiak Island, Wrangell Petersburg, and Yakutat. Air-related incidents were the leading 

mode involved in transportation fatalities in two boroughs, Lake and Peninsula and Skagway 

Hoonah Angoon. 

- Transportation fatalities declined statewide roughly 2.6% per year during the study period. 

Fatalities for all modes except all-terrain vehicles and other modes decreased during the study 

period. Water transport fatalities declined beginning in 2007, although the reason for this is 

unclear without further research.

- Motor vehicles were the leading mode involved in transportation injuries statewide, accounting 

for 2,640 (49%) from 2005 through 2011. All-terrain vehicles were the second leading mode, 

representing 1,082 (20%) transportation injuries statewide. Snow machines and bicycles 

accounted for 14% and 13%, respectively.

- Transportation injuries have declined roughly 3.1% per year during the study period. Declines in 

motor vehicle injuries at 4.0% per year have driven this trend. All-terrain vehicle injuries 

declined 1.5% per year. Snow machine injuries declined at an average rate of 4.3% per year. The 

only type of injury to increase during the study period was a result of those related to animal 

rides with a 1.0% increase. 

- Although motor vehicles are the leading mode related to injuries statewide, the leading mode 

by borough is more variable. Motor vehicles are the leading mode involved in injuries in the 

central, urbanized areas of the state and the southwest (with the exception of Yatkutat and 

Sitka). All-terrain vehicles and snow machines are leading modes in the remaining boroughs, 

with the exception of Sitka. Sitka is notable as the only borough for which bicycles are the 

leading mode related to injuries. 
8 

Recommendations

Despite some limitations with the data, the results have characterized transportation injuries and 

fatalities statewide and may provide the basis for additional year-on-year analyses and subsequent 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP implementation activities. Unfortunately the data is not specific to federal 

lands, nor does the data allow identification of fatalities or injuries that occur on federal lands. 

Recommendations of the study team are as follows:

- Identify the extent to which transportation injuries and fatalities affect resident and visitor 

populations, and normalize the incident statistics to determine injury and fatality rates.

- Update these statistics again and evaluate the usefulness of creating a regular business practice 

for obtaining data, analyzing, and reporting safety incidents and fatalities.

- Use the results of these analyses as a starting point to further understand issues, causes, and 

potential solutions by modes, jurisdictions, and even federal property. Interviewing safety 

stakeholders at more fine-grain geographies to get a better understanding of issues and modes 

involved (e.g., bicycle injuries in Sitka, snow machine injuries in Bethel, or car fatalities in 

Northwest Arctic).

- Develop more fine-grained baseline conditions for specific issues in specific places, implement 

targeted solutions, and monitor outcomes.

- Work with data partners to improve the quality of data over time. Provide input regarding 

information that would be useful to identify safety issues, and investigate how federal lands 

might contribute additionally to statewide data reporting efforts.
9 

Attachment A: Review of Alaska Safety Data Sources

Safety Data Sources 

Representatives from several agencies and offices were contacted regarding their collection of 

transportation-related safety data. Representatives from the agencies and offices listed below were 

contacted however data was not obtained from all of the sources. 

• Alaska Department of Transportation & 

Public Facilities 

• Alaska Department of Public Safety

• Alaska Department of Public Safety 

Alaska Village Public Safety Officer 

Program

• Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Office of Boating Safety

• Alaska Department of Health and Social 

Services Trauma Registry

• Alaska Department of Health and Social 

Services Bureau of Vital Statistics

• United States Coast Guard Office of 

Auxiliary and Boating Safety

• Alaska Marine Safety Education 

Organization

• Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

• U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

Federal Aviation Administration

• Alaska Department of Health and Social 

Services Division of Public Health’s 

Violent Death Reporting System

• Alaska Pacific Office of the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

The presence of incomplete and inconsistent data sets is a known issue in Alaska according to several 

representatives interviewed. There are a number of projects occurring in parallel with the goal of 

creating a single, comprehensive transportation dataset. This effort was not complete at the time of 

survey. 

Incident reporting and data collection were both identified as challenges. The burden of reporting 

incidents often falls to village safety officers. There are a number of reasons why incidents may not be 

reported but staffing levels and a lack of understanding the importance of safety data are two popular 

reasons. Additionally, a large number of roads are not in the State system yet are heavily used and 

relied upon by village residents. When incidents occur on these roads, even if they are responded to by 

state troopers, they are often not entered into any transportation crash dataset. The same issue exists 

with ice roads as only small portions are recognized in the state roadway network. 

The Alaska DOT&PF data system includes the Federal land management agency (FLMA) areas targeted 

by this report but only to the extent that incidents are reported back to the state by the FLMA or in 

events where state troopers respond. As expected, reporting and collection of information on incidents 

involving fatalities is at a higher rate than incidents with lesser injury. 

The Alaska DOT&PF is in the process of launching the Roadway Information Portal but the data 

presented below was collected by contacting a data specialist at the Department. 
10

The Village Public Safety Officer Program

Alaska Village Public Safety Officers carry the responsibility of reporting incidents in a large porting of 

the State. Under-reporting by this subset has the potential to create a significant weakness in the 

dataset. 

All incidents responded to by village public safety officers are to be reported, however it has been 

suggested that oftentimes only serious incidents and fatalities are entered into the statewide system. 

Staff levels are low and the responsibility of a single village public safety officer in a community is high. 

Reporting of incidents is not likely the top priority. These officers have a great amount of knowledge 

about their particular community and the existence of transportation safety problems, however those 

anecdotal reports are not captured in any current data system. 

Department of Public Safety

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) provides vehicle crash data to the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. However, if an incident occurs off the State road system there is 

potential that those auto incidents are captured in the Public Safety data set exclusively. 

All modes of transportation are captured in the DPS data system, however it is a public safety and law 

enforcing-focused data system. The data may not be easily merged or mapped like data collected for 

transportation purposes. Not all data is available to the public even when personally identifiable 

information is removed. The data is typically available in an aggregated statistical format, however 

individual requests can be submitted to DPS.

The Department of Public Safety database does not designate whether the incident occurred on or off 

federal lands. That analysis would have to be done in post processing. 

DNR Boating Safety

There is a statutory requirement to report any boating-related incident over a certain monetary 

threshold to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AK DNR) Office of Boating Safety. The Boat 

Accident Report Database (BARD), generated by the AK DNR but maintained by the Coast Guard, is 

generated by self-reported incidents and enforcement data. 

The full dataset is not public record; however an abbreviated version of the record is available to the 

public. Fatalities, census area, and body of water are the three main data elements. Specific locations 

are not provided, but given the small number of fatalities in recreational boating incidents, it may be 

easy to obtain a more specific location using local knowledge and newspaper archives. 

In addition to recreational boating incident reporting, the Alaska State Troopers and the Coast Guard 

conduct law enforcement patrol for issues such as reckless driving, intoxication, and improper safety 

equipment, but that data is retained by the respective organization. 
11

AK Trauma Registry

When a patient is admitted to one of 24 acute care centers in Alaska their information is entered into 

the Alaska Trauma Registry. Patients admitted to other health facilities are not entered into the system 

regardless of their injury severity. 

In the event that an individual is declared deceased off hospital site, they are not included in the Alaska 

Trauma Registry. Fatalities occurring in the field are entered into the Bureau of Vital Statistics only. 

Portions of the Trauma Registry data are available to the public however it is primarily a public health 

database. As a result, significant post-processing may be required for effective use in a transportation 

safety database.

Like with the Department of Public Safety data, personally identifying information is cleaned from the 

data and in cases where there are less than a handful of incidents of a particular type, incidents are 

aggregated to the county or regional level.

AK Bureau of Vital Statistics

The Bureau of Vital Statistics (BVS) manages a data system that tracks death certificates issued in the 

State. The data platform was updated in January of 2014 and the change affects the type and amount of 

data available. 

Prior to the system change, specific location information may have been provided on the physical 

certificate but was not input into the system. The city of death was provided but this data was an 

indication of where the certificate was issued and not where the death occurred. With the new data 

system, physical location down to address or intersection is included. There is also a formal question 

about if the fatality involved transport and if so, what mode. 

BVS data is available online however the detailed narrative is not part of the available data.

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety publishes an annual Recreational Boating 

Statistics report that provides a snapshot of the types and frequency of recreational safety incidents. In 

going through the Boating Safety Resource Center data search engine, fatalities, injuries, and incidents 

can be linked to bodies of water but not more specific location data. There are very specific 

requirements to define and incident as “recreational” and it does not capture all boating-related

incidents and fatalities. 

AK Marine Safety Education Organization

The Alaska Marine Safety Education Organization does not collect data but does compile state and Coast 

Guard boating fatality statistics. The location specificity is at the city level. Their focus is on education 

and not data analysis.

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium does not collect data and referenced the Alaska Trauma 

Registry and the Bureau of Vital Statistics as the best sources of data across modes.
12

National Transportation Safety Board

Aviation incidents requiring investigation are listed in their database. The National Transportation Safety 

Board’s (NTSB) Aviation Accident Database contains information dating back to 1962 about civil aviation 

incidents and selected incidents within the United States and in international waters. Spatial 

information (latitude and longitude in decimal degrees) is available for most records and is available 

online.

Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains a database of all reported incidents including those 

not investigated by the NTSB. Location, crash or injury severity, flight purpose, flight phase, weather, 

etc. are available data elements. This data is available online.

Alaska Violent Death Reporting System

The State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Division of Public Health maintains the 

Alaska Violent Death Reporting System (AK VDRS). The Bureau of Vital Statistics suggested this system 

as a source for incident data but upon further investigation, it is not a relevant data source. AK VDRS 

reviews death certificates, law enforcement records, and medical examiner reports to compile data on 

suicides, homicides, weapons-related deaths, legal intervention deaths, terrorism-related deaths, etc. 

CDC National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

The Alaska Pacific Office of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) maintains 

a database of occupational injuries and fatalities. NIOSH obtains aviation data from the NTSB system and 

commercial fishing data from the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Collected Data By Source

Statewide Data Sources

The following statewide data sets were obtained and analyzed. 

Data Source Modes Fatalities

Serious 

Injuries

Location 

Element

Alaska Department of 

Transportation & Public Facilities 

http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwdpln

g/transdata/crash.shtml

Automobile crashes; 

incidents where 

automobiles are 

involved

Yes Yes Road name; 

milepoint

Alaska Department of Health and 

Social Services, Division of Public 

Health, Alaska Trauma Registry

http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Emerge

ncy/Pages/trauma/registry.aspx

All modes Yes Yes City of injury 

scene

Alaska Department of Health and 

Social Services, Division of Public 

Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics

All modes Yes No Census area
13

http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/VitalSta

ts/Pages/data/default.aspx

United States Coast Guard, Office of 

Boating Safety

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets

/privacy/privacy_pia_uscg_bard.pdf

Recreational 

Boating

Yes Yes Body of 

water, 

nearest city 

or town, 

county

Agency-specific Data Sources

The law enforcement databases of each of the FLMAs were identified as possible sources of 

transportation safety data however it was determined that the statewide sources mentioned previously 

would contain more comprehensive datasets. 

Agency Law Enforcement Database

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service IMARS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LE-IMAGS

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service LEIMARS

Contact Information

The individuals listed below are individuals who were contacted regarding safety data on Federal lands. 

Agency Contact

Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities

Marcheta Moulton

marcheta.moulton@alaska.gov

907-465-8769

Bob Laurie

bob.laurie@alaska.gov

Bike/Ped Coordinator at Alaska DOT&PF

Alaska Village Public Safety Office Sgt. Leonard Wallner, Statewide VPSO Coordinator

leonard.wallner@alaska.gov

(907)269-5511

Alaska Department of Public Safety Ayla Jackson, Data Management Division

ayla.jackson@alaska.gov

(907)269-5010

Department of Natural Resources Office 

of Boating Safety

Joseph McCullough

joseph.mcculough@alaska.gov

(907)269-8704

Alaska Trauma Registry Ambrosia Bowlus

Ambrosia.bowlus@alaska.gov

(907)334-4471

AK Railroad Corporation Shawnessy Leon

leons@akrr.com

U.S. Coast Guard, RBS District 17 Mike Folkerts

Michael.R.Folkerts@uscg.mil

(907)463-2297

U.S. Coast Guard Boating Safety Resource 

Center

Susan Tomczuk

susan.m.tomczuk@uscg.mil
14

AK Marine Safety Education Association development_director@amsea.org

(907)747-3287

Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics BVSResearch@health.state.ak.us

(907)269-0991

David Crossman

(907)465-8603

Andrew Jessen

Andrew.Jessen@alaska.gov

(907)465-8604

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Hillary Strayer

hdstrayer@anthc.org

(907)729-3513

Alaska Violent Death Reporting System Deborah Hull-Jilly

Deborah.Hull-Jilly@alaska.gov

(907)269-8078

National Transportation Safety Board (via Steve Hoover of Atkins)

Federal Aviation Administration (via Steve Hoover of Atkins)

Center for Disease Control and 

Prevention , National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Jennifer Lincoln, PhD

Director of the Alaska Pacific Office

(907)271-2382

jlincoln@cdc.gov
15

Attachment B: Data Preparation

Transportation Fatalities

Volpe received an Excel file from Brice Murray, a Research Analyst at Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics, on 

July 24, 2014, following a request for data. The Excel spreadsheet lists Annual Number of Fatalities for 

each Census Area by Cause of Death for years 1999 through 2012. No significant processing of the 

fatality data was required.

This data set was imported into an ESRI file geodatabase, and two maps were made with these data: 

one features bar graphs of fatalities, and one highlights areas by their most common type of fatality. The 

data set was also used in the creation of a bar graph poster and an infographic. 

We believe there is a two year lag between a year of a fatality and when data is available. As of April 

2015, some data is available for 2013, but this data is not broken down by transportation mode involved 

in the incident. Further communication with the Bureau of Vital Statistics is needed to understand when 

future data will be made available.

Transportation Injuries

Volpe requested and received the Trauma Registry data for the years 2005-2011 from the Alaska 

Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health. Each record lists the type of 

incident and the location. The Transportation-related incidents were extracted from the file based on 

the ‘Injury Cause’ field, keeping only injuries related to:

• Motor Vehicle Accidents,

• Air Transport,

• Water Transport,

• ATV,

• Snow Machine,

• Animal, and

• Bicycle.

The resulting 6,178 records were then manually scanned to make sure that each record was a 

transportation-related incident and was correctly coded. The breakdown of false positives is below:
16

Transportation 

Injury

Description Error Type Records % Records

Y Transport Injury n/a 5789 93.7%

N Military Type I (False positive) 4 0.1%

N Work Related Type I (False positive) 100 1.6%

N INJCAUSE category error Type I (False positive) 4 0.1%

N Parachute - Military Type I (False positive) 20 0.3%

N Parachute - Non-Military Type I (False positive) 14 0.2%

N Accident on vehicle, not 

transportation related

Type I (False positive) 225 3.6%

Y INJCAUSE category error Categorization 22 0.4%

6178 100.0%

Then, in order to create the maps, the table was imported into an ESRI file geodatabase. The borough 

where each injury occurred was geographically located and the Census Area of each borough. The total 

number of accidents for 2005-2011 of each type of transportation mode was then calculated for each 

Census Area. This summary data was used to create the accident maps and bar charts.

We believe there is a three year lag between a year of an injury and when data is available. Further 

communication with the Trauma Registry is needed to understand when future data will be made 

available.

Future attempts to interpret this and forthcoming data should only add transportation-related entries 

to the data set resulting from the processing in this effort. Adding data (as opposed to replicating this 

process using data from 2005 through the most recent set) will preclude the need to manually scan data 

from 2005 through 2011 again.
17

Appendix C: Results
Yukon Koyukuk

North Slope

Bethel

Nome

Northwest Arctic

Valdez Cordova

Denali

Dillingham

Southeast Fairbanks

Wade Hampton

Lake and Peninsula

Matanuska Susitna

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula

Fairbanks Northstar

Juneau

Aleutians East

Sitka

Kodiak Island

Haines

Ketchikan Gateway

Anchorage

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

Wrangell Petersburg

Aleutians West

Bristol Bay

0 75 150 225 300 37.5

Miles

 ́

Alaska Transportation Related Fatalities

1999 - 2012

(n=1,966)

Source: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics

Other Transport Accidents

Air Transport Accidents

Water Transport Accident

ATV Related Accidents

Snow Machine Related Accidents

Motor Vehicle Accidents

= 190 Motor Vehicle Fatalities

Scale
Transportation Fatalities in Alaska, 1999-2012

Other Transport Accidents

Air Transport

Water Transport

ATV

Snow Machine

Motor Vehicle Accidents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

Legend

All data from Alaska Bureau of Statistics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali ies

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatali es

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

Valdez-Cordova Wade Hampton Wrangell-Petersburg Yakutat Borough Yukon - Koyukuk

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Fatalites

Year

Nome North Slope Borough Northwest Arctic Borough Prince of Wales - Outer Ketchikan Sitka Borough Skahway - Hoonah - Angoon Southeast Fairbanks

Haines Borough Juneau Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Kodiak Island Borough Lake and Peninsula Matanuska

Bristol Bay Borough Denali Borough Dillingham Fairbanks Northstar Borough

 Aleutians East Borough Aleutians West Anchorage Bethel
Yukon Koyukuk

 39

North Slope

 33

Bethel

 51

Nome

 45

Northwest Arctic

 34

Valdez Cordova

 26

Denali

 5

Dillingham

 19

Matanuska Susitna

 192

Wade Hampton

 27

Lake and Peninsula

 16

Southeast Fairbanks

 28

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula 5

 146

Fairbanks Northstar

 170

Juneau

 29

Aleutians East

 1

Sitka

11

Kodiak Island

 10

Haines

 4

Ketchikan Gateway

 14

Anchorage

 382

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

 5

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

 9

Wrangell Petersburg

 9

Aleutians West

 8

0 75 150 225 300 37.5

Miles

 ́

Alaska Transportation Related Fatalities

1999 - 2012

Source: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics

Air Transport Accidents

Water Transport Accidents

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Most Common Type of Accident
Transportation Fatalities in Alaska, 1999-2012

All data from Alaska Bureau of Statistics

Motors vehicle accidents are the most common 

type of transportation fatality in 22 boroughs and 

census areas. Following motor vehicle accidents, 

the second most common type of accidents in these 

areas include:

Bethel

Nome

North Slope

Northwest Arctic

Southeast Fairbanks

Wade Hampton

Yukon-Koyukuk

Aleutians East*

Dillingham

Ketchikan Gateway

Prince of Wales 

Valdez-Cordova

Wrangell-Petersburg*

Aleutians West*

Other

Aleutians West*

Anchorage

Bristol Bay*

Fairbanks Northstar

Haines

Juneau

Kenai Peninsula

Matanuska

Denali

Aleutians East*

Kodiak Island

Sitka

Wrangell-Petersburg*

Yakutat 

Water transport accidents are the 

most common type of fatality in 5 

areas. Motor vehicle accidents are 

the second most common type of 

accident in these areas.

Air transport accidents are the 

most common type of fatality in 3 

areas. The second most common 

types of accident in these areas 

include motor vehicle and water 

transport.

Bristol Bay*

Lake and Peninsula

Skagway-HoonahAngoon

*These boroughs or Census areas have two accident types tied for the first 

or second most common type of transportation accident.
Yukon Koyukuk

North Slope

Bethel

Nome

Northwest Arctic

Valdez Cordova

Denali

Dillingham

Southeast Fairbanks

Wade Hampton

Lake and Peninsula

Matanuska Susitna

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula

Fairbanks Northstar

Juneau

Sitka

Aleutians East

Kodiak Island

Haines

Ketchikan Gateway

Anchorage

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

Wrangell Petersburg

Aleutians West

Bristol Bay

0 75 150 225 300 37.5

Miles

 ́

Alaska Transportation Related Injuries

2005 - 2011

(Total = 5,412)

Scale

Source: Alaska Trauma Registry

Bicycle Accidents

Animal Ride Accidents

Air Transport Accidents

Water Transport Accidents

ATV Related Accidents

Snow Machine Related Accidents

Motor Vehicle Accidents

= 450 Motor Vehicle Fatalities
Transportation Injuries in Alaska, 2005-2011

Legend

All data from Alaska Trauma Registry

Census areas with highlighted charts have a high number of

injuries and use a y-axis scale of 250 injuries.

Air Transport Bicycle

Water Transport

ATV

Snow Machine

Motor Vehicle Animal

Valdez-Cordova Wade Hampton Wrangell-Petersburg Yakutat Borough Yukon - Koyukuk

Nome North Slope Borough Northwest Arctic Borough Prince of Wales - Outer Ketchikan Sitka Borough Skahway - Hoonah - Angoon Southeast Fairbanks

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

Aleutians East Borough Aleutians West Anchorage Bethel

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

Bristol Bay Borough Denali Borough Dillingham Fairbanks Northstar Borough

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

Haines Borough Juneau Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Kodiak Island Borough Lake and Peninsula Matanuska

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Injuries

Year
Transportation Injuries in Alaska, 2005-2011

All data from Alaska Trauma Registry

Motors vehicle accidents are the most common type 

of injury in 14 boroughs and census areas. Following 

motor vehicle accidents, the second most common 

type of accidents in these areas include:

Anchorage

Fairbanks Northstar

Haines

Juneau

Prince of Wales*

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon*

Wrangell-Petersburg

Aleutians East 

Denali

Kenai Peninsula

Ketchikan Gateway

Matanuska

Prince of Wales*

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon*

Southeast Fairbanks

Valdez-Cordova

Bicycle accidents are the most 

common type of injury in 1 area. 

The second most common type of 

accident in Sitka is motor 

vehicle:

Sitka

Snow machine accidents are the 

most common type of injury in 4 

areas. The second most common 

type of accident in these areas is 

ATV:

Bethel

Dillingham

Northwest Arctic

Wade Hampton

ATV accidents are the most common type of injury 

in 9 areas. The second most common type of 

accidents in these

areas include:

Aleutians East

Aleutians West

Bristol Bay*

Kodiak Island

Lake and Peninsula

Yakutat*

Yukon-Koyukuk*

Yakutat*

Nome

North Slope

Yukon-Koyukuk*

*These boroughs or Census areas have two accident types tied for Bristol Bay*

the second most common type of transportation accident.
Yukon Koyukuk

 41

North Slope

 44

Bethel

 102

Nome

 76

Northwest Arctic

 95

Valdez Cordova

 67

Denali

 33

Dillingham

 39

Matanuska Susitna

 480

Southeast Fairbanks

 46

Wade Hampton

 64

Lake and Peninsula

 30

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula 3

342

Fairbanks Northstar

 307

Juneau

94

Aleutians East

 4

Sitka

 11

Kodiak Island

 37

Haines

15

Ketchikan Gateway

60

Anchorage

894

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

11

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

 32

Wrangell Petersburg

34

Aleutians West

 7

0 75 150 225 300 37.5

Miles

 ́

Alaska Transportation Related Injuries

2005 - 2011

Source: Alaska Trauma Registry

Bicycle Accidents

ATV Related Accidents

Snow Machine Related Accidents

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Most Common Type of Accident
Appendix E

2018 Earthquake Damage Near Mirror Lake. Alaska DOT&PF photo.

Natural Hazards Vulnerability 

Technical Report
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

1

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range

Transportation Plan

Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report

December 2018
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

2

CONTENTS 

Contents........................................................................................................................................................ 2

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Overview of Natural Hazards in Alaska.................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Alaska’s Changing Climate ............................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Climate and Extreme Weather Hazards........................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Thawing Permafrost.................................................................................................................. 5

2.2.2 Erosion ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Flooding...................................................................................................................................10

2.2.4 Wildfires..................................................................................................................................10

2.3 Geologic hazards.........................................................................................................................11

2.3.1 Volcanoes................................................................................................................................11

2.3.2 Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................12

3 Impact of Natural Hazards on FLMA Transportation Systems ............................................................15

3.1 Changing seasonal travel and tourism patterns.........................................................................19

3.2 Vulnerability of existing transportation infrastructure...............................................................15

3.3 Maintenance and operations impacts........................................................................................16

3.4 Adaptation strategies and implications for future infrastructure projects................................17

3.5 Safety and emergency response................................................................................................. 18

4 Natural Hazard Risk Reduction in Alaska.............................................................................................19

4.1 State Government Efforts...........................................................................................................19

4.2 Alaska DOT&PF............................................................................................................................20

4.3 Research Efforts..........................................................................................................................20
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

3

1 INTRODUCTION 

Extreme weather, climate change, and other natural hazards significantly affect federal land 

management agency (FLMA) resources and infrastructure in Alaska. Understanding and preparing for 

natural hazards is an important part of the long-range transportation planning process and can help

FLMAs anticipate and prepare for a number of management options. This technical report supports the 

2018 update of the Alaska Federal Lands Collaborative Long-Range Transportation Plan. Core 

participants in the planning effort include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), with essential support 

from Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF) and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL).

Alaska experiences a number of environmental hazards that impact transportation infrastructure. These 

include thawing permafrost, erosion, coastal and riverine flooding, wildfires, volcanic hazards, and 

seismic events. While climate change exacerbates some of these hazards (e.g., melting sea ice leading to 

a higher risk of coastal erosion, or warmer temperatures leading to permafrost thaw), others have 

always been issues in Alaska (e.g., seismic and volcanic events). These natural hazards can severely 

damage FLMA-owned or managed transportation infrastructure and disrupt access to Federal lands for 

visitors, industry partners, and communities.

Understanding these risks and potential responses to them – as well as the risks of not responding – can 

help FLMAs better plan how to build, operate, and maintain their transportation systems in the coming 

decades.

This technical report includes the following sections: 

• An overview of the natural hazards most relevant to FLMAs in Alaska and a discussion of 

scientific research on expected future trends, where applicable.

• A discussion of the impact of extreme weather and natural hazards on FLMA transportation 

systems. 

• A description of efforts within the state of Alaska to reduce the risks posed by extreme weather 

and other natural hazards.

2 OVERVIEW OF NATURAL HAZARDS IN ALASKA 

2.1 ALASKA’S CHANGING CLIMATE 

Many of the natural hazards that affect Alaska are becoming more severe due to a changing climate. 

Alaska’s climate has warmed about twice as rapidly as the rest of the country over the past half century, 

and average temperatures increased by approximately 0.70F per decade since the late 1970s.1 Certain 

 

1 Markon, C., S. Gray, M. Berman, L. Eerkes-Medrano, T. Hennessy, H. Huntington, J. Littell, M. McCammon, R. 

Thoman, and S. Trainor, 2018: Alaska. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National 

Climate Assessment, Volume II[Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

4

areas of the state have seen even more pronounced warming. For example, Alaska’s North Slope has 

warmed at 2.6 times the rate of the continental US. The state is also experiencing more frequent 

extremely hot days and fewer extremely cold days than it did in the past. 2

Impacts of a warmer climate in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, retreating 

glaciers, thawing permafrost, drier landscapes, and more extensive insect outbreaks and wildfires.3

Related to sea ice, Alaska has experienced the following impacts: 

• Since 1979, the annual average Arctic sea ice extent has decreased at a rate of 3.5 to 4.1 percent 

per decade.4

• The 10 lowest September sea ice extents have all occurred in the last 10 years, with the lowest 

extent in 2012.5

 

• The sea ice melt season (the number of days between the spring melt onset and the fall freezeup) has lengthened Arctic-wide by five days per decade since 1979, leading to longer open water 

seasons.6

 

These climate trends are expected to continue in the future. According to the 2018 U.S. National Climate 

Assessment, by mid-century the highest daily maximum temperatures (the high temperature on the 

hottest days of the year) are expected to increase by 40-80F, and the lowest daily minimum 

temperatures (the coldest nights of the year) are projected to increase by more than 12°F. The number 

of nights below freezing is projected to decrease by 20 nights per year statewide, and by greater than 45 

nights per year in some coastal areas.7

 

Sea ice melt is expected to continue across the Arctic, and late summers are expected to become nearly 

ice free this century.8 Average annual precipitation is expected to increase across the state, although 

there will be local and year-to-year variability. Annual maximum one-day precipitation is expected to 

increase 5-10 percent in southeastern Alaska and more than 15 percent in the rest of the state.9

 

Despite sea ice melt and other factors that increase ocean water volume, sea level rise is not expected 

to be significant along much of Alaska’s coast because of rising land levels due to isostatic rebound and 

other tectonic shifts. A 2018 report on sea level rise and storm surge by the National Park Service 

estimates an average statewide projected sea level rise of 0.28−0.43m by 2100. However, some areas 

 

and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1185–1241. doi: 

10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH26

2 Ibid 

3 Ibid 

4 USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., 

D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6 5 Ibid

6 Ibid

7 Markon et al, 2018

8 USGCRP, 2017 9 Markon et al, 2018
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

5

on the west coast of the state are likely to see sea level rise of 0.6m.10 Moreover, depending on 

infrastructure placement and design, even this amount of sea level rise could impact the access to and 

long-term viability of this infrastructure. 

2.2 CLIMATE AND EXTREME WEATHER HAZARDS 

Temperature increases, sea ice melt, and changes in precipitation have the potential to affect public 

lands and transportation systems across Alaska. Overall, the economic costs of these climate impacts 

will be substantial. The 2018 National Climate Assessment estimates that the cost of reconstruction and 

replacement of infrastructure damaged by climate impacts will be $3.7 to $4.5 billion, while the cost of 

proactive adaptation will be significantly lower at $2.0 to $2.5 billion.11 While these estimates cover the 

entire state and are broader than the transportation system, some of these infrastructure costs will be 

borne by Alaska’s FLMAs. 

The following sections discuss the ways in which climate impacts - including thawing permafrost, 

erosion, coastal and riverine flooding, and wildfire - will impact transportation systems in Alaska, as well 

as resources for understanding vulnerabilities and responding to these risks. 

2.2.1 Thawing Permafrost 

One of the most serious impacts of a changing climate on infrastructure in Alaska is permafrost melt. In 

areas where soils below the surface remain frozen for all or most of the year, permafrost forms the 

foundation for structures and infrastructure. Permafrost is thickest in northern Alaska, but is found to 

some extent beneath about half the state. Permafrost has been warming over the last several decades, 

and permafrost thaw is occurring in interior and southern Alaska. Permafrost is expected to disappear 

from 16 to 24 percent of its current extent by the end of the century.12 

Denali National Park contains some of the southernmost continuous permafrost in Alaska. As of 2010, 

nearly 45 percent of the park (more than one million hectares) had continuous or discontinuous 

permafrost. Modeling has shown that due to warming temperatures areas that now are underlain with

permafrost would lose permafrost in the next half century, limiting the area of the park in permafrost to 

six percent by 2060 and less than one percent by 2100.13 

 

10 National Park Service. “Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Projections for the National Park Service.” Natural 

Resource Report Series NPS/NRSS/NRR—2018/1648. May 2018. 11 Markon et al, 2018

12 Ibid. 

13 https://www.nps.gov/articles/denali-permafrost-landscapes.htm 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

6

Figure 1: Modeling of present and future soil temperatures for Alaska and Denali, represented by the white outline. Where 

purple meets yellow, permafrost is at risk of thawing (Source: Denali National Park; https://www.nps.gov/articles/denalipermafrost-landscapes.htm) 

Permafrost thaw leads to uneven sinking of the ground and the disruption of infrastructure built on 

permafrost, including roads, airports, and buildings. Permafrost thaw is estimated to significantly add to 

the cost of maintaining public infrastructure.14 In 2010, Alaska DOT&PF estimated that its northern 

region spends over $10 million annually in maintenance and operations due to thawing permafrost 

alone.15

Permafrost thaw affects transportation infrastructure in the following ways:

• Increased highway and airport surface distress, asphalt softening, and traffic-related damage 

and rutting;

• Increased active layer detachments (slope sloughing and failures); 

• Non-level driving surfaces caused by heaving and thawing;

• A need to build thicker embankments over permafrost to prevent the underlying ground from 

thawing; 

• Relocation or reconstruction of some public buildings if their foundations thaw; and

• Frozen ground or ice roads becoming less reliable and available for shorter portions of the year. 

One area where permafrost melt is expected to affect FLMA infrastructure is along Denali Park Road in 

Denali National Park. Denali Park Road is the only road through the park, and landslides or other 

disruptions due to permafrost thaw can cut off access to parts of the park. In October 2013, the Igloo 

Creek Landslide blocked a portion of the park road. Park staff estimated that 30,000 cubic yards of rock, 

 

14 Chapin, F. S., III, S. F. Trainor, P. Cochran, H. Huntington, C. Markon, M. McCammon, A. D. McGuire, and M. 

Serreze, 2014: Ch. 22: Alaska. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

514-536. doi:10.7930/J00Z7150. 15 Coffey, M. 2010. Impact of Climate Change on Highway/Airport Maintenance in Alaska. Presentation to the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010.
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

7

soil (including melting permafrost), and vegetative matter were contained within the slide.16 Melting 

permafrost is expected to cause similar disturbances in the future. 

Figure 2: Igloo Creek Landslide on Denali Park Road (Source: WFL). 

Another piece of critical infrastructure where permafrost thaw poses a risk is the Dalton Highway, which 

provides access between Fairbanks and Prudhoe Bay. The Dalton Highway is the only roadway 

connection between the two areas, and provides access to oil extraction areas and for freight 

shipments, worker transportation, and tourism. As part of a FHWA study, WFL and the FHWA 

headquarters office evaluated permafrost thaw rates on a section of the Highway (miles 9-11) and the 

potential for settlement upon thawing.17 The majority of the Dalton Highway, including the case study 

segment, is gravel and requires extensive maintenance to keep the road operational. Increasing 

temperatures and permafrost thaw are 

likely to increase maintenance costs over 

time. As a result, Alaska DOT&PF is 

interested in strategies that can reduce 

the vulnerability of the road to 

permafrost thaw. 

2.2.2 Erosion 

Sea ice melt and permafrost thaw are 

leading to increased erosion in coastal 

and riverine areas of Alaska. Coastal 

erosion accelerates when shorelines are 

 

16 Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division. Alaska Climate Trend Vulnerability 

Study. 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/pilots/2013-

2015_pilots/alaska/final_report/index.cfm 17 Ibid

Figure 3: Dalton Highway roadway near the case study location (Source: 

WFL). 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

8

exposed due to thawing sea ice, 

increased storm and wave activity, 

or rising sea levels. In addition, 

coastal bluffs that were 

“cemented” by permafrost are 

beginning to thaw in response to 

warmer air and ocean waters, and 

are therefore more vulnerable to 

erosion.18 

Warming can exacerbate riverbased shoreline erosion due to 

increased intensity and speed of 

the spring thaw period and the 

resulting surges of stream activity, 

which can lead to flooding. 

Increased storm frequency and 

precipitation levels can also 

accelerate stream bank erosion.

Many communities across Alaska, including those near FLMA units, are experiencing the effects of 

erosion. In the most extreme cases, serious erosion threatens the viability of the community; some 

communities have even relocated or are considering relocating due to these risks. In other cases, 

substantial resources are spent to combat erosion, whether that is through repairing infrastructure or 

buildings or moving specific structures. Transportation infrastructure in close proximity to coastal and 

riverine areas is likely to experience increased risks due to erosion, such as damage to the structural 

integrity of roads or an accelerated degradation of infrastructure.

For example, Kivalina Airport on the coast of the Chukchi Sea in northwest Alaska is vulnerable to 

coastal hazards and erosion. The airport is owned and maintained by Alaska DOT&PF, and WFL and 

partners evaluated its vulnerability as part of an FHWA-funded pilot project.19 The town of Kivalina and 

the airport are located on a narrow spit of land bounded by the Kivalina Lagoon and the Chukchi Sea. 

The airport provides the only year-round access to the town for supplies and passengers. Erosion has 

been an issue in the town, including at the airport, since the 1990s, and several shore protection efforts 

have been implemented. Residents of the community have also considered relocating. Wind, decreasing 

sea ice extent, and sea level rise are all expected to increase erosion at the airport, and WFL and 

partners are studying a number of adaptation strategies for the airport.20

There is not recent, detailed data on which FLMA units in Alaska are at risk for erosion. In 2009, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published the Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, Study Findings and 

 

18 Chapin et al, 2014

19 FHWA Alaska Climate Trend Vulnerability Study, 2016 20 Ibid.

Figure 4: Aerial photo of the City of Kivalina, Kivalina Airport, and previous 

shoreline protection efforts (Source: WFL). 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

9

Technical Report.21 The assessment identifies communities facing erosion risks, and categorizes 

communities based on the severity of the risk. The assessment designated 26 communities as “priority 

action communities,” indicating that they should be considered for immediate action by either initiating 

an evaluation of potential solutions or continuing with ongoing efforts to manage erosion. Sixty-nine 

communities where erosion problems are present, but not significant enough to require immediate 

action, were designated “monitor conditions communities.” Eighty-three communities where minimal 

erosion-related damages were reported or would not be expected in the foreseeable future were 

designated “minimal erosion communities.” Of the communities that USACE evaluated, 63 were in or 

within five miles of an FLMA unit. Of these, 15 were priority action communities, 24 were monitor 

condition communities, and 24 were minimal erosion communities (see Figure 5). 

Figure 5: Communities at risk of erosion within five miles of an FLMA (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Baseline 

Erosion Assessment (2009)). 

 

21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment: Study Findings and Technical Report. March 

2009. 

http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/civilworks/BEA/AlaskaBaselineErosionAssessmentBEAMainRepor

t.pdf 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

10

2.2.3 Flooding 

Flooding in Alaska is caused by a number of factors, many of which are becoming more severe due to 

climate change. Most commonly, heavy rainfall and runoff lead to flooding in the late summer and fall.22

In parts of Alaska, including the southeast coast, precipitation is expected to increase in the future, 

which may make this type of flooding more prevalent. 

Flooding due to snowmelt typically occurs in the spring, and can be exacerbated by rainfall and melting 

glacial ice. Faster spring thaws are becoming more common. For example, in 2012 and 2013 Alaska’s 

riverine communities experienced two of the fastest thaws on record, leading to severe flooding.23 

Coastal flooding may occur due to storm surges, and can be exacerbated by erosion and sea level rise. 

Most coastal flooding in Alaska occurs in the late summer or early fall; as ice forms along the coast 

before winter, the risk of coastal flooding declines.24 Storm surge is difficult to model for Alaska because 

of a lack of historical tide gauge data. In addition, sea ice along the coastline can help mitigate the 

impact of storm surge, but as this sea ice melts coastal areas may no longer have this protection.25 

Coastal and riverine flooding – whether caused by heavy precipitation, sea level rise, storm surge, or 

snowmelt – can cause temporary disruption or long-term damage to transportation infrastructure 

through road washouts and overtopping of bridges and culverts. The cumulative effect of smaller, more 

frequent precipitation events can also cause increased structural vulnerability and damage to 

transportation infrastructure.

Several resources are available to help agencies assess the risks of flooding on transportation 

infrastructure. Although these resources have not been tested in Alaska, they may provide a useful 

starting point for agencies to assess risk. The FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 17, 2nd Edition: 

Highways in the River Environment provides technical guidance and methods for assessing the 

vulnerability of transportation facilities to extreme events and climate change in riverine environments. 

Similarly, the FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 25, Volume 2: Highways in the Coastal 

Environment details methods for assessing the vulnerability of coastal transportation facilities to 

extreme events and climate change. FLMA resources include the Forest Service Storm Damage Risk 

Reduction Guide for Low-Volume Roads and the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines. 

2.2.4 Wildfires 

Wildfire activity in Alaska has increased in recent decades in both boreal forest and Arctic tundra 

environments. Wildfires are expected to increase through the end of the century due to warmer and 

drier conditions in interior Alaska and thawing permafrost. The total burned area in the state is expected 

to increase by 25-50 percent by 2100.26 While wildfires in many remote areas of Alaska currently burn 

 

22 Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan. March 2013. 

http://ready.alaska.gov/plans/documents/Alaska%20HMP%202013%20reduced%20file%20size.pdf 23 Ibid 

24 Ibid 

25 National Park Service. “Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Projections for the National Park Service.” Natural 

Resource Report Series NPS/NRSS/NRR—2018/1648. May 2018. 26 USGCRP, 2017
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

11

undetected or without the need for fire suppression, the increasing number and severity of wildfires 

increases the likelihood that they will occur near populated areas.

The thick smoke from wildfires is a risk to human health, and also temporarily disrupts visibility for 

vehicles and airplanes. Extensive wildfires can also change ecosystems and habitats. 

2.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 

In addition to these risks caused by extreme weather, other natural hazards – including geologic hazards 

– pose a risk to Alaska’s public lands and transportation systems. 

2.3.1 Volcanoes 

An average of one to two volcanic eruptions per year occurs in Alaska, and the state has over 50 active 

volcanoes. In 1912, the largest eruption of the 20th century occurred at Novarupta and Mount Katmai, 

located in what is now Katmai National Park and Preserve on the Alaska Peninsula.27

Volcanoes in Alaska have the potential to temporarily or permanently displace entire communities and 

disrupt all modes of travel. Specific to transportation infrastructure, volcanic ash can damage or collapse 

structures, and can be a significant hazard to aircraft and maritime vessels. Volcanoes can also lead to 

debris avalanches, mudflows (lahars), and debris flows, all of which can damage transportation 

infrastructure.28 

Volcanic ash can damage aircraft engines, and as a result a volcanic eruption can ground flights and lead 

to major travel and tourism impacts. For example, the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption in Iceland 

resulted in a major disruption in air traffic across many European countries for a week. The effects of the 

closures led to flight cancellations worldwide, and many tourists were stranded for weeks or cancelled 

their trips. In Alaska, where air travel is the primary way to access many communities, such a disruption 

could cut off travel in and out of these areas. In early 2006, Mt. Augustine in the Cook Inlet in south 

central Alaska erupted and blew ash into the air, which led to flight cancellations. 

 

27 Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013 28 Ibid 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

12

One resource in assessing the risks of volcanic activity is the Alaska Volcano Observatory, a joint 

program of the United States Geological Survey, the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, and the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. The Volcano 

Observatory conducts monitoring and other scientific investigations in order to assess the nature, 

timing, and likelihood of 

volcanic activity. It also 

assesses volcanic hazards 

associated with anticipated 

activity, including kinds of 

events, their effects, and 

areas at risk, and provides 

warnings of impending 

dangerous activity, to local, 

state, and federal officials 

and the public.29

Figure 6: Damage at the waterfront in Kodiak after the 1964 earthquake and tsunami 

(Source: Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013). 

2.3.2 Earthquakes 

Alaska is one of the most 

seismically active regions in 

the world, and 11 percent of 

the world’s earthquakes 

occur in the state. 

Earthquakes of magnitude 7 or greater occur in Alaska on average of about once a year; magnitude 8 

earthquakes occur on average once every 13 years.30 The majority of earthquakes occur in the southern 

part of Alaska or in the Aleutian Islands, although they can occur anywhere in the state. 

The majority of earthquakes in Alaska are low consequence events, with minimal damage to 

communities and infrastructure. However, low probability, high consequence earthquakes may cause 

significant damage to infrastructure and structures, as well as loss of life. Damage to transportation 

infrastructure due to earthquakes can be caused by surface faulting, liquefaction, or landslides.31 In 

addition, permafrost melt increases liquefaction potential, so these hazards are interrelated. Pacific 

earthquakes can also cause tsunamis, which can impact coastal areas. Earthquakes can also cause dam 

or levee failure and lead to flooding. 

The most powerful earthquake ever recorded in the United States, and the second largest worldwide, 

occurred in the Prince William Sound region of Alaska in 1964. The magnitude 9.2 earthquake was 

accompanied by massive tsunamis, and led to 131 deaths and $2.3 billion in property loss.32 In 

 

29 Alaska Volcano Observatory. “About AVO.” https://www.avo.alaska.edu/about/index.php 30 Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013 

31 Ibid 

32 U.S. Geological Survey. “The Great M9.2 Alaska Earthquake and Tsunami of March 27, 1964. 

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/alaska1964/ 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

13

November 2018, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake occurred near Anchorage33, and caused major damage to 

property and transportation infrastructure in the area.

2.4 SUMMARY OF NATURAL HAZARDS IN ALASKA 

The following table summarizes the natural hazards discussed in the previous sections. In addition to 

describing the hazards and discussing the implications for transportation systems on federal lands, the 

table provides links to resources for those looking to learn more or access data. 

Hazard Description Resources for More 

Information

Implications for Federal Lands 

Transportation

Thawing 

permafrost

Warming of previously 

permanently frozen 

soils below the surface, 

leading to freeze-thaw 

cycles or permanent 

thawing.

• National Climate 

Assessment 

• Alaska Climate Science 

Center

• FHWA Alaska Climate 

Trend Vulnerability 

Study

Travel on and access to roads, 

airports, and other infrastructure 

built on permafrost could be 

disrupted, or the infrastructure 

could be permanently damaged. 

FLMAs may need to conduct more 

frequent maintenance on 

infrastructure built on permafrost 

or consider relocating facilities. 

Erosion Coastal or riverine 

shoreline erosion.

• National Climate 

Assessment 

• FHWA Alaska Climate 

Trend Vulnerability 

Study

Transportation infrastructure in 

close proximity to coastal and 

riverine areas may face risks such 

as damage to the structural 

integrity of roads or an accelerated 

degradation of infrastructure. 

Infrastructure vulnerable to erosion 

may require more frequent repair 

and maintenance, or relocation. 

Access to communities and FLMA 

units vulnerable to erosion may be 

disrupted. 

 

33 U.S. Geological Survey. “2018 Anchorage Earthquake.” https://www.usgs.gov/news/2018-anchorage-earthquake 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

14

Hazard Description Resources for More 

Information

Implications for Federal Lands 

Transportation

Flooding Coastal or riverine 

flooding due to heavy 

precipitation, 

snowmelt, or storm 

surge.

• Alaska Hazard 

Mitigation Plan

• FHWA Hydraulic 

Engineering Circular 

No. 17: Highways in 

the River Environment

• FHWA Hydraulic 

Engineering Circular 

No. 25: Highways in 

the Coastal 

Environment

• Forest Service Storm 

Damage Risk 

Reduction Guide for 

Low-Volume Roads

• FHWA Emergency 

Relief Program and 

Emergency Relief for 

Federally Owned 

Roads

• Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

Flood Hazard Mapping

Flooding can cause temporary 

disruption or long-term damage to 

transportation infrastructure 

through road washouts and 

overtopping of bridges and 

culverts. The cumulative effect of 

smaller, more frequent 

precipitation events can increase 

the structural vulnerability of 

transportation infrastructure.

Wildfires Wildfires may occur in 

both boreal forest and 

Arctic tundra 

environments. 

Wildfires in remote 

areas may burn 

undetected, while 

wildfires near more 

populated or heavily 

visited areas may 

require fire 

suppression. 

• National Climate 

Assessment

• Alaska Hazard 

Mitigation Plan

• Active Fire Information 

– Incident Information 

System

Thick smoke from wildfires can 

temporarily disrupt visibility for 

vehicles and airplanes. Extensive 

wildfires can also threaten safety, 

damage or destroy structures, and 

change ecosystems and habitats. 

Volcanic 

Hazards 

Volcanoes can lead to 

risks such as volcanic 

ash, debris avalanches, 

mudflows (lahars), and 

debris flows.

• Alaska Hazard 

Mitigation Plan

• Alaska Volcano 

Observatory

Volcanoes may temporarily or 

permanently displace entire 

communities, damage 

infrastructure, and disrupt all 

modes of travel. Volcanic ash can 

damage or collapse structures, and 

can be a significant hazard to 

aircraft and maritime vessels. 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

15

Hazard Description Resources for More 

Information

Implications for Federal Lands 

Transportation

Earthquakes Earthquake damage 

can be caused by 

surface faulting, 

liquefaction, landslides, 

or subsequent 

tsunamis. Thawing 

permafrost increases 

liquefaction potential. 

• Alaska Hazard 

Mitigation Plan

• USGS Earthquake 

Hazards Program

• National Tsunami 

Hazard Mitigation 

Program 

Severe earthquakes may cause 

significant damage to infrastructure 

and structures, as well as loss of 

life. Pacific earthquakes can also 

cause tsunamis, which can impact 

coastal areas.

3 IMPACT OF NATURAL HAZARDS ON FLMA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

The extreme weather and geologic hazards discussed above have the potential to affect FLMA 

transportation systems. The following sections provide a high-level overview of ways in which these 

hazards may impact FLMA visitation, infrastructure, operations and maintenance activities, planning of 

future infrastructure projects, and safety and emergency response. They also discuss some strategies 

that FLMAs can pursue to address these risks, and resources that provide information on adapting and 

building resilience to extreme weather and other natural hazards.

3.1 VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

Erosion, permafrost melt, and flooding are likely to damage existing FLMA transportation infrastructure, 

including roads, bridges, and parking lots. Facilities that provide access to FLMA units, including access 

roads and airports, may also face damage due to these natural hazards. While most infrastructure 

affected by these hazards will be only temporarily impacted and be able to be repaired, some 

infrastructure may be permanently damaged or become unusable. 

To understand these impacts, FLMAs could identify which of their assets lie in areas vulnerable to 

permafrost melt or erosion, which are two of the hazards that are most likely to cause permanent 

damage to transportation infrastructure. They could also identify which access routes are vulnerable, 

and if there are alternate routes or alternate modes of transportation if these access routes become 

damaged and are temporarily or permanently unusable. To address these vulnerabilities, agencies could 

identify adaptation strategies to harden existing infrastructure, such as shoreline protection 

infrastructure or changing pavement types.

Geospatial analysis can help identify the vulnerability of critical assets. Geospatial analytics allows a 

determination of high risk facilities using maps that show areas at risk for natural hazards such as 

permafrost loss, wildfires, floods, and seismic activity. The data gathered from these analyses can be 

used to bolster agency facility risk data.
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

16

A number of resources can help FLMAs in Alaska identify and rank vulnerabilities to natural hazards and 

extreme weather. These include: 

• The FHWA Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework provides transportation 

agencies and their partners with an in-depth and structured process for assessing vulnerabilities 

to extreme weather and climate effects and for identifying ways to protect, preserve, and 

improve transportation assets and services. The Alaska Vulnerability Assessment pilot project

was a joint effort by Alaska DOT&PF and FLMAs to look at the vulnerability of three 

transportation projects to climate risks: thawing permafrost on the Dalton Highway, storm 

damage at an airport in Kivalina, and landslide risk along Denali Park road. 

• NPS partnered with the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina 

University to create a Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability Assessment 

Tool.

34 This tool establishes a standard methodology and set of best practices for conducting 

vulnerability assessments in the built environment. The assessments are currently focused on 

assets at risk to coastal hazards and sea-level rise within coastal parks. Assessments using this 

methodology have been done at several national parks, including Sitka National Historical Park 

in Alaska.

• The Forest Service has conducted a series of vulnerability assessments that bring together 

scientific research and observations from multiple disciplines to identify and quantify the 

expected impacts of climate change.35 Results of these assessments are summarized in National 

Climate Vulnerability Assessment Story Map36, which includes interactive maps for each Forest 

Service region that allow users to see specifics of various vulnerability assessment projects and 

filter information by 13 different resource topic areas. 

• The Forest Service Climate Change and Transportation Resiliency Guidebook aims to provide the 

field with a process to assess and address climate change impacts on Forest Service 

transportation assets at the local and regional levels. The Guidebook provides information and 

resources on identifying climate vulnerabilities within the forest service transportation network, 

reducing transportation vulnerability, and linking climate change preparedness with existing 

Forest Service programs and funding sources.

• FLH is partnering with NPS and FWS to conduct a statewide, asset-level vulnerability 

assessment. This effort is in progress.

3.2 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS 

FLMA transportation assets may need more intensive maintenance due to extreme weather and other 

natural hazards. For example, coastal roads, parking lots, bridges, and trails may need to be more 

frequently maintained due to erosion, permafrost thaw, and storm surge. Increased flooding and 

erosion may also lead to increased soil and waste deposition, which will necessitate more regular 

cleaning for roadways, culverts, and other draining systems. Culverts and other drainage systems may 

 

34 National Park Service. “Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation.” Updated September 10, 2018. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/vulnerabilityandadaptation.htm 35 U.S. Forest Service. “Vulnerability Assessments.” https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/sc/vulnerabilityassessments 36 Ibid 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

17

also be undersized for the magnitude of precipitation and extreme storms expected in the future, 

leading to the need for more frequent maintenance. 

FLMAs and transportation agencies may also need to adjust their maintenance activities in some of the 

following ways to address these hazards:37

• Increasing regular maintenance activities, such as cleaning debris out of culverts and storm 

drains to allow more water to flow when increased precipitation and flooding occurs. 

• Planning for workforce needs, including taking into consideration increased maintenance needs 

due to extreme weather, and changing seasonal maintenance patterns. 

• Budgeting for operations and maintenance in a way that takes into account extreme weather 

and climate change. 

• Determining future maintenance needs and methods in a way that considers expected future 

conditions, including those related to pavement rehabilitation, bridge maintenance, 

construction and maintenance work timelines and timeframes, and vegetation control. 

3.3 ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 

Taking expected extreme weather impacts into account when planning new transportation 

infrastructure can help ensure that the infrastructure is built to last. This planning could involve not 

building in vulnerable areas, such as areas vulnerable to erosion, or designing projects in a way that 

increases system redundancy, for example by providing an alternate route to an FLMA unit. 

When designing new infrastructure, it is important to consider the life span of the asset and the 

expected climate conditions during that timeframe. Investment analysis should occur throughout the 

asset life cycle to ensure that infrastructure remains in acceptable condition throughout its useful life. 

Adjusting project design to account for expected future conditions (for example, by building larger 

culverts to accommodate expected increases in precipitation) can reduce the risk of a project. 

Considering the costs and benefits of inaction and adaptation can help agencies weigh whether 

designing more resilient infrastructure is worth it for them.

In addition, changing conditions may reduce the expected life span of an asset, so agencies should 

consider how to account for this in their asset management programs. A risk-based asset management 

system can help agencies anticipate and effectively respond to extreme weather events and climate 

threats.

38 Such a system helps transportation agencies evaluate the costs of managing an asset over its 

entire life cycle, with the goal of minimizing costs while preserving or improving the condition of the 

asset. 

FLMAs may also need to consider relocating existing infrastructure in response to changes to natural 

features such as retreating glaciers. For example, Mendenhall Glacier is retreating and will likely not be 

visible from the existing visitor center by the middle of this century. The Forest Service is developing 

plans to build a new visitor center near the location of the current one, and considering opportunities to 

 

37 Federal Highway Administration. Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd Edition. 2017. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/adaptation_framework/index.cfm 38 Ibid 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

18

implement a mobile interpretive center and ferry service that will allow visitors to get close to the 

glacier in its new location.39 

Several resources can help Alaska FLMAs take into account expected future climate impacts in project 

design. FHWA’s Transportation Engineering Approaches to Climate Resiliency (TEACR) Study aims to 

develop recommended engineering practices for identifying and evaluating project-level vulnerabilities 

from future extreme weather events, and designing solutions to respond and adapt to those 

vulnerabilities. The project includes a series of engineering assessments relating to coastal impacts, 

pavement and geotechnical analysis, and economic analysis. One project involves a study of permafrost 

thaw and roadway embankment design along a stretch of the Dalton Highway in Alaska. 

NPS has published a Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook that summarizes the state of NPS climate 

adaptation and key approaches to guide adaptation planning in coastal parks.40 A series of case studies 

from 24 coastal adaptation efforts in 15 states detail actions that coastal parks are taking to prepare for 

and respond to climate change.41 The Forest Service report Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide for 

Low-Volume Roads discusses treatments to existing low-volume roads that can reduce the potential for 

resource impacts and damage or failure of a road feature or road system resulting from storm events. 

These treatments can reduce the risk of future damage, reduce the magnitude of damage that occurs 

when major storms occur, add redundant systems to protect roads receiving less frequent maintenance, 

and improve hydraulic efficiency and resilience of existing road drainage features.42

3.4 SAFETY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Many of the natural hazards discussed above have the potential to negatively affect safety in FLMA 

units. Geologic hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes as well as climate impacts such as increased 

flooding, wildfires, and landslides will likely result in more frequent closures of area resources. Such 

events are likely to threaten human safety and health, particularly in remote areas that are less 

accessible to emergency responders. Land and infrastructure owners will need to develop emergency 

response plans for various impact scenarios that will allow for critical amenities and infrastructure to 

remain available during extreme events, as well as plans for how to respond when extreme weather 

events and other natural hazards threaten visitor and staff safety.

FLMAs can take steps to make visitors aware of emergency procedures, including those resulting from 

natural hazards. FLMAs and DOTs can post signage and maps to communicate alternate and safe access 

routes in the event of emergency events. They can also use other types of warning systems such as 

alarms or announcements to help keep visitors safe and informed during events and avoid damage to 

threatened infrastructure. FLMAs can also work with real-time travel information providers to 

disseminate information about road closures and safety advisories. 

 

39 Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area/Visitor Center: Planning Efforts. http://mgra-mgvc.us/ 40 National Park Service. Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook. 2016. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/coastalhandbook.htm 41 National Park Service. Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. September 2015. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/coastaladaptationstrategies.htm 42 U.S. Forest Service. Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide for Low-Volume Roads. October 2015. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf12771814/pdf12771814dpi100.pdf 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

19

3.5 CHANGING SEASONAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM PATTERNS 

A warmer climate, melting sea ice, and longer summers may lead to changing travel and tourism 

patterns. The summer season during which FLMA units get the majority of their tourists will likely 

lengthen into the spring and fall. This may lead to more tourists or the same number of visitors spread 

out over a longer period of time. For parks that are accessed primarily by boat, less sea ice may make it 

easier for visitors to access the parks for more of the year. 

A warmer climate also means that locations that are now accessed by ice roads for winter travel may be 

inaccessible by car or truck for more of the year in the future. Changing conditions and shorter seasons 

for other winter activities, such as snowmobiling or ice fishing, may also reduce tourism during the 

winter season. 

Climate change may also impact the natural features that draw many visitors to Alaska’s FLMA units. For 

example, with glaciers disappearing or declining in size, fewer visitors may want to visit the public lands 

that currently have significant glaciers; visitor centers built for glacier viewing may decline in popularity 

as glaciers retreat.

These changing seasonal travel and tourism patterns may lead to more intensive use of resources and 

infrastructure, and a need for FLMAs to change operations and maintenance patterns. For example, if 

visitors are spread out over a longer portion of the year, FLMA units may choose to hire seasonal 

workers for longer periods of time, affecting budgets and the ability to attract qualified employees. 

Shorter winters and demand from visitors may allow parks to open roads or boat docks earlier in the 

season, leading to changing timeframes for maintenance on these facilities. 

4 NATURAL HAZARD RISK REDUCTION IN ALASKA 

Within the state of Alaska, a number of research projects and initiatives are being undertaken to build 

the resilience of the State’s infrastructure and resources to natural hazards. The following section 

discusses efforts by the state government as a whole and Alaska DOT&PF in particular, as well as 

research efforts undertaken in Alaska that can help agencies understand risks from natural hazards and 

develop strategies to reduce those risks. 

4.1 STATE GOVERNMENT EFFORTS 

In 2007, the Alaska Governor created the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet to advise the Office of the 

Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy. Information 

about the sub-cabinet and related efforts can be found on the Climate Change in Alaska web page.43

In November 2017, Alaska Governor Bill Walker signed Administrative Order 289, which established an 

Alaska Climate Change Strategy and a Climate Action for Alaska Leadership Team to develop a 

recommended plan of action.44 The Strategy focuses on mitigation, adaptation, research, and response. 

 

43 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. “Climate Change in Alaska.” 

http://climatechange.alaska.gov/ 44 Office of Governor Michael J. Dunleavy. Administrative Order No. 289. October 31, 2017. 

https://gov.alaska.gov/admin-orders/administrative-order-no-289/ 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

20

The order also calls for State departments to review their previous work on climate change and identify 

immediate adaptation and response actions they can take.45

Alaska’s Hazard Mitigation Plan provides information about natural and other hazards in Alaska and 

strategies that the state is pursuing to mitigate or lessen the impacts of these hazards. The plan is 

developed as a partnership between local government, Alaska Division of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other State and 

Federal agencies.46

4.2 ALASKA DOT&PF 

Alaska DOT&PF is addressing the risks that extreme weather poses to the state’s transportation system 

through its long range transportation plan and asset management plan. The long range transportation 

policy plan, Let’s Keep Moving 2036, discusses climate trends and risks. The plan states that climate 

change will increase infrastructure vulnerability, but it may also increase development opportunities in 

the Arctic Ocean. To address these risks, Alaska DOT&PF includes policy statements that emphasize 

monitoring climate trends and their impacts on transportation infrastructure, and incorporating these 

impacts into project design, asset management, construction and maintenance. For example, an action 

from the Safety and Security policy goal area of the plan is to, “Address lack of redundancy and climate 

change resiliency in asset management plans, project identification, and prioritization within area, 

corridor and metropolitan plans.” 

Alaska DOT&PF’s asset management plan also discusses how changes in precipitation and temperature 

are likely to affect asset management. It states that construction costs will be higher to maintain frozen 

permafrost as temperatures rise, and maintenance and operations costs will increase if the warming 

trend continues. For example, in 2015 the Dalton Highway had major flooding due to ice build-up that 

caused water to flow over the highway, and spring breakup caused another round of flooding that 

washed away sections of the gravel road. This flooding caused road closures and resulted in $17 million 

in emergency repairs. Alaska DOT&PF expects similar and worsening impacts in the future.

4.3 RESEARCH EFFORTS 

The Alaska Climate Science Center (AK CSC) – one of eight climate science centers managed by the 

United State Geological Survey – is located at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and works to provide 

managers with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that 

address the impacts of climate change on natural and cultural resources.47 The AK CSC has a number of 

research projects relevant to FLMAs in Alaska, including climate modeling, methods to assess the 

vulnerability of species, habitats, and human communities, and decision support tools.

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL)

aims to solve scientific and engineering challenges in cold and complex environments through 

 

45 Office of Governor Michael J. Dunleavy. Administrative Order No. 289. October 31, 2017. 

https://gov.alaska.gov/admin-orders/administrative-order-no-289/ 46 Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013. 47 Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Centers. https://csc.alaska.edu/about 
Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2018

21

effective, interdisciplinary solutions. Laboratory’s work includes: research and experimental engineering 

reports; state-of-the-art review papers; and other specialized publications.48 The CRREL project office in 

Fairbanks focuses on permafrost research.

The Scenarios Network for Alaska and Artic Planning (SNAP), part of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

works to develop and communicate plausible scenarios for potential conditions in an evolving climate. 

SNAP has produced a number of research studies and datasets relevant to FLMAs in Alaska. They have 

also developed analysis tools that allow researchers and members of the public to view and explore data 

on topics such as wildfires, climate projections, precipitation, historical and modeled sea ice, and 

extreme weather.49 One project, in partnership with the Wilderness Society, involved creating climate 

change summary reports for each national park in Alaska, including projected changes in temperature 

and precipitation.50

Denali National Park has undertaken several recent studies related to natural hazards and climate 

impacts. In November 2016, Denali conducted a multi-hazard risk assessment that analyzed and 

prioritized a wide range of geological, infrastructure, maintenance, and management risks that may 

impact the Denali Park Road in the future. The park also conducted an analysis of geographic hazards 

focused on unstable slopes, using the Unstable Slope Management Program (USMP) rating criteria.51

The park ranked 141 sites along the 92 mile park road, and found that 24 percent were in poor condition 

based on the rating criteria. The park used the results of this analysis to inform its long-range 

transportation plan, which was published in draft form in August 2017. 

The Forest Service produced the “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Aquatic Resources in the 

Tongass National Forest.”52 The assessment looked at the vulnerability of five resources: snow, ice, 

water features, riparian vegetation, and fish species. The study assessed resource vulnerability by

considering exposure to climate change (in particular snowpack, precipitation, water temperature, and 

fish), sensitivity to climate and non-climate stressors, and adaptive capacity. The results of the 

assessment can be used to help guide and support managers or planners in 1) identifying which aquatic 

resources are likely to be most affected by changing climate conditions; 2) improving understanding as 

to why those resources are likely to be vulnerable; and 3) provide insights into potential management 

actions.

 

48 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 

http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/476744/cold-regionsresearch-and-engineering-laboratory/ 49 Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP). Analysis Tools. https://www.snap.uaf.edu/tools-anddata/all-analysis-tools 50 Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP). Climate change summary reports for National Parks, 

Preserves and Monuments. https://www.snap.uaf.edu/projects/summary-reports 51 National Park Service. Denali National Park and Preserve Long Range Transportation Plan. 2018. 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=82607 52 EcoAdapt. A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Aquatic Resources in the Tongass National Forest. 

November 2014. 

http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/EcoAdapt_Tongass_VulnerabilityAssessmentReport_FINAL_22Nov214_small

res.pdf 
Appendix F

Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.

Risk Assessment Workshop
Alaska Federal Land Management Agency

Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

Risk Assessment

Workshop Summary

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office

December 12-14, 2017
i 

AKR FLMA CLRTP

Risk Assessment

Workshop Summary

Denali National Park and Preserve 

December 12-14, 2017 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

FOREWARD 1

SECTION A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

Workshop Objectives 2 

Summary of Recommendations 3 

SECTION B: RISK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP 5

Introduction and Purpose 5

Attendance List 6

Risk Culture Summary 8

Risk Management Survey Results 13

Risk Identification Work Group Activity 14

Qualitative Risk Assessment Exercise 21

Response and Monitoring Work Group Exercise 34

Desired Product 38

Participant Comments 39

Final Summary Statement 40

SECTION C: ATTACHMENTS 41

A. Risk Assessment Workshop Agenda 42

B. DENA Park Road Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet 46

C. Additional Presentations 55 
ii 
 1 

FOREWORD

This workshop summary presents the findings for theAlaska Federal Land Management Agency 

(FLMA) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Risk Assessment project. The workshop 

participants convened at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office located in Anchorage, 

Alaska on December 12-14, 2017. 

This is to certify that the workshop was led by the undersigned National Park Service Facilitator 

and was conducted in accordance with National Park Service principles and guidelines.

Paul Schrooten

Facilitator
 2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Four federal land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS)), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) – Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) and State of Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), is completing an 

assessment for the purpose of evaluating how long range transportation planning is 

affected or should be influenced by management of risk. 

The CLRTP was originally completed in 2012 and is currently being updated. A LRTP 

for Denali National Park and Preserve is also nearing completion and as a part of 

that process, a prototypical risk assessment workshop was held to determine if it 

would provide additional focus and purpose for that document. Since there appeared 

to be a direct correlation to that plan’s recommendations for park management and 

the fact that the results of the workshop were well received by its participants, the 

application to the CLRTP seems logical. 

The Alaska Region has experienced numerous geophysical events through history

that have significantly impacted transportation infrastructure, facilities, and systems. 

Major seismic activity, wildfires, floods, avalanches, and other similar catastrophic 

occurrences have occurred with such frequency and in varying magnitudes, thereby 

damaging or destroying transportation assets managed by the FLMAs. Many less 

dramatic events have consistently blocked traffic, undermined road surfaces, and 

caused damage to motor vehicles. Therefore, a comprehensive risk analysis was 

recommended to identify the highest risks so they can be properly identified, 

addressed, and prioritized before future events occur. Risks from other geophysical 

hazards, departures from facility/asset standards, changes in vehicle specifications, 

reduction in maintenance/operations, and changes in agency management were risk 

categories identified to be addressed.

Risk categories:

FLMA staff worked with FHWA to complete a comprehensive risk assessment in light 

of updating a strategic transportation document. The risk assessment workshop 

consisted of: (1) risk identification; (2) qualitative evaluation of risks; (3) responses to 

risks; (4) monitoring and control recommendations; and (5) consideration as to 

whether risk should be a part of the CLRTP update. The FLMAs and FHWA plan to

use results to guide areas of emphasis and incorporate the findings into the park’s 

long range transportation plan (2018-2038). 

WorkshopObjectives

The purpose of multi-day session was to 1) describe all types of risk exposure 

(including, but not limited to, geophysical hazards, alteration of facility 

assets/standards, revised vehicle specifications, changes in maintenance or 
 3 

operations, and succession of agency management), 2) evaluate each type of risk to 

thoroughly vet qualitative impacts and likely responses, and 3) strategize how and 

when the final document (product) would be best completed, including task 

assignments.

Summary of Recommendations

The workshop participants evaluated a broad range of hazards, including geophysical 

hazards, departures from facility/asset standards, changes in vehicle specifications, 

reduction in maintenance/operations, and changes in park management. 

Recommendations on each risk category is included within each descriptive section.
 4 

Risk Assessment Workshop 
 5 

Introduction and Purpose 

Facilitator Paul Schrooten opened the workshop with introductions including a welcome by 

USFWS Regional Transportation Coordinator David Morton. The purpose of the workshop was 

reiterated with the following objectives as:

1) describing all types of risk exposure (including, but not limited to, geophysical hazards, 

alteration of facility assets/standards, revised vehicle specifications, changes in maintenance or 

operations, and succession of park management),

2) evaluating each type of risk to thoroughly vet qualitative impacts and likely responses, and

3) strategizing how and when the final document (product) would be best completed, including 

task assignments.

The risk assessment workshop group consisted of staff from BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFS, 

WFLHD, ADOT&PF, the U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe), and 

Western Carolina University. 

The workshop contingent was composed of a mix of professional disciplines and individuals 

with experience in planning, engineering, geographic information systems, project 

management, geotechnical engineering, and transportation resources. 

The facilitator acknowledged that no risk assessment workshop, to his knowledge, had been 

applied as a precursor to a regional strategic planning effort (LRTP), nor used to evaluate such 

a broad spectrum of risk types. A brief presentation on the basics of risk was used to introduce 

the topic.

The group discussed how another layer of verification may be needed from technical experts 

after the workshop. Actual decision makers or representation from all of the FLMAs in the room

were not present. The facilitator reiterated that the intent of workshop was not to make 

decisions, but to provide recommendations. 

Quinn N. (FHWA) asked if agencies use risk as part of project prioritization. Paul S. (NPS) said 

no formal risk criteria are used, but it is reviewed somewhat informally. Larger projects that go 

through the NPS Line Item Construction program are reviewed for risks on a case by case 

basis. David M. (USFWS) said for construction over a certain dollar value, his agency looks at 

risk formally. Other projects may be considered informally. Molly M. (NPS) said the Denali NP 

workshop helped recognize bringing risk into the park management culture (i.e. the idea that 

the Denali Park Road may need to be realigned to a new location to reduce a number of risks to 

resources and visitors). Results of the risk workshop translated into a management decision for 

a project on the road this coming summer. Erica S. (Volpe) said it was important to think about 

risk management at different scales. There may be more programmatic needs/ways to address 

risk. 
 6 

ATTENDANCE LIST

Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop

Project: Conduct a Hazard Assessment of the Alaska Region 

Location: USFWS Alaska Regional Office ( X ) Workshop

Date: 12/12/17 to 12/14/17 ( ) Post Workshop
 7 

Name/ Title: Job Function: Organization/Address: Phone/e-mail:

A. Mark Anderson Engineer NPS, WASO PFMD 202-251-1102

Public Health Service

a_mark_anderson@nps.gov

Amit Armstrong Manager FHWA, WFL 360-619-7668

Technology Deployment Program

amit.armstrong@dot.gov

Laura Babcock GIS Specialist NPS, DSC 303-969-2125

laura_babcock@nps.gov

Roxanne Bash Transportation Planning Team Lead FHWA, WFL 360-629-7558

roxanne.bash@dot.gov

Betty Chon Project Manager FHWA, WFL 360-619-7815

betty.chon@dot.gov

Brian Collins Senior Geotechnical Engineer FHWA, WFL 360-619-7657

brian.collins@dot.gov

Randy Goodwin Outdoor Recreation Planner BLM 907-474-2369

rgoodwin@blm.gov

Molly McKinley Outdoor Recreation Planner NPS, DENA 907-683-6241

mary_mckinley@nps.gov

David Morton Engineer USFWS 907-786-3579

david_morton@fws.gov

Quinn Newton Transportation Planner FHWA, WFL 360-619-7836

quinn.newton@dot.gov

Amy Plovnick Community Planner DOT, Volpe 617-494-3504

Recorder

amy.plovnick@dot.gov

Joe Regula Landscape Architect NPS, YELL 307-344-2624

joe_regula@nps.gov

Ryan Scavo Project Manager NPS, WASO 202-617-7451

Environmental Protection Specialist

ryan_scavo@nps.gov

Paul Schrooten Facilitator & NPS, AKRO 907-644-3388

Landscape Architect

paul_schrooten@nps.gov

Erica Simmons Community Planner DOT, Volpe 617-494-3726

erica.simmons@dot.gov

J. Eric Taylor Transportation Planner II ADOT&PF 907-465-8958

Manager, Statewide LRTP & Transit

eric.taylor@alaska.gov

Blair Tormey Coastal Research Scientist Western Carolina 

University

828-227-2536

btormey@email.wcu.edu

Zack Wood GIS Specialist NPS, DSC 303-987-6857

rafael_wood@nps.gov
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

8

Risk Culture Summary

Utilizing small work groups, four statements were discussed that helped to define current 

attitudes about risk. All participants are asked to rate the same four statements on a Likert 

scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree/disagree, disagree, strongly disagree). Each 

work group reported out with the following results:

Group 1: (Mark A., Laura B., Blair T.) 

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility.

Agree (mostly). Depends on position in the organization. If a new risk is identified, there is a 

challenge of fitting it into an old list of priorities. 

2. Agency management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility.

Disagree (NPS); strongly agree (WCU). Risk is a new concept for discussion/focus in some 

of the agencies. Talked a lot about how new administration makes some terms/ideas related 

to risk challenging (e.g., climate change). 

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

Agree. It’s our job to identify risks in program area and communicate to agency management.

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk.

Neither agree or disagree; and agree. Risk is a new way of looking at problems. Risk hasn’t 

permeated agency culture yet, including to management levels.

Group 2: (Erica S., David M., Brian C.)

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility.

Agree. DENA risk assessment has informed the conversation there. Engineers have tools for 

looking at risk at the project level. But may not be comprehensive for other types of risks 

(e.g., organizational structure). 

2. Agency management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility.
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

9

Strongly agree (FHWA); agree (FWS, FS). FHWA has project risk analysis framework. FWS 

and FS have strong culture for assessing resource risk, but not for transportation risk. There 

are good national resources (National LRTP, national transportation program), but not at 

regional level. Alaska is a small region for most of the agencies in terms of staff, resources, 

etc. (compared to other regions). FS is stronger than FWS from a transportation perspective.

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

Strongly agree (FHWA) – risk is looked at for the project and subproject level. Agree (FWS) – 

considered in the road inventory and assessment process. Could be more communication 

with management. Agree (FS) – challenge if risk doesn’t relate to resources or recreation.

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk.

FHWA – neither agree nor disagree. FWS/FS- agree. In some instances, the agency does a 

good job. For a high priority project, there may be lack of willingness to disrupt to discuss 

risk. Risk may be discussed, but may not affect the final decision.

Group 3: (Eric T, Zack W., Amy P., and Paul S.)

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility.

Agree. Concern over qualitative identification of risk vs. having the data to assess risk. 

AKDOT may consider frequency more than impact when assessing risk. How does risk play 

a role in environmental compliance?

2. Agency management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility.

Agree. NPS – risk talked about in project design, but not necessarily at unit level. AKDOT – 

have processes in preconstruction manual; multimodal agency so have different language for 

each mode and each federal agency they are funded by.

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

Agree (AKDOT) and strongly agree (NPS). NPS has an open door policy for identifying risks 

early. Importance of getting the right people from a park in the room. AKDOT – risk is built 

into LRTP planning process.

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk.

NPS (Paul) – Disagree. Park superintendents are not coming to regions to ask about risk. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

10

AKDOT – agree. DOT is open to hearing about risk, but leadership doesn’t always foster 

discussion. NPS (Zack) – agree. Office looks at risk through lens of visitor safety, not always 

risk to infrastructure. Lack of resources at state level is a huge risk.

Group 4: (Amit A., Randy G., Quinn N., and Joe R.)

Group 4 discussion: 

• Discussion about how each agency perceives risk assessment. No set process in BLM at 

the programmatic level, only at the project level. FHWA does qualitative risk assessment 

every 2 years. 

• BLM national level – travel management plans. This is happening in Alaska too, but within 

BLM there is a hierarchy - administrative sites get priority over recreation sites. This is not 

done through a formal process. 

• Structure of LRTP process is a good framework for thinking about risk. Can lead towards a 

risk assessment process as part of scenario planning.

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility.

Agree. FHWA very focused on risk assessment, but often qualitative.

2. Agency management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility.

Neither agree nor disagree. Discussed the word “framework”, and whether a NEPA 

document constitutes a risk assessment. 

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

Agree.

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk.

Agree. 

Group 5: (Betty C., Roxanne B., and Ryan S.)

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility.

AKDOT – Agree; WFL planning – agree; WFL project delivery – strongly agree. NPS – 

agree. USDOT promotes a culture of risk assessment from secretary level on down. Land 

management agencies don’t have that same model from the secretary’s level down. Risk 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

11

assessment is built into project management. 

2. Agency management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility.

WFL planning – agree. WFL project delivery – strongly agree. WFL – built into their job. NPSneither agree nor disagree. Working on it. 

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

WFL - strongly agree. Risk is a component of long range planning. NPS – strongly agree. 

Because of the work we are doing with partners to assess climate-related risks to 

infrastructure/assets. 

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk.

Strongly agree. NPS - in certain circles within the office – not every park wants to do it. May 

be more opportunity for partnership between FHWA and FLMAs. Individuals in a 

management role may be willing to accept more/less risk than others.

Summarized results would appear to support the following:

1. I feel comfortable with my ability to identify and assess risks that may materially impact my 

program or area of responsibility. 

Generally, the workshop groups Agreed, specifically citing a broad acknowledgement of 

abilities. 

2. Park management has provided a framework (common language and methodology) with 

which I can evaluate risks and controls in my program or area of responsibility. 

Groups expressed a full array of responses, probably contributing to the fact that FHWA has 

risk deeply embedded in its policies, while the FLMAs are concerned with risk, but more from 

an operational leadership and resource stance. Transportation centric risks are somewhat 

more new to the discussion.

3. I periodically identify key risks in my program or area of responsibility and communicate them 

to agency management.

Almost every group Agreed to Strongly Agreed that the opportunity for communicating 

identified risks exists and is encouraged.

4. Agency management fosters an open and collaborative discussion around risk. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

12

This response also prompted diverse responses ranging from Strongly Agree to Disagree, 

indicating an organizational inconsistency about safety versus risk. There is a need for 

proper, comprehensive risk management at all levels as well as outreach to other 

stakeholders with a proactive philosophy rather than reactive. The agencies are adequately 

addressing risk in a number of ways, but hierarchical development should be stronger.
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

13

Risk Management Survey Results

The facilitator reviewed the results of the risk priority survey completed by about half of the 

participants prior to the workshop. The purpose of the survey was to compare risk types directly 

against one another (as referred to as “Paul’s Matrix of Torture”) to determine those risk types 

that were considered of highest priority. Using the survey results enabled the workshop 

participants to discuss, reprioritize and select the highest for further consideration in the Alaska 

CLRTP. 

23.67

23.25

23.00

22.83

22.83

22.50

20.33

19.50

19.00

18.92

18.50

17.67

17.17

16.83

16.08

15.33

15.17

14.92

14.33

14.25

13.33

12.92

12.83

12.17

11.67

11.42

10.67

9.67

6.25

6.17

5.17

4.58

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Permafrost Subsidence

System Resilience

Resource Management

River and Stream Flooding

Safety Management

Unstable Slopes

Drainage Structures (Culverts)

Elevated Structures (Bridges. Docks, Trestles)

Storm Surge

Drainage Structures (Culverts)

Bridges

Non-implementation of LRTP

Paved and Unpaved Roads

Partnerships

Inholder vehicle capacity, frequency of access, vehicle type

Staffing Locations and Staff Level Changes

Seismic Events

Gravel Production, Processing, or Purchase

Surfacing (Asphalt, Concrete, Gravel, Decking, Trail Mix)

Agency Management Organizational Structure

Aircraft, Airports, Runways, Landing Strips

Wildfires

Congestion Management

Technological Advancements

Vehicle Capacity, Frequency of Access, and Destination

Trails, T-roads, Seasonal Vehicle Routes

Watercraft, Docks, and Launches

Vegetation Management

Railroad, Depots

Vehicle Type, Length, Capacity, Powertrain / Fuel

Vehicle or Craft Operating Regulations (Rules of the Road)

Dust Management

Rating

Risk Type

Risk Priorities 

Low

Medium

High
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

14

Risk Identification Work Group Activity 

Five work groups were formed to address the risks identified in each risk category to a) confirm 

validity, b) agree on cause(s), and c) brainstorm all effects.

In summary, all risk categories were validated and confirmed for further consideration. Causes 

and effects were refined to reflect actual conditions at the park. Final changes are reflected in 

Attachment B: Alaska CLRTP Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet.

Specific discussion included:

• Top risks were based on the pre-workshop rankings: permafrost subsidence, system 

resilience, resource management. System resilience and resource management were not 

part of DENA risk assessment. 

• Gravel management is rated low, but was one of top risks in the DENA risk assessment

and is a constant topic of conversation in Alaska FLMA units. 

• Noteworthy was that NPS and FHWA had the most people submit a completed matrix. No 

one from USFS responded and BLM submittal was received too late to be incorporated. 

Workgroup #1: (Erica S., David M., Brian C.) 

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

1. Unstable Slopes

- Confirm validity: Add to risk category – “and avalanches”. 

- Agree on causes: Nothing to add

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: “closure or loss of access; potential natural and cultural 

resource impacts including...”

2. Permafrost Subsidence

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: Add: climate change, loss of shallow permafrost

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: thaw instability, which leads to the effects listed under unstable 

slopes; added maintenance costs; methane gas release; effects on drainage patterns. 

3. River and Stream Flooding

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: ice breakup patterns, spring thaws

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Floating debris damage, loss of infrastructure, damages to fish 

habitat, undermining unstable slopes 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

15

 

4. Seismic Events

- Confirm validity: Add to risk category: “and volcanic” 

- Agree on causes: Add volcanic effects.

- Brainstorm all effects: Seismic – add ground subsidence, damage to buildings, unstable 

slopes; volcanic – add air quality, damage to aviation, injury or death for nearby individuals, 

effects of residual ash on the landscape 

5. Wildfire 

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: No changes 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: effects on air travel, water quality, diversion of helicopter 

resources, diversion of agency resources. 

6. Storm Surge

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: Add sea level rise (although may be less of a cause in many parts of AK 

due to uplift). 

- Brainstorm all effects: add cultural resource loss

Workgroup #2: (Eric T, Zack W., Amy P., and Paul S.)

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Vehicle Type, Length, Capacity, and Powertrain/Fuel

- Confirm validity: Yes (e.g., larger cruise ships that current docks can’t accept, or larger 

airplanes; shift from single axel to articulated bus)

- Agree on causes: Add: autonomous vehicles 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: for autonomous vehicles – impact on visitor services, parking 

lot design/capacity, speed limits. 

2. Vehicle Capacity, Frequency of Access, and Destination

- Confirm validity: Yes (e.g., Mendenhall glacier in Juneau) 

 

- Agree on causes: Add: media and perception about Alaska

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: visitor use 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

16

3. Vehicle or Craft Operating Regulations (Rules of the Road)

- Confirm validity: Recommend eliminating (risk is specific to Denali)

• BLM –regulations are mostly related to visitor preparedness (e.g., Dalton 

highway)

• Rules around access by snow mobile for subsistence use 

• BLM regulates off-road use; FWS varies by region; Weather-dependent for when 

people are allowed to access 

• Rename this risk category “Rules of Access” (to include ATV and off-road in 

addition to rules of the road)

- Agree on causes: No change

- Brainstorm all effects: No change 

Workgroup #3: (Betty C., Roxanne B., and Ryan S.)

REDUCTIONS OR CHANGES IN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

1. Gravel Production, Processing, or Purchase

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: proximity of appropriate gravel for M&O and project needs is the 

cause for it being a risk factor. Not enough or appropriate data to understand the problem 

and solutions (for all risk factors in this category). Multiple gravel rock sources statewide 

contain asbestos. Regional travel corporations own most subsurface rights (for tribal lands 

or state land). 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Quality, cost, viewshed, etc. are affected by location of the 

gravel. Permitting delays if agency doesn’t own gravel source. 

- The group noted that risk matrix ranked this very high, but group’s pre-workshop ranking 

is low. 

2. Surfacing (Asphalt, Concrete, Gravel, Decking, Trail Mix)

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: Increased extreme weather, permafrost melt, etc.; lack of data 

about where the permafrost is melting

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Shortened asset lifespan, increased cost of repair and rehab

3. Vegetation Management

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: lack of resources (staff, equipment, funding). 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

17

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: affects the natural and cultural resources (animals eating 

roadside vegetation can lead to animal vehicle collisions); degradation of the asset; 

safety conditions (sightline, etc.); blocking the viewshed; integrity of native vegetation; 

effect of chemical sprays on wildlife (e.g., fish eggs) 

The group was surprised that this risk category was low on the list. Discussion of how no 

one involved in day to day M&O filled out the matrix. 

4. Elevated Structures (Bridges, Docks, Trestles)

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: lack of resources, lack of appropriate data. Unknown 

foundations leading to uncertainty about performance in storm events and 

susceptibility to scour.

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: increased cost of rehab/repair; inhibits access to FLMA 

and visitation; impacts to local economy

5. Drainage Structures (Culverts)

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: lack of data on location and condition of the culverts (lack of an 

inventory); 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Inhibiting access due to flood events

 

 

6. Congestion Management

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: High/increase in visitation; lack of data that is specific about why 

increased visitation is occurring (national/international events – political situation, world 

economy).

- Brainstorm all effects: No changes

7. Dust Management

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Lack of resources (high cost of dust control materials)

- Brainstorm all effects: No change. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

18

Workgroup #4: (Amit A., Randy G., Quinn N., and Joe R.)

FLMA MANAGEMENT

1. Non-implementation of LRTP

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: Add: Missed opportunities of joint alliance; consensus of political 

will/political influence 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: missed funding opportunity; connectivity

Group discussed what implementation means. It is meeting their performance measures.

Roxanne noted that the Statewide CLRTP is being updated; NPS is the only agency that is 

updating the statewide agency-specific LRTP; FWS, FS, BLM are doing national LRTPs, which 

will influence work at the state level. 

2. Resource Management

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: shifts in local economy/employment, technology advances, 

political will. Can be both threat and opportunity

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Changes in employment and skilled labor opportunities; 

changes in use of land. 

3. Safety Management

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Group took issue with language “ignoring accidents”. Change to “ability 

to address facility improvement to accommodate level of use.”

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: change in use management (recreation vs. industrial use). 

4. Staffing, Locations and Staff Level Changes

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: Add: changes in demand (increased users may require additional 

personnel). This risk is also tied to budget, policy, and politics. 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Higher amenity demands; housing for staff. Ability to monitor 

or regulate programs. 

5. Agency Management Organizational Structure

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: no changes
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

19

 

- Brainstorm all effects: no changes

6. Partnerships

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: No changes 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Lack of stewardship and advocates; decreased ability to 

leverage funding; shift to contracting rather than partnerships with graduate students, etc. 

7. Inholder Vehicle Capacity, Frequency of Access, and Vehicle Type

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: No changes

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: retaining access to lands and equitable use. 

Workgroup #5: (Mark A., Laura B., Blair T.) 

FACILITY ASSETS / STANDARDS

1. Paved and Unpaved Roads

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: No change 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: decreased lifespan of road; increased maintenance and 

repair; liability issues. 

2. System Resilience

- Confirm validity: Yes

- Agree on causes: No change

 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: increased maintenance and repair costs 

3. Bridges 

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: No change

- Brainstorm all effects: Lifespan of bridge might not be what you expect; increased 

maintenance; liability; issues with historic bridges (Alaska is currently considering what to 

do with bridges that are almost eligible to be listed on national register). 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

20

4. Watercraft, Docks, and Launches

- Confirm validity: yes. Add navigational aids (e.g., channel markers). Add drones / 

automated watercraft. 

- Agree on causes: Add watercraft agency like coast guard? 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Lifespan considerations, maintenance, liability issues. 

5. Aircraft, Airports, Runways, and Land Strips

- Confirm validity: Yes. Add drones/UAV.

- Agree on causes: No change. 

- Brainstorm all effects: Add: Lifespan, maintenance, liability. Drones and their effects – 

noise, wildlife issues, visitor experience, safety, surveillance (e.g., wildfires) 

6. Railroad Depots

- Confirm validity: Yes 

- Agree on causes: No change. 

- Brainstorm all effects: Lifespan, maintenance, liability. Historic structures. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

21

Qualitative Risk Assessment Exercise 

Individuals were asked to confirm the probability and impact of each risk, ultimately querying all 

participants if there was consensus on its priority in park decision-making. The probability 

(frequency), impact, a matrix to depict each, and a general priority was assigned to each as 

depicted in Attachment B: Alaska CLRTP Road Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet.

Prior to beginning the conversation, the following discussion included:

• What is the value in prioritizing these risks? This all leads up to the final work activity to 

identify the most important risks so management knows what to address now, and what to 

deal with when it happens. Prioritization can help identify which risk should be integrated with 

LRTP. Risk categories of high priority should show high probability and impact. Another way 

to think about risk is a cost benefit analysis and agency management’s capacity to manage 

risk. Priority identification may be different than what is indicated in the probability / impact 

matrix. 

• This is a “report card” that focuses on the FLMAs priorities. There are probably 11 to 12 risks 

that can be influenced or impacted with minimal funding. Most of these are funded through 

agency management already, but they can be fine-tuned based upon awareness. 

• It is important to remember that the current discussion is a slice in time and that the 

outcomes are being affected by such indicators as climate change, funding levels, etc. 

Geologic Hazards: 

1. Unstable slopes (and avalanche) (Blair T.) 

1. Probability (Frequency) – may drop because only an issue for NPS and ADOT&PF

2. Impact – high impact 

3. Risk Matrix Selection - no change to high and high

4. Priority – discussion of whether to move down. Keep as high priority for this portion of the 

workshop; may revisit. 

Note: May be limited locations where this is an issue – Denali NP, a few at Tongass NF, 

none at USFWS. Some locations on state highway system (e.g., Dalton Highway) – but 

ADOT&PF has this under control. 

Unstable Slope Management Program (USMP) tool is in place to help manage assets with 

unstable slopes. 

This is a high priority in certain locations – need to show this is a risk to make the case for 

developing tools. 

Unstable slopes are a good indicator of other risks or hazards to transportation. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

22

 

2. Permafrost subsidence (Randy G.)

1 Probability (Frequency) - high 

2 Impact - high 

3 Risk Matrix Selection – no change to high and high; this risk is becoming an increasing 

issue as transportation systems expand. 

4 Priority – no change to high

Note: University of Alaska research shows permafrost is melting. Permafrost melting has a 

drying effect of the land and is leading to migrating ecosystems. Transportation impacts 

include cutbacks on roads. 

3. River and stream flooding (Zack W.) 

1. Probability (Frequency) – high; compounding layers that could affect the probability; 

propose moving to very high

2. Impact – medium 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to high probability and low impact

4. Priority – change to high priority

 

4. Seismic events (and volcanic) (Erica S.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – very high; add disruption to aviation due to volcanic ash 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – range of potential impacts depending on the size of the 

earthquake/volcano; could show as an array – a line across the matrix covering low to 

high, medium to medium, and high to low (probability and impact)

4. Priority – keep as medium priority 

Note: There are statewide impacts of earthquakes and volcanoes regardless of where they 

occur. Disruptions to air quality and to aviation from volcanoes. Thinking from a 

transportation perspective, it may make sense to focus this category on low probability, high 

impact events. High frequency events are unlikely to impact transportation systems.
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

23

5. Wildfires (Amit A.)

 

1. Probability (Frequency) – low 

2. Impact – high (related to safety, evacuation, emergency response) - but minimal longterm impact on FLMA transportation infrastructure; has impact on travel (aviation, marine) 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to low probability and low impact

4. Priority – propose to keep at lower end of medium; may revisit. 

Note: Connection between permafrost melt and wildfire – negative feedback loop. With less 

permafrost, wildfire will burn for longer and hotter. 

6. Storm surge (Laura B.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – agree – can be at a local scale or widespread. 

2. Impact – add impact to resources, visitor use experience. 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to medium probability and high impact 

4. Priority – high end of medium ranking; impact on transportation systems mostly relates to 

marine travel. This risk is localized to certain areas of the states. Some want to drop it 

lower so will revisit. 

Facility Assets/Standards:

7. Paved and unpaved roads (Mark A.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – medium 

2. Impact – very low 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to medium probability and low impact

4. Priority – keep at medium priority; several want it moved lower. 

8. System resilience (Quinn N.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

24

 

 

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to high probability and medium impact

4. Priority – should be very high; leave where it is for now. 

Note: Encompassing of many other factors. Should this be its own category? There is not 

much redundancy in the transportation systems in Alaska. There are integrated and 

interdependent transportation systems between FLMAs and the state’s system.

System redundancy is a related issue. There is some redundancy in that you can switch to 

different modes. 

What would be the specific action resulting from this risk?

Resilience is related to LOS for desired level of access and visitor use. 

9. Bridges (Roxanne B.) 

1. Probability (Frequency) – low (change from very low because lots of bridges have 

deficiencies and are aging) 

2. Impact – change to high 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to very low probability and medium impact

4. Priority – medium (consistent with survey); three people want it moved into the higher 

category. 

Note: Does this include non-inspected bridges? Yes. 

This risk category relates to bridge standards, so the probability of deviating is low. 

10. Watercraft, launches, and docks (Brian C.) 

1- Probability (Frequency) – Add changing vessel sizes

2- Impact – no change 

3- Risk Matrix Selection – low as far as FLMAs are concerned, but keep as very low 

probability and medium impact. 

4- Priority – no change 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

25

11. Aircraft, airports, runways, landing strips (and drones) (Betty C.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – higher than listed; it is already happening - should be medium

2. Impact – medium 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to very low probability and medium impact

4. Priority – should be slightly higher than listed; keep where it is. 

Note: Look at social media, extreme weather and how they are opening up access to FLMA 

by float planes and small aircraft 

12. Railroads and depots (Paul S.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – Agree 

2. Impact – may be slightly higher impact, but propose keeping it as is. 

3. Risk Matrix Selection - no change to very low probability and medium impact

4. Priority – agree – should remain low priority 

13. Technological advancements (David M.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – high

2. Impact – medium 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to high probability and medium impact

4. Priority – No change (keep at low for now)

Note: Likely advancements include fuel changes in cars, autonomous cars, and electric 

bikes. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is a component of this. 

There are both opportunities and threats related to this risk. The category is very broad – can 

find aspects in other category. It doesn’t look like Alaska is going to get a lot of money to deal

with this issue.

14. Trails, t-roads, seasonal vehicle routes (Joe R.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

26

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to medium probability and medium impact

4. Priority – medium-low; proposal to move higher – towards higher end of medium. 

Note: Not just a recreational issue – this is transportation for many people living in Alaska. 

Issues that impact this – increased visitation and use. May lead to deterioration of resources, 

visitor conflicts, and effect on economy. 

T-roads are more prevalent in interior and northern parts of Alaska. Important for subsistence 

use. 

This is a resource risk and safety risk. Not an investment risk (except for BLM). 

Discussion included the potential for development of t-roads and trails.

15. Drainage structures (culverts) – asset (Ryan S.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – medium, broad occurrence 

2. Impact – opportunity to mitigate weather related damages; high impact 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – change to medium probability, retain high impact 

4. Priority – medium; proposal to move higher – one of the biggest risks in the whole system 

is undersized culverts (per David M.); keep at high end of medium priority for now. 

16. Vehicle type, length, capacity, and powertrain/fuel (Eric T.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – low 

2. Impact –high 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change to very low probability and high impact

4. Priority – low; keep at low priority for now; may need to revisit. 

Note: Issue of vehicle/bus type on Denali Park Road. 

Autonomous vehicles will eventually get to Alaska. 

Also issue of larger cruise ships docking in ports constructed for current sized vessels. 

Fuel type is also an issue.
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

27

17. Vehicle capacity, frequency of access, and destination (Blair T.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – varies from very low to high. Expect to see upward trend in 

vehicle frequency. Move to medium. Cruise ship access is leading to congestion. 

Communities like Skagway are split about whether to have more cruise ship access. 

2. Impact – medium; issue of vehicle-wildlife collisions, congestion, etc.; move to high. 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – change to medium probability and retain medium impact

4. Priority – low end of medium. Move up a little bit in priority – to medium.

18. Rules of the road/rules of access (Randy G.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – retain low probability, medium impact

4. Priority – low priority (agencies have a lot of control)

19. Gravel production, processing, or purchase (Zack W.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – should be higher 

2. Impact- between medium and high – issues related to asbestos, invasive species, etc. 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – in the middle. Proposal to make it higher – a common problem across partner 

agencies. With limited budget, has a big impact on project costs. Move to medium-high.

20. Surfacing (Erica S.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – medium probability and medium impact 

4. Priority – medium; 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

28

Note: an important issue, but not catastrophic. NPS – not a huge shift or change to what is 

being done since not paving any more roads. Discussion/question: if this should be higher 

than O&M or not. 

 

21. Vegetation management (Amit A.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – in low end of medium; keep where it is. 

Note: Issue of invasive species; compromises that need to be made – safety, etc; 

BLM on Dalton Highway – insisting that there is a wash station for trucks to stop invasive 

species spread and also finding that invasive species are coming through hay supply for sled 

dogs on the Iditarod race stops. 

22. Elevated structures (Laura B.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – probability low, impact as medium – could potentially go to high 

4. Priority – top end of medium – keep where it is. 

23. Drainage structures (culverts) (Mark A.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – high probability, medium impact. Agree 

4. Priority – rated high on the list. The impact of not doing a small amount of maintenance 

can lead you to lose a road – huge risk. No change. 

24. Congestion management (Quinn N.)

1- Probability (Frequency) – could be high 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

29

2- Impact – high as it relates to transportation; may not be super high related to other 

aspects of visitation

3- Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4- Priority – good to keep where it is. 

Note: Severe congestion is limited to areas where large cruise ships dock. Visitors and local 

residents have the expectation that they won’t see anyone else and that is not the case. 

Visitor survey shows expectations are met; didn’t hear a lot about congestion. 

There are also resource impacts and safety impacts related to congestion, which is not

happening in too many places in the state. 

May need to revisit. Congestion management is a driver of many things in the state; 

important to establish performance measures. 

25. Dust management (Roxanne B.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – high 

 

2. Impact – medium

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – lowest ranked according to the survey. Should be moved higher- to medium 

category/medium-low. 

Note: Major problem in Alaska because there are so many gravel surfaced roads. A risk to 

visitor visibility, air quality, health (naturally occurring asbestos). ADOT&PF also has issues 

with dust. Considerable research has been done on how to apply dust control with minimal 

environmental impact. 

This is something that FLMAs can influence, because it is an issue common to all. 

26. Non-implementation of LRTP (Brian C.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – add missed funding opportunities

3. Risk Matrix Selection – low probability, medium impact 

4. Priority – keep in medium category. No change. 

Note: We already have an LRTP, so not necessarily one of the top risks 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

30

 

27. Resource Management (Betty C.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – also relates to staffing levels and changes

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – rated high in survey. Keep where it is. 

Note: resource management is at the core of FLMA missions. 

What is the risk of resource management on the transportation system? Transportation 

system can impact the resources, and also help to successfully manage the resources. 

There is a tension between conservation and visitor access, and the risk factor is maintaining 

the balance. 

This relates to the tension between natural and cultural resources staff and transportation 

O&M staff – resources staff feel like they are left out of the funding stream dedicated to

transportation. 

Need to identify and understand what mitigation is needed for a project. Communication is 

important between resources staff and transportation staff. 

28. Safety Management (Paul S.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – likely 

2. Impact – minimal to moderate 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – High probability and high impact; some suggested low probability

4. Priority – In high category – move to medium-high 

Note: Could be low priority b/c we already do a good job tracking it; not many road fatalities 

on FLMA roads in Alaska. 

Safety is a component of facility assets and standards, a component of everything we do. 

Safety is a way of thinking in Alaska. Safety is key to mission of ADOT&PF, FAA, U.S. Coast 

Guard, concessionaires, and tribal governments. There is not a high risk that we are not 

paying attention to safety. Suggest moving to medium. 

Difference between being reactive and proactive related to safety. 

29. Staffing locations and staff level changes (David M.)
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

31

1. Probability (Frequency) – medium/high. Especially given current political climate at the 

national level. Alaska is a hard draw for a lot of people, so they have trouble attracting 

staff. 

2. Impact – High 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – survey results showed in the middle. 

Note: This is a key component of system resilience. This is a reality check on our ability to 

affect other aspects on the chart. 

30. Agency Management/Organizational Structure (Joe R.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – no change

2. Impact – no change

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – medium; no change 

Note: Influenced by the political situation. An infrastructure bill could lead to agency shifts in 

priorities and allocation of resources 

 

31. Partnerships (Ryan S)

1. Probability (Frequency) - low currently, but challenge of people retiring. Are there going to 

be champions in the future? 

2. Impact - 

3. Risk Matrix Selection

4. Priority – keep where it is 

Note: Many FLMAs have had partnerships for decades – conservation groups, cruise ship 

industry, ADOT&PF, etc.; risk is that if partnerships were to go away, it would have 

detrimental effects. 

An example of a partnership is that USFS recently released plan for Iditarod National Historic 

Trail partnering with ADOT&PF. 

32. Inholder vehicle capacity, frequency of access, vehicle type (Eric T.)

1. Probability (Frequency) – Medium - Almost every NPS unit has inholdings; USFWS has 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

32

ANWR, Cold Bay – both have transportation implications; USS has inholdings on 

waterways and mining areas, cabins, etc. 

2. Impact – medium 

3. Risk Matrix Selection – no change

4. Priority – move to lower end of medium 

Note: The issue for FLMAs is how to manage when someone tries to access inholdings. If 

someone is living there, there is probably a tried and true transportation system. 

USFWS inholdings are almost impossible for the region to manage because they have 

reached the political level in Washington, D.C. Transportation relates to concerns about 

inholdings. 

BLM – in-holders pay for transportation costs (e.g., annual lease)
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

33

As a result of this exercise the risk priority was revised as follows:
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

34

Response and Monitoring Work Group Exercise

The five work groups were once again formed to address the responses and monitoring of risks 

identified in each risk category to a) identify appropriate response strategies and actions, b) 

agree on monitoring and controls, and c) name responsible parties for follow through. 

There was also a discussion as to suggestions regarding any re-prioritization with the following 

noted: 

• combine both culvert categories (standards and maintenance & operation) 

• move gravel production to a high priority

• combine vegetation management and dust management, and consider as a subset of 

resource management 

• risks in the very high and high category should be directly addressed in the LRTP update 

• form groupings of categories that will have similar response strategies (e.g., river and 

stream flooding and culverts)

• swap priorities of seismic and volcanic events with storm surge; move seismic events to 

medium priority and storm surge to low priority; it was noted that volcanic be added to 

seismic, and these could be split up when considering level of risk and response 

strategies 

• make a distinction between things that are at risk and things that are risks (i.e. elements 

impacted by risk versus stressors of risk) 

• safety management is an actionable item for FLMAs and should be in the high category 

• proposal to create buckets with the top risks (i.e. system resilience incorporates culverts, 

river and stream flooding, etc.); system resilience and resource management could be 

overall buckets/umbrellas for the other risks 

In summary, all previous risk categories were discussed, with those highest and higher 

prioritized risks emphasized for further response and monitoring. It should be noted that the (#) 

numeral for each does not reflect the original survey risk ID but rather its actual priority. Final 

changes are reflected in Attachment B: AK CLRTP Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet.

Workgroup #1: (Erica S., David M., Brian C.) 

8. Unstable Slopes

- Response Strategies / Actions: Expand unstable slope identification to other areas in 

Alaska; train O&M staff to report on conditions; monitor more frequently after triggering 

events like wildfires 

- Responsible Entities: add maintenance staff

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

1.Permafrost Subsidence

- Response Strategies / Actions: more research, continued climate forecasting, 

partnerships with universities and research agencies; start to plan for long-term 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

35

contingencies for impacted roads; look at where permafrost is coming into contact with 

infrastructure using a geospatial overlay.

- Responsible Entities: Add maintenance staff 

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

 4. River and Stream Flooding

- Response Strategies / Actions: Establish a hydraulics baseline; inventory drainage 

structures; collect data about flood events to recognize areas with multiple damage events 

- Responsible Entities: Add hydrologists, maintenance staff, ERFO coordinators

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

10.Seismic Events (and volcanic) 

- Response Strategies / Actions: identify structures for seismic risk, review emergency 

response plans, set up coordination with emergency response teams, update and share 

maps with agencies; prepare communications in advance 

- Responsible Entities: public affairs, structural engineers, emergency response 

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

Workgroup #2: (Eric T, Zack W., Amy P., and Paul S.)

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS

24.Vehicle Capacity, Frequency of Access, and Destination

- Response Strategies / Actions: Consider this risk along with congestion management, 

access to in-holdings

- Responsible Entities: LRTP planning team, implementers of visitor use studies (CVTS)

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: 5 year update of LRTP

Workgroup #3: (Betty C., Roxanne B., and Ryan S.)

REDUCTIONS OR CHANGES IN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

6. Gravel Production, Processing, or Purchase

- Response Strategies / Actions: Put team together with key partners (BLM, regional climate 

partners, AKDOT, WFL materials lab); identify potential common sources for gravel; 

develop MOUs for agencies using gravel; develop best practices, etc. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

36

Every FLMA could inventory material sites, stockpile sites, size, capacity, etc. in a GIS 

format. This information could be compiled when they do testing. 

- Responsible Entities: n/a

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

5. Drainage Structures (Culverts)

- Response Strategies / Actions: Form a multi-modal, multi-agency team to inventory 

location and condition of culverts (need to prioritize in areas where potential hazard is 

greatest); look at different hazards that are impacting culverts – develop a tool or expand 

USMP to evaluate culverts. 

- Responsible Entities: n/a

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

22.Congestion Management

- Response Strategies / Actions: Use the NPS congestion management toolkit to do a pilot 

using the toolkit in an area like Russian River with multiple agencies that are concerned 

with congestion. This is relatively easy to try – may discuss on LRTP conference call. 

- Responsible Entities: n/a

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

 

Workgroup #4: (Amit A., Randy G., Quinn N., and Joe R.)

FLMA MANAGEMENT

3. Resource Management

- Response Strategies / Actions: Balance with agency missions. Minimize impacts of 

transportation systems to natural and cultural resources. 

- Responsible Entities: Add resource specialists

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: change to ... “align with resource management 

strategies.”

7. Safety Management

- Response Strategies / Actions: Reduce, maintain, or enhance safety risk. Focus on safety 

of the public. 

Incorporate a safety focus/perspective in all actions we take in the LRTP. 

In a previous meeting, the group discussed forming a multi-agency safety assessment 

team. They are aiming to have one consistent source of data for safety/crash data 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

37

collection. An issue with incident reporting is the lack of consistency across the agencies. 

Discussion about the potential to use phone apps to collect safety information, including 

anecdotal data and information from park staff about the incident. They already have an 

app for reporting incidents in USMP (for landslides) – this could be used for safety. 

In previous experience with the wildlife vehicle collision app, there was minimal usership 

when they piloted it.

- Responsible Entities: All agencies. 

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a

Workgroup #5: (Mark A., Laura B., Blair T.) 

FACILITY ASSETS / STANDARDS

15.Paved and Unpaved Roads

- Response Strategies / Actions: Response strategies would be similar to bridges. 

- Responsible Entities: Add construction managers

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: Review or monitoring prior to and during 

construction

2. System Resilience

- Response Strategies / Actions: Being proactive, doing advanced planning such as scenario 

planning and vulnerability assessments. 

Come up with criteria for how to improve/measure resilience. How are individual assets 

contributing to system resiliency? 

- Responsible Entities: n/a

- Monitoring / Control Intervals or Milestones: n/a
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

38

Desired Product

Items captured during the workshop on what the participants saw as valued, tangible results 

coming out of this workshop:

 More research is needed on permafrost with continued climate forecasting completed 

using partnerships with universities and research agencies;

 Begin planning for long-term contingencies of roads impacted by permafrost subsidence; 

 Examine where permafrost is coming into contact with infrastructure using geospatial 

analysis

 Proactively perform advanced planning such as scenario development and vulnerability 

assessments for sites and assets; develop criteria for how to improve/measure resilience, 

including how individual assets are contributing to system resiliency; 

 Balance strategic transportation planning with agency missions with regards to resource 

management; emphasize minimizing impacts of transportation systems to natural and 

cultural resources; 

 Continue monitoring and determine migration zones of the rivers and streams;

 Develop emergency plans specific to flood events, including proactively planning for 

increased precipitation, establishing hydraulics baselines, completing an inventory of 

drainage structures (culverts), and collecting data about flood events to recognize areas 

with multiple damage events; 

 Facilitate the creation of a multiagency, multi-discipline team to implement an inventory of 

locations and conditions of culverts, perform a culvert inventory risk assessment, create 

hydrological models of risk to culverts, create a culvert management program similar to a 

USMP, and create a set of “best practices” for culvert maintenance (catch basin and ditch 

maintenance); 

 Facilitate the creation of a multiagency, multi-discipline team to implement identification of

potential common gravel sources in key locations to streamline acquisition of gravel 

material; 

 Align multiagency projects that are in close proximity to each other and negotiate shared 

use of gravel material; 

 Develop a program to identify and appropriately treat gravel sources and a set of “best 

practices” and memorandums of agreement to facilitate coordinated contracting of gravel 

sources to meet project/maintenance needs (team should include BLM (regulatory 

agency), regional tribal corporations (owners of subsurface rights), ADOT&PF, WFL 

Materials Lab, and NPS, USFWS, and USFS); 

 Incorporate a safety focus/perspective for all actions taken in the LRTP; and 

 Form a multi-agency safety assessment team whose purpose is to have one consistent 

source of data for safety/crash data collection, which is an issue across the agencies 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

39

Participant Comments 

Round robin thoughts on workshop format, recommendations for improvement, etc. were 

prompted by the following questions: How does risk assessment influence LRTP? What part of 

the workshop was most insightful or most annoying? How will you utilize findings for other 

efforts? 

Participant comments: 

• Issue of scale was discussed throughout the workshop. There are things that certain 

agencies are currently doing that are needed to maintain, regardless of the risk ranking. 

• Role of risk in LRTP – is part of purpose of the LRTP planning for risk? 

• Issue of confirmation bias – group confirmed the risks already known about, but other 

agencies/disciplines may have different ideas about risk. 

• Possible to map risk through the TINA analysis. 

• Importance of getting the right agencies and broad representation involved, which is 

always challenging. It was noted that there was overrepresentation from NPS and FHWA. 

• Lack of resources is a huge challenge (BLM, FHWA, NPS). 

• With a multi-agency process, there is the challenge of different agency missions and 

scales. It may be important to keep the full list of risks in buckets, rather than only the top 

risks. 

• Risk assessment helped hone in on needs and severity of needs. 

• Importance of making sure the right people are in the room and balance is right in 

expertise and agencies involved. 

• Possible to tie actions in CLRTP to risk categories. 

• How will results of workshop influence management decisions? 

• Mapping tools will be useful at the unit level. 

• List of risks can be incorporated into the TINA analysis.

• Categories identified upfront are significant and influence the rankings and what was 

discussed. 

• ADOT&PF could take top risks and see how it fits in with its LRTP. 

• Connection between the LRTP and getting to the available and appropriate funding 

sources. 

• Challenge of communicating the process and results to stakeholders who are not in 

attendance and educating them about what is risk assessment. 

• There might be too many risks to discuss in a workshop such as this. Instead, there could 

be a categorization or elimination of low-ranking risks earlier in the process. 

• Suggestion to make lack of data a risk category for future risk assessments.
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

40

Final Summary Statement

The risk assessment workshop was acknowledged to be a group exercise that had not yet been 

applied for the purpose of informing regional management on hazards to primary transportation 

systems. This was also experimental in that results would be integrated into a regional level 

multiagency long range transportation plan to more fully address strategic decision-making. 

Based upon the procedural results and the reactions from participants, the effort provided full 

recognition that risk management should play a major role in transportation planning. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

41

ATTACHMENTS

A. Risk Assessment Workshop Agenda

B. Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet

C. Additional Presentations
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

42

Attachment A.

Risk Assessment Workshop Agenda
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

43

 

Risk Assessment Workshop

 DRAFT Agenda

December 12-14, 2017

USFWS Regional Office (Gordon Watson Conference Room)

Participants:

Mark Anderson (NPS WASO) 

Amit Armstrong (FHWA)

Laura Babcock (NPS DSC)

Roxanne Bash (FHWA)

Betty Chon (FHWA)

Brian Collins (FHWA)

Randy Goodwin (BLM)

Molly McKinley (NPS)* 

David Morton (USFWS)

Quinn Newton (FHWA)

Amy Plovnick (Volpe)

Joe Regula (NPS)

Ryan Scavo (NPS)

Paul Schrooten (NPS)

Erica Simmons (Volpe)

Eric Taylor (ADOT&PF)

Blair Tormey (WCU)

Zack Wood (NPS DSC) 

*Teleconference Attendee

Tuesday, December 12th 

9:00 – 9:30 am Pre-Workshop Arrival

Objective: Arrival, informal greetings, and becoming seat-ready

9:30 – 9:45 Greetings, Room Logistics, Safety Message (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Orient attendees to bathroom facilities, emergency exits, etc.

9:45 – 10:00 Welcome (David Morton)

Objective: Introduce us to USFWS Alaska Region, maybe tell us a bit about the importance 

of transportation and the role it plays in management.

10:00 – 10:30 Agenda Review and Participant Callout (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Introductions, review and make any adjustments to the agenda as necessary; 

announcements, etc.

10:30 – 10:45 Purpose of Workshop (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: 1) describe all types of risk exposure (including, but not limited to, geophysical 

hazards, alteration of facility assets/standards, revised vehicle specifications, changes in 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

44

maintenance or operations, and succession of park management), 2) evaluate each type of 

risk to thoroughly vet qualitative impacts and likely responses, and 3) strategize how and 

when the final document (product) would be best completed, including task assignments. 

Explain ground rules.

10:45 – 11:00 Risk Assessment 101 (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Listen to the basics of risk assessment and why it is important to include in 

management decisions.

11:00 –12:00 noon Risk Culture Work Group Activity (Moderator)

Objective: utilizing small work groups, discuss four statements that reflect the current 

attitudes about risk and prepare a goal statement with supporting objectives for 

incorporating risk management into future decision-making. 

12:00 – 1:15 pm Lunch (at completion of activity or work through)

1:15 – 2:15 Work Group Reports (TBD)

Objective: report out, by work group, responses to the four statements and presentation of 

the goal statement with supporting objectives. 

2:15 – 2:45 Risk Management Survey Results (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Provide a brief overview of the participant responses to comments on preworkshop risk categories and their prioritization.

2:45 – 3:00 Break

3:00 – 4:00 Risk Identification Work Group Activity (Moderator)

Objective: Discuss risks identified in each risk category to a) confirm validity, b) agree on 

cause(s), and c) brainstorm all effects.

4:00 Adjourn (at completion of activity)

Wednesday, December 13th 

8:00 – 8:05 am Greetings/Announcements (Paul Schrooten)

8:05 – 8:15 Update Agenda (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Introductions, review and make any adjustments to the agenda as necessary; 

announcements, etc.

8:15 – 9:15 Work Group Reports (TBD)

Objective: report out, by work group, the validity, cause(s), and effects for the risks in the 

assigned category.

9:15 – 9:30 Break

9:30 – 11:30 Qualitative Risk Assessment Exercise (Moderator)

Objective: Confirm the probability and impact of each risk, ultimately querying of all 

participants if there is consensus on its priority for decision-making by the Alaska FLMAs 

and ADOT&PF.

11:30 – 1:00 pm Lunch (TBD)
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

45

1:00 – 2:00 Qualitative Risk Assessment Consensus (Moderator)

Objective: Reaching consensus on those risks that did not meet majority of participant 

responses from the exercise.

2:00 – 3:00 Response and Monitoring Work Group (Moderator)

Objective: Discuss actions that the Alaska FLMAs and ADOT&PF should take to respond to 

risks, including identification of responsible entity or person, monitoring intervals and 

milestone checks, and listing of controls (documented plans and processes) that will guide 

performance results.

3:00 – 3:15 Break

3:15 – 4:15 Work Group Reports (TBD)

Objective: report out, by work group, the recommended response to the risks in the 

assigned category.

4:15 Adjourn

Thursday, December 14th 

8:30 – 8:45 am Greetings/Announcements/ Update Agenda (Paul Schrooten)

8:45 – 9:30 Desired Product (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Discuss type of results and output from this workshop to inform the Alaska 

CLRTP process. 

9:30 – 10:15 TINA (Doug Wilder)

Objective: Discuss results and output from this workshop to determine what is needed from 

the TINA process. 

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 11:15 Timelines and Next Steps (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Decide on schedule for completion of the risk assessment documentation and 

follow up action items.

11:15 – 11:45 Participant Comments (Paul Schrooten)

Objective: Round robin thoughts on workshop format, recommendations for improvement, 

etc. 

11:45 – 12 noon Clean Up and Adjourn
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

46

Attachment B.

Risk Management Plan Spreadsheet
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

47

Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk Management Worksheet

Risk Identification Risk Response Plan Monitoring and Control Review

Interval or Status: Date Threat or Primary Primary Probability Response Responsible # Risk Category Cause Effect Impact Risk Matrix Concurrence ( ) or Priority Response Actions Milestone and Review Opportunity Objective Objective (Frequency) Strategy Entity Check Comments Comments (xxxxx)

 Geologic Hazards

VH • Impact to road or other surfacing is typically minimal, requiring 

removal of debris. 

• Impact to road or other infrastructure is minimal, requiring clean out 

of culverts and repair to headwalls; 

• Impact to motor vehicle or other traffic is temporary, requiring H X evacuation or staged exiting either side of the slide location and public  announcement updates on status of conditions; • Combination of saturated soils and Geospatial buffer and 

• Impact to motor vehicle or other modal damage moderate to severe if variable soil types subject to sloughing • Annual Inspections overlay analysis 

caught in slide event, requiring extraction; off steep terrain • An (Frequency of opportunities if data exists 

• Causes deposition of debris upon, • Impact to road or other modal users may result in direct or indirect individual hazard can be local or M inspection at a (Babcock); (Collins); 

and/or erosion of road surfaces and/or injury or casualty, requiring emergency medical treatment or retrieval originate from far up a drainage, such particular site could (McKinley); probability is 

damage to road or other infrastructure Moderate to of deceased victims. as in the case of debris flows be informed from very site specific; would rate 

• Causes delays in motor vehicle or Likely, with limited significant delays to • Continue current monitoring program. Agencies can record past • OR an increase in driving forces (e.g. scientific evaluation it as Medium/Likely 50% Unstable Slopes other traffic, closure or loss of access, spatial extents, but traffic but possible events. Staff continuity is important; harvest information from staff and Transportation heavy rain, additional fill material) and/or the USMP) chance (Morton); frequency (landslides, rock potential damage to motor vehicles or Probably reduce risk limited occurrence damage / destruction Study, reduce and put in database. System Supervisors, and/or decrease in resisting forces Threat L • Frequency of of inspections should 1 other modes of transportation, and and possibly adapt being addressed at M fall, avalanches, to transportation adapt • Newly developed federal program. Most entries worldwide now. Need Geologists, (e.g. permafrost thaw, undercutting inspections should happen more often 

possible injury or casualties to NPS, USFS, and assets/rolling stock; help with funding. Database and google map interface. Will have login Maintenance Staff and debris flows) slopes) happen more often depending on the season - 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, or ADOT&PF perhaps even personal options for management. • Additional include heavy depending on the where landscape level 

pedestrians injury or casualty • Complete risk assessment for highest ranking sites. Cost precipitation/snow melt, seismic season - where changes have an increased 

• Causes potential natural and cultural assessment of risk areas. Cost benefit analysis. Worst is not activity, permafrost degradation, VL landscape level potential? (Scavo); 

resource impacts necessarily the first. Work cross-divisionally, with FHWY and wildfire, freeze-thaw activity, sheep changes have an (Simmons); (Tormey); GIS 

contractors. Need to develop emergency evacuation plans and hazard grazing, exposure, weathering, overly increased potential? spatial analysis could be 

protocols. Inform staff on how to report incidents. Provide safety steep construction, cut/fill slopes conducted to overlay areas 

protocols for maintenance staff clearing roads, etc. of steep slopes adjacent to 

• Recognize part of the experience of traveling remote, primitive areas VL L M H VH the transportation network 

is understanding there is a higher risk of death; part of the context and (Wood); (Chon)

should include an educational component. 

• Expand unstable slope identification to other areas in Alaska; 

• Train O&M staff to report on conditions; 

• Monitor more frequently after triggering events like wildfires Impact

VH Geospa

tial buffer and overlay analysis 

opportunities if data exists 

(Babcock); "buildings" added to 

• Slowly to • Impact to road or other surfacing is typically minimal, but may H Effect column since many 

moderately developing X contribute to catastrophic failures requiring addition of processed parks have infrastructure 

delays to traffic due to gravel material and/or repair of pavement to reduce change in grade. • Causes subsidence of road profile or outside roadway that should be 

change in running and • Impact to road or other infrastructure is moderate although typically other transportation structures and/or considered; Impact is medium 

lateral road slope, slow to develop, requiring periodic adjustment to bridge supports, damage to associated infrastructure rather than high since most 

collapse or tilting of culvert inverts and repair to headwalls. such as bridges, culverts, M roads built over SHALLOW 

other transportation • Impact to motor vehicle or other modal traffic is temporary, requiring • Rise in ground temperatures change embankments, buildings, and permafrost have already 

assets; may develop staged movement during reconstruction at location and public constant or intermittent frozen material drainageways experienced the effects of 

slowly, but it usually announcement updates on status of conditions Transportation to a melted or melting state • Thaw instability, which leads to the permafrost degradation 

goes unnoticed until • Impact to motor vehicle or other modal damage minimal if mitigation System Supervisors, • OR causing thaw of rock or soil that effects listed under unstable slopes, Annual Inspections (Collins); and real time Permafrost Probably reduce risk Very likely with failure is catastrophic. Study, adapt, and efforts are maintained. Geologists, has been at/below freezing for two or along with added maintenance costs, Threat L and real time monitoring (McKinley); 2 or adapt VH Subsidence localized occurrence • University of Alaska reduce • Difficult to monitor. Learn about it through drilling into the ground. Geohazards Teams, more years methane gas release, effects on monitoring (Morton); (Scavo); concur, but 

research shows Target areas already known to have issues. Road Maintenance • Climate change contributing drainage patterns worth noting the risk varies 

permafrost is melting. • Plan on permafrost will continue to thaw. Agencies can put down Staff increased rate of thaw, particularly • Subsidence can often be detected substantially across the state 

Permafrost melting insulation, but that is limited. Agencies can proactively mitigate affecting surficial permafrost without drilling, through crack (Simmons); subsidence can 

has a drying effect of impacts. • More monitoring; pavement, concrete, and VL often be detected without 

the land and is research, continued climate forecasting, partnerships with universities other ground surfaces will develop drilling, through crack 

leading to migrating and research agencies; cracks, often growing or increasing in monitoring; pavement, 

ecosystems. • Start to plan for long-term contingencies for impacted roads; frequency as subsidence progresses concrete, and other ground 

Transportation • Look at where permafrost is coming into contact with infrastructure surfaces will develop cracks, 

impacts include using a geospatial overlay. VL L M H VH often growing or increasing in 

cutbacks on roads. frequency as subsidence 

progresses (Tormey); 

determining proper response 

will require best available 

Impact climate change modeling 

(Wood); (Chon)

VH Geospatial 

Probability Probability Probability

buffer and overlay analysis 

opportunities if data exists 

(Babcock); Impact is medium 

H or High since overtopping can 

 X • Impact to road or other surfacing is typically minimal to moderate, erode road embankment to 

requiring removal of debris material and/or road material replacement. point that it is out of 

• Impact to road or other infrastructure is minimal, requiring clean out commission for days, weeks, 

• Causes overtopping of road and other of culverts and repair to headwalls; or even years (Collins); 

asset surfaces and/or damage to road M • Impact to motor vehicle or other modal traffic is short to intermediate increased inspections during 

• Increase in precipitation exceeds and other infrastructure, sometimes term, requiring evacuation or staged exiting on either side of the flood moisture events (McKinley); 

normal surficial rate of runoff in due to floating debris Minimal to moderate location and public announcement updates on status of conditions; priority is High; also Impact 

recognized natural drainages, Transportation • Causes delays in motor vehicle and delays to traffic but • Impact to motor vehicle or other modes of transportation damage would be High, especially for 

sometimes carrying earth and organic Very likely with System Supervisors, Annual Inspections, other modal traffic, potential damage to possible damage / moderate to severe if caught in slide event, requiring extraction; washed out culverts (Morton); River and debris Probably reduce risk localized to Study, reduce and Geologists, increased inspections motor vehicles and other modes of Threat destruction to park L • Impact to road or other modal users may result in direct or indirect column C sentence could end 3 H Stream Flooding • River channel migration, when it and possibly adapt widespread adapt Hydrologists, during moisture transportation, possible injury or assets/rolling stock; injury or casualty, requiring emergency medical treatment or retrieval at "earth and organic debris"; 

occurs over a very short time or as a occurrence Maintenance Staff, events casualties to motorists, passengers, perhaps even personal of deceased victims. also, in column U, depending 

part of a flood event ERFO Coordinators bicyclists, or pedestrians injury or casualty • Continue monitoring. Determine migration zones of the rivers. on time of year, there could be 

• Break up patterns of ice or spring • Causes severe bank erosion, • Need emergency plans specific to floods. an increased likelihood of 

thaws undermining unstable slopes, and VL • Proactively plan for increased precipitation. damage occurrence - could this 

 damage to fish habitat • Establish a hydraulics baseline; be highlighted -maybe 

• Inventory drainage structures; seasonally or twice a year? 

• Collect data about flood events to recognize areas with multiple (Scavo); (Simmons); consider 

damage events adding river channel migration 

VL L M H VH (bank erosion) as a 

geophysical hazard - it is 

different from river flooding 

(Tormey); could see the Impact 

increasing to Medium based on 

Impact accelerated warming trends in 

climate change (Wood); (Chon)
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

48

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M 

L X 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M X L VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M X L VL 

VL L M H VH

Impact

M

Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence 

depending upon 

events that require 

review / updates; 

range of potential 

impacts depending on 

the location and 

magnitude of the 

earthquake/volcano 

event

Minimal to moderate 

delays to all modes of 

traffic with possible 

damage / destruction 

to transportation 

assets/rolling stock; 

perhaps even personal 

injury or casualty 

 Geologic Hazards (cont'd)

 Facility Assets / Standards

6

Impact

Wildfires Threat

Seismic and 

Volcanic Events

• Plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, or 

magma migration shifting at key fault 

lines or zones

• Causes cracking, displacement, 

ground subsidence, slope failure, 

and/or liquefaction of road and other 

surfacing and/or damage to road and 

other infrastructure (bridges, etc.) 

• Causes delays in motor vehicle or 

other modal traffic, potential damage to 

motor vehicles and other modes of 

transportation, and possible injury or 

casualties to motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, or pedestrians 

• Causes degradation of air quality 

(ash), interruption of or damage to 

aircraft traffic, injury or casualties to 

anyone in proximate location, and 

residual ash deposits on leafy 

vegetation 

• Possibly causes tsunamis, which are 

potentially devastating to coastal 

zones 

5

4

• Causes limited visibility and reduction 

in air quality and/or damage to road 

and other infrastructure (bridges, 

timber headwalls, and timber barriers), 

• Causes degradation of and 

contribution to unstable slopes; 

degradation to water quality 

• Causes delays in motor vehicle and 

other modal traffic, potential damage to 

motor vehicles and other modes of 

transportation, and possible injury or 

casualties to motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, or pedestrians 

• Causes interruption of air traffic, 

diversion of helicopter resources, and 

undue burdens on agency resources 

• Connection between permafrost melt 

and wildfire – negative feedback loop. 

With less permafrost, wildfire will burn 

for longer and hotter. 

7

Project Reviews; 

Periodic Evaluation 

and Update to Road 

Design Standards 

and during and after 

construction of 

projects

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Construction 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Road Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Paved and 

Unpaved Roads

• Impact to road corridor is typically minor and somewhat incremental 

due to the nature of contracted construction and day labor projects; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be minimal, but sometimes culvert 

extensions and other site elements affect road dimensions; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantially inconsequential as 

most road users will not perceive slight, incremental changes, but 

subtle driving patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is minimal, requiring focused oversight of 

construction projects and periodic reclamation of gravels from side 

slopes or expanded road surfaces due to repetitive plowing and 

grading; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106

Threat or Opportunity Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Combination of climatic 

conditions(drought or lightening 

strikes), human activities (unplanned 

ignition), and mature dead or dying 

vegetative fuel subject to burning off 

large acreages in areas with remote 

access

Threat Be more resilient and 

adapt

Reduce and adapt

Departure from established road design 

and construction standards used by 

FHWA and FLMAs

• Causes cultural and natural resource 

degradation of the road corridor, 

depending on whether the surface is 

paved or unpaved, and/or any changes 

may shift the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians 

• Causes decreased lifespan of road, 

increased maintenance and repair, and 

liability issues

Transportation 

Supervisors and Fire 

Managers

L Somewhat less likely 

with broad occurrence

Impact

Somewhat likely with 

localized occurrence

Likely with localized 

to widespread 

occurrence



Potential to 

identify resource degradation 

hotspots along road corridor 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); (Wood); 

(Chon)

Reduce and adapt

• Impact to road corridors and other transportation facilities is typically 

minimal and short-lived, requiring removal of ash or slash material. 

• Impact to road and other infrastructure is often minimal, requiring 

establishment of clear zones around buildings, cleaning of bridges, 

repair to timber structures, and replacement of signs; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is temporary, 

requiring evacuation or staged exiting out of the affected locations and 

public announcement updates on status of conditions; 

• Impact (damage) to motor vehicle and other modes of transportation 

can be minimal to moderate to severe if caught in wildfire event, 

requiring extraction; 

• Impact to road and other modal users may result in direct or indirect 

injury or casualty, requiring emergency medical treatment or retrieval 

of deceased victims. 

• Similar to seismic and volcanic events – focus on emergency 

response 

Periodic Inspections 

of Fuel Loads in 

Proximity to Road 

Corridors and Other 

Transportation 

Facilities

• Impact to coastal facilities is typically seasonal and long-lived, 

requiring removal of debris and tidal cast material, repairs to 

infrastructure, and possible relocation of assets. 

• Impact to assets is moderate to significant, requiring cleaning of flat 

surfaces, repair to structures, and replacement of transportation 

components; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic may be seasonally 

temporary but long-lived, requiring repetitive evacuation or staged 

exiting out of the affected locations and public announcement updates 

on status of conditions; 

• Impact (damage) to motor vehicle and other transportation modes 

can be minimal to moderate to severe if caught in a storm event, 

requiring extraction; 

• Impact to road and other modal users may result in direct or indirect 

injury or casualty, requiring emergency medical treatment or retrieval 

of deceased victims.

Facilities Supervisors 

and Marine Resource 

Managers

Adapt and 

relocate, if 

necessary

M

Reduce and gather 

information from 

external 

researchers

• Impact to road and other surfacing is typically minimal to moderate, 

requiring earthwork and recompaction of subgrade material. 

• Impact to road and other infrastructure is minimal to moderate, 

requiring repair of bridges, culverts and headwalls; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is temporary, 

requiring evacuation or staged exiting on any side of the affected 

locations and public announcement updates on status of conditions; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other transportation mode damage minor 

to moderate if caught in areas affected by a seismic event, possibly 

requiring extraction; 

• Impact to road and other modal users may result in direct or indirect 

injury or casualty, requiring emergency medical treatment or retrieval 

of deceased victims. 

• Identify infrastructure for seismic risk, review emergency response 

plans, set up coordination with emergency response teams, update 

and share map data with agencies; prepare communications in 

advance 



Geospatial buffer and 

overlay analysis opportunities if 

data exists (Babcock); 

(Collins); probability of wildfires 

might be slightly higher than 

low based on what is known of 

expected climate trends 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); could 

add revegetation efforts to burn 

areas particularly in areas 

where transportation network 

lies below unstable slopes; 

minimize debris flows in 

denuded areas (Wood); (Chon)

Probability

Transportation 

Supervisors, 

Geologists, Public 

Information Officials, 

Structural Engineers, 

Emergency 

Responders 

Periodic Inspections 

of Bridges and other 

structures; otherwise 

post events

Minimal, incremental 

changes to roads 

resulting in alteration 

to historical character, 

cultural landscape, 

and natural resources 

proximate to the road 

corridor; excessive 

changes may prompt 

unexpected changes 

to driving patterns 

contributing to traffic 

accidents

Probability

Moderate to 

significant delays to 

all modes, but 

primarily marine, of 

traffic with possible 

damage / destruction 

to 

assets/vessels/aircraft

/rolling stock; perhaps 

even personal injury or 

casualty; can affect 

resources an visitor 

experience

Probability

Minimal to moderate 

delays to all modes of 

traffic with possible 

damage / destruction 

to assets/rolling 

stock; perhaps even 

personal injury or 

casualty; significant 

when related to 

safety, evacuation, 

emergency response, 

but minimal long-term 

impact on FLMA 

transportation 

infrastructure; has 

more impact on travel 

(aviation, marine) 

Ge

ospatial buffer and overlay 

analysis opportunities if data 

exists (Babcock); risk matrix 

has an array of possibilities - 

the very low to low probability 

EQ events will have a high 

impact whereas the more 

frequent, high to very high 

probability events have a low to 

very low impact (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); should include 

tsunamis, which are potentially 

devastating to coastal zones 

(i.e. study at Sitka NHP 

showed relatively low 

vulnerability to coastal hazards 

overall, but tsunami threat, 

could be devastating; based on 

this recommended higher 

probability and impact in risk 

matrix (Tormey); fault zones 

and areas of volcanic activity 

could be overlaid with the 

transportation network to 

identify potential hotspots; 

supporting data to execute 

analysis is more reliable than 

other risks such as those 

related to climate change, fault 

zones, and observed volcanic 

activity (Wood); (Chon)

Probability

Storm Surge

Combination of climatic 

conditions(warmer temperatures or 

more frequent storms), human 

activities (continued development on 

coastlines), sea level rise, and melting 

ice or lack of ice resulting in unusual 

or atypical bombardment by wave 

action

• Causes erosion and destabilization of 

shoreline or coastline resulting in 

exposure or damage to docks, 

airports, road corridor, road 

infrastructure (bridges, timber 

headwalls, and timber barriers), and 

other buildings/structures; 

• Causes probable degradation of and 

contribution to unstable slopes; 

• Causes delays in motor vehicle or 

other modal traffic, potential damage to 

motor vehicles and other transportation 

modes, and possible injury or 

casualties to motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, or pedestrians 

• Causes damage to cultural and 

natural resources

Threat Adapt and relocate, if 

necessary



Geospatial buffer and 

overlay analysis opportunities if 

data exists (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); would 

rank overall Priority as Low 

(Morton); (Simmons); 

(Tormey); (Wood); (Chon)

Impact

L

Periodic Inspections 

of Water Based 

Assets in Proximity 

to Coastlines; 

Planned Relocation of 

Facilities and Assets 

Where Necessary
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

49

VH H X M L VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M L VL X 

VL L M H VH

VH H M L VL X 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M 

L 

VL X 

VL L M H VH

VH H M L VL X 

VL L M H VH

A change to access 

construction type, 

treatment, repair, 

replacement, or 

elimination resulting in 

alteration to land and 

water resources or the 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape of the area

Probability

Railroad, Depots 

Departure from established design and 

construction standards used by 

FHWA, FLMAs, and the Alaska 

Railroad

• Causes physical or visible changes 

to land and water environments that 

may affect natural or cultural resources 

within the area and/or any changes 

may shift the recognized safety 

paradigm for rail, motorists, 

passengers, recreationists, and 

pedestrians 

• Causes changes to lifespan, 

maintenance, liability, and historic 

structures. 

Threat or Opportunity Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance



Potential to identify 

resource degradation hotspots 

along road corridor (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); would 

rank the Impact as Very High 

(Morton); (Scavo); (Simmons); 

(Tormey); historic aerial 

imagery could be used to 

assess changes in stream/river 

channels and crossings 

(Wood); (Chon)



Potential to show 

asset vulnerability ranking if 

data exists (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); (Chon)

12

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Design Standards



Potential to identify 

assets and impacted areas 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); would rank the 

Impact as Very High (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

historic aerial imagery could be 

used to assess changes in 

railroad infrastructure (Wood); 

(Chon)

Departure from established design and 

construction standards used by 

FHWA, FLMAs, and USCG

11

Aircraft, 

Airports, 

Runways, 

Landing Strips, 

Drones and 

Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicles (UAVs) 

• Departure from established design 

and construction standards used by 

FHWA, FLMAs, and FAA

• Extreme weather events

• Lack of regulations regarding drones

• Changing climate conditions opening 

new remote areas to aviation 

(floatplane) access

10



Potential to identify assets 

and impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

historic aerial imagery could be 

used to assess changes in 

aviation related environments 

(Wood); (Chon)

Pot

ential to identify assets and 

impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); Risk Impact Rankings 

all reference "road" specifically; 

should terminology reflect other 

transportation infrastructure as 

mentioned in this column and 

how about support facilities? 

(McKinley); would rank the 

Impact as Very High (Morton); 

should there be any 

consideration for specifically 

calling out potential 

wildlife/migration impacts here? 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Chon)

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Design Standards

• Causes physical or visible changes 

to land and water environments that 

may affect natural or cultural resources 

within the area and/or any changes 

may shift the recognized safety 

paradigm for aircraft, motorists, 

passengers, recreationists, and 

pedestrians 

• Causes issues with lifespan, 

maintenance, and liability of 

infrastructure 

• Causes noise, wildlife issues, visitor 

experience, safety, surveillance (e.g., 

wildfires) due to drones

• Impact to aircraft access is typically minor to moderate depending 

on the nature of contracted construction and day labor projects or the 

specific location; 

• Impact to infrastructure can be moderate to substantial; 

• Impact to aircraft and other modes of traffic can substantially 

consequential as most pilots and other users will experience changes, 

some inconvenient and others more debilitating and expensive; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is moderate, requiring 

anticipatory responses; 

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance Threat or Opportunity

Impact

Unlikely with rare 

occurrence (but 

changing as airport or 

aircraft infrastructure 

ages or as use of 

drones increases)

Unlikely with rare 

occurrence (but 

changing as bridges 

age)

A change to bridge 

construction type, 

treatment, repair, 

replacement, or 

elimination resulting in 

alteration to riverine 

resources or the 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape of the road 

corridor

Probability

Maintain, adjust, M or enhance

• Impact to road corridor is typically minor to moderate depending on 

the nature of contracted construction and day labor projects or the 

specific location; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be moderate to substantial; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantially inconsequential as 

most road users will not perceive changes, but subtle driving patterns 

may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is usually not an issue but can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of construction projects 

and periodic maintenance; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Road Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Impact

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Bridge Design 

Standards

VL Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance

• Impact to rail access is typically minor to moderate depending on 

the nature of contracted construction and day labor projects or the 

specific location; 

• Impact to infrastructure can be moderate to substantial; 

• Impact to rail and other modes of traffic can substantially 

consequential as most users will experience changes, some 

inconvenient and others more debilitating and expensive; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is moderate, requiring 

anticipatory responses; 

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Facilities Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Periodic Evaluation 

and Update to 

Transportation 

Systems and 

Network 

Impact

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Design Standards

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Facilities Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Impact

L

• Causes physical or visible changes 

to river and stream crossings that may 

affect natural or cultural resources 

within the road corridor and/or any 

changes may shift the recognized 

safety paradigm for motor vehicle 

traffic, motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians 

• Lifespan of bridge might not be what 

is expected; increased maintenance; 

liability; issues with historic bridges 

(Alaska is currently considering what 

to do with bridges that are almost 

eligible to be listed on national 

register). 

Threat or Opportunity

A change to access 

construction type, 

treatment, repair, 

replacement, or 

elimination resulting in 

alteration to land and 

water resources or the 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape of the area; 

look at social media, 

extreme weather and 

how they are opening 

up access to FLMA 

by float planes and 

small aircraft 

Probability

Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Threat or Opportunity Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Unlikely with rare 

occurrence (but 

changing as railroad 

infrastructure ages)

Threat

Mitigate or maintain 

through emergency 

planning or network 

enhancement

Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Unlikely with rare 

occurrence (but 

changing as water 

access infrastructure 

ages and vessels 

become larger)

A change to access 

construction type, 

treatment, repair, 

replacement, or 

elimination resulting in 

alteration to water 

resources or the 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape of the area

Probability

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Facilities Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

8

• Impact to water access is typically minor to moderate depending on 

the nature of contracted construction and day labor projects or the 

specific location; 

• Impact to infrastructure can be moderate to substantial; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modes of traffic can substantially 

consequential as most road and other users will experience changes, 

some inconvenient and others more debilitating and expensive; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is moderate, requiring 

anticipatory responses; 

• Causes physical or visible changes 

to water environments that may affect 

natural or cultural resources within the 

area and/or any changes may shift the 

recognized safety paradigm for 

watercraft, motorists, passengers, 

recreationists, and pedestrians 

• Causes additional consideration of 

infrastructure lifespan, maintenance, 

and liability

Impact

L

Asset Managers, 

Transportation 

Program Managers, 

Facility Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Watercraft, 

Docks, 

Launches, 

Navigational 

Aids, 

Autonomous 

Watercraft and 

Drones

9 Bridges

Departure from established bridge 

design and construction standards 

used by FHWA and FLMAs

Probability

H

Mitigate or 

maintain through 

emergency 

planning or 

network 

enhancement

System 

Resilience

Combination of asset vulnerability to 

damage or deterioration, lack of 

network redundancies, or failure to 

comply with capital investment and 

other operational strategies 

• Causes more frequent emergency or 

drastic responses which are more time 

consuming, expensive, and 

inconvenient to the public because 

alternative options or procedures are 

not readily available 

• Causes increases in cost to 

maintenance and repairs to 

infrastructure. 

 Facility Assets / Standards (cont'd)

Moderate short to 

long term changes to 

infrastructure and 

facilities; excessive 

need due to 

frequency, intensity, 

or area of impact may 

require considerable 

funding or operational 

adjustments; due to 

lack of redundant 

systems in Alaska, 

resiliency is even 

more relevant 

Likely with localized 

occurrence

• Impact to assets, networks, and systems is typically moderate and 

can be short to long term due to the nature of available funding, extent 

and intensity of geohazard or weather events, or status of policy 

regarding intergovernmental cooperation; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modes of traffic can substantially 

consequential as most road and other users will experience changes, 

some inconvenient and others more debilitating and expensive; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is moderate, requiring 

anticipatory responses; 

• Being proactive, doing advanced planning such as scenario planning 

and vulnerability assessments. Come up with criteria for how to 

improve/measure resilience. How are individual assets contributing to 

system resiliency? 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

50

VH 

H X 

M 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

Design and 

Engineering 

Managers, 

Compliance 

Managers, Section 

106 Coordinators, 

Trails Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

L

Impact

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance



Potential to identify 

culvert locations if data exists 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); how common is it 

for culverts to be properly sized 

for debris flows -this seems 

unlikely (Tormey); GIS could be 

used to evaluate drainage 

patterns based on historic 

aerial imagery and GIS 

modeling could lay a foundation 

to predict effects of extreme 

hydrological events (Wood); 

(Chon)

Impact

Probability

• Impact to road corridor is typically minor depending on the nature of 

contracted construction and day labor projects or the specific location; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be moderate to substantial; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantially inconsequential as 

most road users will not perceive changes; 

• Impact to natural resources is usually not an issue but can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of construction projects 

and periodic maintenance; fish and wildlife passage needs to be 

considered as well as proper sizing for flood and debris flow events; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106 

• Re-evaluate drainage patterns, peak flow events, and channel 

stability in response to extreme hydrological events; 

• Create awareness with road edges;

• Condition assessment reports for culverts should be done annually; 

technical language and expertise required and since condition is 

currently somewhat subjective a culvert inspection guide is needed;

• An app exists that helps maintenance staff ask questions to get 

applicable information on culvert conditions and then automatically 

downloads. App developed for less than $10k. Is this an option?

Road Supervisors, 

Hydrologists

Periodic Inspections 

of Culverts; period of 

inspection could be 

informed by a formal 

inventory and 

comparison to debris 

flow/flood analysis.

• Causes restrictive flows if blocked or 

damaged that may affect cultural and 

natural resources within the road 

corridor and/or a shift in the recognized 

safety paradigm for motor vehicle 

traffic, motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians

Threat or Opportunity

Project Reviews; 

Periodic Evaluation 

and Update to Trail 

Design Standards

Somewhat likely with 

localized occurrence

Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Unlikely, but with 

broad occurrence

A change to culvert 

size, construction 

type, treatment, 

repair, or replacement 

resulting in alteration 

to historical character, 

cultural landscape, or 

natural setting of the 

road corridor



(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); this risk 

is an opportunity rather than a 

threat; opportunities exist to 

better inform visitors of their 

impact on resources and there 

are also opportunities to make 

less expensive reactive 

adjustments to the 

technologies (as opposed to reengineering an airport runway) 

as they relate to changing 

visitor use patterns (Wood); 

(Chon)



Potential to 

identify assets, impacted 

areas, and driving patters if 

data exists (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

historic aerial imagery could be 

used to assess changes in 

trails, T-Roads and seasonal 

vehicle routes; Defined trail 

class in FMSS could also be 

used to determine degree of 

change from original trail class 

intent (Wood); (Chon)

 Facility Assets / Standards (cont'd)

14

Trails, T-roads, 

Seasonal 

Vehicle Routes, 

Winter Trail 

Markers

• Lack of Federally recognized 

standards for T-roads

• Departure from established trail 

design and construction standards 

used by FLMAs

• Causes cultural and natural resource 

degradation of the trail corridor, 

depending on whether the surface is 

paved or unpaved, and/or any changes 

may shift the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians

Threat or Opportunity

A change to how 

users access public 

lands resulting in 

alteration to 

infrastructure, utility 

provisions, 

informational and 

interpretive 

messaging, and 

operational needs; 

likely advancements 

include fuel changes 

in cars, autonomous 

cars, and electric 

bikes. Intelligent 

Transportation 

Systems (ITS) is a 

component of this; 

doesn’t look like 

Alaska is going to get 

a lot of money to deal 

with this issue.

• Impact to trail corridor is typically moderate and somewhat 

incremental due to the nature of trail branching to avoid wet or 

impassible track or due to contracted construction and day labor 

projects; 

• Impact to trail infrastructure can be moderate, but sometimes culvert 

extensions and other site elements affect trail dimensions; 

• Impact to multimodal traffic is substantially consequential as most 

trail users will experience incremental changes and use patterns may 

also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is moderate to substantial, requiring 

focused oversight of construction projects and periodic adjustment or 

correction of branching or expanded trail surfaces due to repetitive tire 

or hoof wear; 

• Impact to cultural resources is moderate to substantial, requiring 

review and compliance with Section 106

• Impact to transportation is typically minor to moderate and 

somewhat incremental due to the nature of emerging technologies and 

gradual adoption by demographics; 

• Impact to infrastructure can be minimal, but sometimes change in IT 

or media can alter structural needs; 

• Impact to multimodal traffic is consequential as most users will 

perceive slight, incremental changes, but subtle travel patterns may 

also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is minimal, requiring focused oversight of 

IT construction projects, periodic changes to operational methods, and 

removal of pruning or removal of vegetation that may interfere with 

utility installation (i.e. cell towers); 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

L and compliance with Section 106

Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance M Maintain, adjust, or enhance

Moderate, incremental 

changes to trails 

resulting in alteration 

to historical character, 

cultural landscape, 

and natural resources 

proximate to the trail 

corridor; excessive 

changes may prompt 

unexpected changes 

to driving patterns 

contributing to 

accidents; not just a 

recreational issue – 

this is transportation 

for many people living 

in Alaska with 

increased visitation 

and use; may lead to 

deterioration of 

resources, visitor 

conflicts, and effect 

on economy; T-roads 

are more prevalent in 

interior and northern 

parts of Alaska and 

are important for 

subsistence use; a 

resource risk and 

safety risk -not an 

investment risk 

(except for BLM)

Probability

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance

Departure from established culvert 

design and construction standards 

used by FHWA and FLMAs

Very likely with broad 

occurrence (rapidly 

changing 

technologies, media 

service companies, 

and emerging 

demographics)

15

Drainage 

Structures 

(Culverts)

13 Technological 

Advancements

Adopting new applications and 

standards for communications, media, 

interpretation, and geospatial 

networking

• Causes shifts in public use patterns, 

user impacts on resources, and 

traditional safety paradigm for 

multimodal traffic, travel to and within 

public lands, transit passengers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians

Thereat or Opportunity Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Probability

Communications / 

Media Managers, 

Facilities Supervisors, 

and Resource 

Managers

Periodic Evaluation 

and Update to Media 

and IT 

Impact
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

51

VH 

H 

M 

L 

VL X 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M L X VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H X 

M 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH



Potential to map where 

impacts would be high 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); 

probability is High; would 

expect to see an upward trend 

in vehicle frequency to all 

destinations (Wood); (Chon)



Potential to map 

where impacts would be high 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); (Wood); 

(Chon)

 Reductions or Changes in Maintenance and Operations



Potential to map gravel 

source locations and where the 

gravel goes (Babcock); impact 

is high to very high; many NPS 

sites in AK are remote and 

therefore having material 

sources available within facility 

is key to keeping construction 

costs reasonable (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); historic 

aerial imagery could be used to 

assess changes in gravel 

quarry environments; 

soundscape analysis 

conducted at gravel processing 

locations could determine APE 

on wildlife (Wood); (Chon) 

18

Vehicle or Craft 

Operating 

Regulations 

(Rules of the 

Road)

Changes to operational regulations, 

lack of training, public adherence, or 

how delivery of training is conducted

• May cause interruption or reduction 

in natural movement and migration of 

wildlife across and within the road 

corridors or landing zones; 

• Changes the number and frequency 

of wildlife viewing opportunities; 

• Requires adjustment of operations 

and maintenance schedules, funding 

needs, and personnel; 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians

Threat or Opportunity

Compliance 

Managers, 

Concessions 

Managers, Law 

Enforcement, and 

Transportation 

Supervisors

• Impact to road corridors are minor to moderate depending on the 

extent of the wheel base encroachment beyond surface limits, the 

extent of base material compression in locations where soft or wet 

conditions exist, and where extra intervisible pullouts will be needed to 

allow oncoming traffic to pass; 

• Impact to road infrastructure is minor to moderate; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantial as most road users will 

need to allow extra space and time to maneuver for oncoming 

vehicles; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is an issue and can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of motor vehicle 

specifications; 

• Impact from use of new types of aircraft, watercraft or personal use 

conveyances remains unpredictable an requires considerable 

investigation and piloting before adoption 

Maintain or enhance

Reduce, maintain, 

enhance, or avoid

Periodic Update to 

Vehicle Management 

Plans, Commercial 

Use Authorizations, 

Access Permits, 

and/or Concession 

Contracts

17

Vehicle 

Capacity, 

Frequency of 

Access, and 

Destination

• Change from or adjustment to current 

motor vehicles, craft, or transit fleet in 

number or frequency and destination of 

service alters impacts to wildlife 

movement, habitat, visitor experience 

and viewing opportunities, and O&M of 

facilities 

• Increase in motor vehicle and other 

modal traffic also increases potential 

exposure to geophysical hazards

• Causes interruption or reduction in 

natural movement and migration of 

wildlife across and within road 

corridors, landing zones, and docking 

locations • 

Affects air quality, dust accumulation 

on vegetation, driver/visitor visibility, 

and soundscape/noise 

• Changes the number and frequency 

of wildlife viewing opportunities 

• Requires adjustment of operations 

and maintenance schedules, funding 

needs, and personnel

Reduce, maintain, 

enhance, or avoid

Compliance 

Managers, 

Concessions 

Managers, Resources 

Managers, LRTP 

Planning Team, and 

those implementing 

visitor use studies 

(CVTS)

Likely with broad 

occurrence 

Change to numbers or 

frequency of motor 

vehicles, aircraft or 

watercraft resulting in 

reduction or 

interruption of wildlife 

migration or 

movement; change in 

airborne dust; affected 

visitor viewing of 

wildlife and their 

habitat; adjustment to 

O&M; cruise ship 

access is leading to 

congestion -

communities like 

Skagway are split 

about whether to have 

more cruise ship 

access 

Impact

• Impact to wildlife is minor to significant depending on the number 

and frequency of motor vehicles, craft, and transit fleet; 

• Impact to infrastructure is minor to moderate as any change in 

number and frequency of motor vehicles, craft, and transit fleet will 

alter road surfacing, etc.; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users encounters with other users will increase/decrease; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is an issue and can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of transportation 

management; 

• How does maintenance change as facilities reach capacity? 

Recommendation: Implement vehicle/craft/fleet management plans 

and concession contracts, collect data, review and analyze data. Take 

action after five years, and annually following; Action can include 

working more on scheduling to achieve optimal wildlife viewing, 

resource protection, etc.; • Consider this risk 

along with congestion management, access to in-holdings 

Probability

VL Unlikely, but with 

broad occurrence

Threat or Opportunity L

Maintain, adjust, or 

enhance

Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence 

depending upon 

events that require 

review / updates

Probability

16

Vehicle Type, 

Length, 

Capacity, and 

Powertrain / Fuel

• Change from current motor vehicles, 

craft, or transit fleet to other vehicle 

types 

• Increase in length or capacity of 

current motor vehicles, craft, or transit 

fleet that exceeds design allowances 

• Any type of powertrain or fuel that 

changes the visitor experience 

• Autonomous vehicles may likely 

influence or impact the Alaska road 

system 

• Larger cruise ships may likely 

influence or impact the Alaska ports

 Vehicle Specifications

A change to type, 

length or capacity 

resulting in alteration 

to historical character, 

cultural landscape, or 

natural setting; 

change in safety 

paradigm; and 

additional O&M to 

transportation assets

• Causes wheel tracks to go beyond 

the extent of the existing road and 

parking limits affecting cultural and 

natural resources • Places 

extra weight and compressive action 

on an active, changing road base 

• Restrictive motor vehicle movement 

to oncoming traffic within the road 

corridor with a resulting shift in the 

recognized safety paradigm for motor 

vehicle traffic, motorists, passengers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians 

• Changes in potential for fuel spills, air 

quality, and noise • 

Alternative types of aircraft and 

watercraft require different facilities 

sometimes resulting in new, altered, or 

minimized infrastructure

Threat or Opportunity



Potential to map where 

impacts would be high 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); would rank the 

Probability as Medium 

(Morton); (Scavo); (Simmons); 

(Tormey); recommend moving 

probability from Very Low to 

Low; as climate change opens 

up additional navigable land a 

higher demand for infrastructure 

would be expected and 

therefore requiring materials to 

be transported via large 

capacity semi trailer trucks 

(Wood); (Chon)

Periodic Update to 

Transportation 

Management Plans, 

Concession 

Contracts, and/or 

"Rules of the Road"

Impact

• Impact to natural resources is minor to moderate depending on the 

change to the rules; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is moderate to 

significant as most users will need to adjust to any changes in the 

rules and although most users will not perceive slight, incremental 

changes, subtle travel patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

Maintain, adjust, 

or enhance

Compliance 

Managers, 

Concessions 

Managers, and 

Resources Managers

Impact

Periodic Update to 

Vehicle Management 

Plans, Commercial 

Use Authorizations, 

Access Permits, 

and/or Concession 

Contracts; 5 year 

update to LRTP

A change to the 

regulations resulting 

in change to the 

character of road 

corridors, landing 

zones, or visitor 

experience; excessive 

changes may prompt 

inconsistent travel 

patterns resulting in 

personal injury or 

casualties ; and 

adjustment to O&M 

required due to extra 

wear on road and 

other surfaces

Probability

VL Maintain or 

enhance

19

Gravel 

Production, 

Processing, or 

Purchase

• Departure from established gravel 

management used by FHWA and 

FLMAs to maintain or improve unpaved 

road surfaces and other facilities 

• Proximity of appropriate gravel 

sources in key locations at affordable 

prices;

• Lack of agreements and standard 

procedures for multiagency 

coordination regarding gravel sources.

• Asbestos and other hazardous 

materials found naturally in gravel 

sources

• Causes physical changes to gravel 

source locations; 

• Affects road and other construction 

since the source for raw and 

processed gravels greatly influences 

cost, availability, and quality; 

• Influences vehicle management, 

congestion, and road degradation 

depending upon where gravel is 

extracted from or purchased/imported; 

• Affects other natural resources if 

imported gravel includes invasives; 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians depending upon gravel 

transport traffic levels within FLMA or 

from external locations 

Threat or Opportunity Maintain or enhance Likely with broad 

occurrence

A change to the 

policy and practices 

resulting in change 

gravel source 

locations and/or the 

character of road 

corridors and other 

transportation 

facilities; excessive 

changes may prompt 

inconsistent travel 

patterns resulting in 

personal injury or 

casualties ; and 

adjustment to O&M 

required due to extra 

wear on road and 

other surfaces

Probability

H Maintain or 

enhance

• Impact to road corridors is moderate and somewhat undefined due to 

the nature of the exact movement of gravel resources and by what 

means; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be minimal to moderate depending 

on internal or external source; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is minimal if continued processing 

and delivery method is used but moderate to substantial if gravel 

delivered from outside the FLMA thereby affecting driving patterns; 

• Impact to natural resources is moderate to substantial whatever 

gravel source is used, requiring focused oversight of extraction, 

processing, delivery and quality control; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106 • 

Facilitate the creation of a multiagency, multi-discipline team to 

implement the following:

1. Identify potential common gravel sources in key locations to 

streamline acquisition of gravel material

2. Align multiagency projects that are in close proximity to each other 

and negotiate shared use of gravel material

3. Develop a program to identify and appropriately treat gravel sources

4. Develop a set of “Best Practices” and memorandums of agreement 

to facilitate coordinated contracting of gravel sources to meet 

project/maintenance needs

Note: team should include BLM (regulatory agency), Regional Tribal 

Corporations (owner of subsurface rights), ADOT&PF, WFL Materials 

Lab, NPS, FWS, FS

Compliance 

Managers, Road 

Supervisors, and 

Resource Managers

Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Gravel Acquisition 

Plans and Road 

Design Standards; 

Link "Special Team" 

pilot project success 

to LRTP updates. 

Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Gravel Acquisition 

Plans and Road 

Design Standards

Impact
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

52

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M 

L X 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M 

L X 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H X 

M 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

Likely with localized 

occurrence

Minimal, incremental 

changes to road or 

trail crown, lateral 

slope, 

superelevations, and 

elimination of 

pronounced 

longitudinal gradients 

("bumps") resulting in 

alteration to historical 

character and cultural 

landscape resources 

within the sectional 

profile; excessive 

changes may prompt 

increased speeds 

resulting in personal 

injury or casualties 



(Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); 

(Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); (Chon)

Impact

Probability

L Reduce, maintain 

or enhance

• Impact to road and trail corridors is typically minor and somewhat 

incremental due to the nature of contracted maintenance and day 

labor projects; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantially 

inconsequential as most users will not perceive slight, incremental 

changes, but subtle travel patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106

Road Supervisor, 

Resources Manager

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Road and Trail 

Maintenance 

Standards

20

Surfacing 

(Asphalt, 

Concrete, 

Gravel, Decking, 

Trail Mix)

• Departure from established pavement 

and surfacing management used by 

FHWA and FLMAs to maintain or 

improve road and trail surfaces, parking 

lots, plazas, decks, elevated 

boardwalks, and other facilities

• Extreme weather, permafrost melting, 

storm surge, blocked culverts, etc. 

• Lack of data to predict future 

condition and inform current conditions

• Causes natural and cultural resource 

degradation of road and trail corridors 

and other transportation facilities 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians 

• Shorten asset life span

• Increased cost of repair or rehab

Threat or Opportunity Reduce, maintain or 

enhance

Reduce or maintain Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence

A change to culvert 

maintenance resulting 

in alteration to 

historical character, 

cultural landscape, or 

natural setting of the 

road corridor; 

excessive changes 

may prompt 

inconsistent driving 

patterns resulting in 

personal injury or 

casualties 



Potential to map 

impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); (Chon)



Potential to 

identify culvert locations if data 

exists (Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); (Wood); 

(Chon)



Potential to map 

impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); (Chon)

21 Vegetation 

Management

• Departure from established vegetation 

management used by FHWA and 

FLMAs to control vegetative growth, 

encroachment, and aesthetic qualities; 

• Lack of resources to address 

vegetation management

• Causes cultural and natural resource 

degradation of road corridors and other 

transportation facilities; 

• Changes to the subgrade when root 

systems spread into the road profile, 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians 

• Affect natural and cultural resources 

(chemical treatments could affect fish 

eggs; natural vegetation, etc.)

• Degradation of assets

Threat or Opportunity Reduce, maintain or 

enhance

Impact

Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence

Minimal, incremental 

changes to road 

shoulders, ditch lines, 

back and foreslopes 

resulting in alteration 

to historical character, 

cultural landscape, 

and natural resources 

proximate to the road 

corridor; excessive 

changes may prompt 

inconsistent driving 

patterns resulting in 

personal injury or 

casualties; and 

adjustment to O&M 

required due to 

managed vegetative 

growth 

Probability

L Reduce, maintain 

or enhance

Somewhat likely with 

localized occurrence Threat or Opportunity Reduce, maintain or enhance

• Impact to road corridors is typically minor and somewhat 

incremental due to the nature of contracted construction and day labor 

projects; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be minimal, but sometimes culvert 

extensions and other site elements affect vegetation; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantially inconsequential as 

most users will not perceive slight, incremental changes, but subtle 

travel patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring 

focused oversight of construction projects, timely and periodic removal 

or pruning of vegetation from ditch lines and side slopes that may 

interfere with drainage or extend into road subgrade; 

• Impact to cultural resources is minimal to moderate, requiring review 

and compliance with Section 106

Compliance 

Managers, Road 

Supervisors, and 

Resource Managers

Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Vegetation 

Management 

Standards

Impact

Probability

M Reduce, maintain 

or enhance

23

Drainage 

Structures 

(Culverts)

• Departure from established culvert 

management used by FHWA and 

FLMAs • Lack 

of location and condition data for 

culverts

• Extreme weather events

• Wildfires producing more debris 

material clogging culverts during storm 

events

• Causes restrictive flows if blocked, 

restricted by ice, or damaged that may 

affect cultural and natural resources 

within the road corridor 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians • 

Increased cost of repair or replacement 

of culvert

• Facilitate damage to road asset

• Inhibit access to FLMA

Threat

22

Elevated 

Structures 

(Bridges. Docks, 

Trestles)

• Departure from established bridge 

management used by FHWA and 

FLMAs 

• Lack of resources to maintain 

structures

• Extreme weather events, storm surge

• Causes visible and physical changes 

to bridge structures and approaches 

that may affect cultural resources 

within a road or trail corridor 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians 

• Unknown foundations (could be 

susceptible to scour)

• Increased cost to repair or rehab

• Inability to access FLMA

• Decrease visitation, local economy, 

etc.

Minimal to moderate 

changes to bridge 

maintenance and 

operations associated 

with keeping bridges 

functional resulting in 

alteration to historical 

character and cultural 

landscape of the road 

corridor; excessive 

changes may prompt 

inconsistent driving 

patterns resulting in 

personal injury or 

casualties 

• Impact to road corridor is typically minor depending on the nature of 

contracted or day labor maintenance projects and the specific culvert 

location; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be moderate to substantial 

depending upon the maintenance involved; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantially inconsequential as 

most users will not perceive changes, but subtle driving patterns may 

also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is usually not an issue but can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of periodic 

maintenance; 

• Impact to cultural resources is typically minimal, requiring review and 

compliance with Section 106 

• Facilitate the creation of a multiagency, multi-discipline team to 

implement the following:

1. Inventory locations and conditions of culverts

2. Investigate potential hazards (culvert inventory risk assessment)

3. Create hydrological models of risk to culverts

4. Create a culvert management program, similar to a USMP

5. Create a set of “Best Practices” for culvert maintenance (catch 

basin and ditch maintenance)

Roads Supervisors, 

Hydrologists

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Road Maintenance 

Standards; period of 

inspection could be 

informed by a formal 

inventory and 

comparison to debris 

flow and/or flooding 

analysis

• Impact to road or trail corridor is typically minor depending on the 

nature of contracted or day labor maintenance projects and the 

specific bridge location; 

• Impact to road infrastructure can be moderate to substantial 

depending upon the maintenance involved; 

• Impact to motor vehicle or other modes of traffic is substantially 

inconsequential as most users will not perceive changes, but subtle 

travel patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural resources is usually not an issue but can be a 

contributing factor, requiring focused oversight of periodic 

maintenance; 

• Impact to cultural resources is typically minimal, requiring review and 

compliance with Section 106

Bridge Engineers, 

Road Supervisors, 

Hydrologists

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Bridge Maintenance 

Standards

Impact

Probability

H Maintain

 Reductions or Changes in Maintenance and Operations (cont'd)
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

53

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH 

H 

M X 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M L X VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H X M L VL 

VL L M H VH



Goal area GIS 

questions can be used for 

visual analysis (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); would 

rank Impact as Medium; 

sometimes changes and new 

persons with new ideas/skills 

are beneficial (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); 

opportunity to implement 

Resource Stewardship 

Strategies (Wood); (Chon) Impact

27 Resource 

Management

• Federal budget levels; bureau policy, 

regulations, and guidance; 

• Distribution of discretionary funding; 

• Turnover and retirement of personnel 

Causes all park resource programs to 

conform to opportunities and/or 

constraints created by decisions by 

staff reliant on or responsible for 

transportation infrastructure, facilities, 

and systems 

Threat or Opportunity

Align with resource 

management 

strategies

H

• Impact to transportation systems is minimal to substantial 

depending upon staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, and 

distribution of FTE by geographic area; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantial as most road users will 

perceive changes where staff levels translates into 

construction/maintenance projects, vehicle management, or O&M 

practices; 

• Impact to FLMA staffs is moderate to substantial as successional 

planning is defined by personnel trends, workforce stability, and 

conflict resolution methodologies • 

Balance with agency missions. Minimize impacts of transportation 

systems to natural and cultural resources. 

Compliance 

Managers, Road 

Supervisors, and 

Resource Managers

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Transportation 

Management Plans, 

signs, messaging to 

the public



Potential to identify high 

visited areas if data exists 

(Babcock); (Collins); 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); probability seems 

a little high for AK parks, but 

not from AK (Tormey); would 

change probability from 

Medium to High (Wood); (Chon)

Probability

L

Impact

Reduce, maintain 

or enhance

• Impact to resources, transportation systems, and user networks is 

typically moderate and somewhat incremental due to the gradual or 

periodic nature of increased or peak visitation; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantial as most users will 

perceive changes where congestion is apparent, but subtle travel 

patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is minimal to moderate, 

requiring review and compliance • Adapt 

the NPS Congestion Management Toolkit for use at multi-agency 

congested sites

• Conduct a pilot congestion assessment using the NPS toolkit (for 

example at the Russian River site maintained by Chugach NF and 

Kenai NWR in coordination with the ADOT&PF)

 Reductions or Changes in Maintenance and Operations (cont'd)

Likely with localized 

occurrence

Minimal to moderate 

impacts resulting in 

alteration to natural, 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape resources 

within specific FLMA 

locations; excessive 

changes may prompt 

increased damage to 

resources and user 

experience, and affect 

access and mobility 

resulting in limited 

visibility, possible 

personal injury or 

casualties 

24

Minimal to moderate 

commitments to 

transportation 

goals/objectives 

resulting in various 

influences on 

resource protection, 

inventory and 

monitoring, climate 

change initiatives, and 

partnerships



(Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); 

(Morton); as well as 

impacts to visitor 

experience (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); (Chon)

Congestion 

Management

• Ignoring emerging trends in locations 

of high visitation or where facilities are 

unable to accommodate current or 

projected level of use; 

• Adopting new methods, techniques, 

and practices for addressing or 

reducing vehicular congestion, 

overcrowding, and peak loading 

conditions • High 

visitation for a sustained period of time

• Causes natural resource degradation 

in and around transportation facilities 

due to soil compaction, vegetative 

damage, and concentrated surface 

flows; 

• Cultural resource degradation due to 

disturbance of archaeology, cultural 

landscapes, etc.; 

• User experience dissatisfaction due 

to perceived or real overcrowding, 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians

Threat or Opportunity Reduce, maintain or 

enhance

Stabilize Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence

• Impact to road corridor is typically moderate and somewhat 

incremental due to the nature of contracted maintenance and day 

labor projects; 

• Impact to motor vehicle traffic is substantial as most road users will 

perceive changes where calcium chloride admix is used, but subtle 

driving patterns may also be affected cumulatively; 

• Impact to natural and cultural resources is minimal to moderate, 

requiring review and compliance • 

Support/contribute to research of cost effective dust abatement 

alternatives

Road Supervisors

 FLMA Management



(Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); 

(Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); this 

risk is an opportunity to 

implement the strategies 

outlined in the LRTP 

(Wood); (Chon)

Regional and Unit 

Managers, Resource 

Managers, 

Transportation 

Program Managers, 

Resource Specialists

Probability

Stabilize

Impact

Regional 

Transportation 

Program Managers

Minimal to moderate 

commitments to 

transportation 

goals/objectives 

resulting in various 

influences on 

resource protection, 

user experience, 

system optimization, 

access, climate 

change initiatives, 

missed funding 

opportunities, and 

partnerships

Periodic Performance 

Reports and Updates 

to LRTP

26

Nonimplementation 

of LRTP

• Not following recommended 

strategies depending on the current 

funding and visitation scenarios 

• Not committing to certain levels and 

types of transportation system 

maintenance or development

• Causes all FLMA programs to not 

conform to opportunities 

• Constraints created by decisions 

regarding transportation infrastructure, 

facilities, and systems

Threat or Opportunity

• Impact to transportation is minimal to substantial due to the nature 

of how the LRTP is utilized in short and long-term decision-making; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users will perceive changes where LRTP implementation 

translates into construction projects, vehicle management, or O&M 

practices; 

• Impact to FLMA staffs is moderate to substantial as successional 

planning is defined by personnel trends, workforce stability, and 

conflict resolution methodologies; 

• Funding will incentivize management, as long as funding is 

distributed based on compliance with LRTP; then managed units will 

work it in.

25 Dust 

Management

Threat or Opportunity Adopt and implement M

Reduce, maintain or 

enhance

Somewhat likely with 

targeted occurrence

Adapt and 

Probability

implement

Minimal to moderate 

incremental changes 

to road surfacing 

composition resulting 

in alteration to natural, 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape resources 

within the road 

corridor; excessive 

changes may prompt 

increased damage to 

natural resources and 

affect driving speeds 

resulting in various 

extents of visibility, 

possible personal 

injury or casualties 

Reduce, maintain 

or enhance

Probability

Unlikely

• Departure from established dust 

control techniques used by FHWA and 

FLMAs along with alteration of 

admixing CaCl 

• Lack of affordable surface treatment 

options to manage dust 

• Causes natural resource degradation 

of the road corridor due to leaching of 

chemical compounds while 

simultaneously reducing dust pollution 

• Shift in the recognized safety 

paradigm for motor vehicle traffic, 

motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians as well as impacts to 

visitor experience 

• Degradation of visitor’s experience 

(vistas and wildlife viewing inhibited, 

poor air quality, etc.)

Periodic Inspections 

and Project Reviews; 

Periodic Update to 

Road Maintenance 

Standards

Impact

L
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

54

VH 

H X 

M 

L 

VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H X M L VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H X M L VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M X L VL 

VL L M H VH

VH H M X L VL 

VL L M H VH

Administrative / 

Transportation 

Program Managers

Periodic Review and 

Adjustment to MOUs, 

IAs, and Project 

Agreements



Goal area GIS 

questions can be used for 

visual analysis (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

five year FLMA project map 

would facilitate discussion on 

how to optimize project funding 

across the FLMAs (Wood); 

(Chon) Impact

Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence

Minimal to moderate 

commitments to 

transportation 

management resulting 

in various influences 

on partnerships, 

resource protection, 

user experience, 

system optimization, 

access, and climate 

change initiatives

Probability

M Maintain or 

enhance 

partnering efforts

• Impact to transportation is minimal to substantial depending upon 

management roles and responsibilities; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users will perceive changes where partnered management 

translates into construction/maintenance projects, vehicle 

management, or O&M practices; 

• Impact to all FLMA staff is moderate to substantial as successful 

partnering is defined by persistent, long-term communication, 

workforce stability, and periodically - conflict resolution 

31 Partnerships

• Combination of not seeking out 

partnerships from which to leverage 

funding and collaborate on mutually 

beneficial projects and 

• Not committing to financial 

arrangements which would help to 

ensure transportation system 

maintenance or development

• Causes FLMAs to operate in 

isolation and without benefit of 

coordinating on public use, safety and 

experience; 

• Current and projected funding tied to 

shared matched funding initiatives

Threat or Opportunity Maintain or enhance 

partnering efforts



Goal area GIS 

questions can be used for 

visual analysis (Babcock); 

should be low-medium 

probability because safety 

drives a lot of projects and a 

good job is done to track 

accidents and determine or 

address safety deficiencies in 

transportation corridors 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

overlay of accident locations 

with transportation network 

could produce accident 

hotspots (Wood); (Chon)

Impact

H

Reduce, maintain 

or enhance safety 

risk. Focus on 

safety of the 

public. 

• Impact to transportation facilities is minimal to substantial depending 

upon degree to which infrastructure changes are needed; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users will perceive changes from construction/maintenance 

projects, vehicle management, or O&M practices; 

• Impact to all park staff is moderate to substantial as safety 

management is defined by personnel trends, workforce stability, and 

enforcement or educational methodologies; 

• Comprehensive, multi-agency effort is required 

• Incorporate safety focus/perspective in all actions taken in the LRTP 

• Form a multi-agency safety assessment team whose aimis to have 

one consistent source of data for safety/crash data collection; an 

issue with incident reporting is the lack of consistency across the 

agencies 

• Potential to use phone apps to collect safety information, including 

anecdotal data and information from park staff about incidents; already 

have an app for reporting incidents in USMP (for landslides) – this 

could be used for safety 

• Experience with the wildlife vehicle collision app indicated minimal 

usership when piloted

Law Enforcement, 

Transportation 

Managers in all 

agencies

Periodic Review and 

Adjustment to Safety 

Management Plans

28 Safety 

Management

• Ignoring accidents in locations of high 

visitation or where facilities are in need 

of improvement to accommodate 

current or projected level of use; 

• Adopting new methods, techniques, 

and practices for addressing or 

reducing vehicular accidents, personal 

injuries, or fatalities

Causes all park programs to conform 

to opportunities and/or constraints 

created by decisions regarding staff 

reliant on or responsible for 

transportation infrastructure, facilities, 

and systems 

Threat or Opportunity Reduce, maintain or 

enhance



(Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); 

(Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); probability should 

be Medium; overall priority 

will be changed to Medium 

(Chon)

• Impact to transportation facilities is minimal to substantial depending 

upon staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, and distribution of FTE 

by geographic area; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users will perceive changes where staff levels translates into 

construction/maintenance projects, vehicle management, or O&M 

practices; 

• Impact to all FLMA staff is moderate to substantial as successional 

planning is defined by personnel trends, workforce stability, and 

conflict resolution methodologies 

Impact

Somewhat likely with 

limited occurrence



Potential to map 

impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); (McKinley); (Morton); 

(Scavo); (Simmons); (Tormey); 

(Wood); Probability should be 

Medium; overall priority is still 

High (Chon)

• Impact to transportation facilities is minimal to substantial depending 

upon staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, and distribution of FTE 

by geographic area; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is substantial as 

most users will perceive changes where staff levels translates into 

construction/maintenance projects, vehicle management, or O&M 

practices; 

• Impact to all FLMA staff is moderate to substantial as successional 

planning is defined by personnel trends, workforce stability, and 

conflict resolution methodologies 

Administrative / 

Personnel Managers

Likely with limited 

occurrence

Impact

Administrative / 

Personnel Managers

Somewhat likely with 

broad occurrence

M

Change or 

enhance efficiency 

of response time

Agency 

Management 

Organizational 

Structure

• Federal budget levels; park staffing 

policy and guidance; 

• Assignment of staff and their 

roles/responsibilities throughout 

operational centers

Causes FLMA operations to conform 

to staffing opportunities and/or 

constraints and to respond to resulting 

supervisory workload and assigned 

tasks at specific locations 

Threat or Opportunity

Maintain or enhance 

stability and 

expertise of staff

Minimal to moderate 

commitments to 

operational 

management resulting 

in various influences 

on resource 

protection, user 

experience, system 

optimization, access, 

climate change 

initiatives, and 

partnerships

Probability

L

Maintain or 

enhance stability 

and expertise of 

staff

29

Staffing 

Locations and 

Staff Level 

Changes

• Federal budget levels; bureau policy, 

regulations, and guidance; 

• Distribution of discretionary funding 

and staff throughout operational 

centers; • 

Turnover and retirement of personnel; 

• Housing shortage / limitations 

Causes all FLMA transportation 

programs to conform to opportunities 

and/or constraints created by 

decisions regarding staff reliant on or 

responsible for transportation 

infrastructure, facilities, and systems 

and staff performance to respond to 

resulting workload and assigned tasks 

at specific locations 

Threat or Opportunity

 FLMA Management (cont'd)

Minimal to moderate 

commitments to 

staffing to support 

transportation 

resulting in various 

influences on 

resource protection, 

user experience, 

system optimization, 

access, climate 

change initiatives, and 

partnerships

Probability

Minimal to moderate 

impacts resulting in 

alteration primarily to 

user experience, 

access, and mobility, 

but also to natural, 

historical character 

and cultural 

landscape resources 

within specific FLMA 

locations; excessive 

changes may prompt 

increased damage to 

resources but 

benefiting the user by 

improving visibility, 

thereby reducing 

possible personal 

injury or casualties 

Probability

Periodic Review and 

Adjustment to 

Successional 

Planning, 

Organizational 

Initiatives, and 

Operations Plans

Periodic Review and 

Adjustment to 

Successional 

Planning, 

Organizational 

Initiatives, and 

Operations Plans

32

Inholder vehicle 

capacity, 

frequency of 

access, and 

vehicle type

Increased desire of inholders and 

access type into Federal managed 

public lands (commercial, mining, etc.)

Adds to complexity of managing for all 

users while protecting FLMA natural 

and cultural resources

Threat or Opportunity

Mitigate, maintain or 

enhance POV / 

commercial vehicles

Change or enhance 

efficiency of response 

time

30



Potential to map 

impacted areas (Babcock); 

(Collins); this is a growing 

issue that would be a High 

priority at Denali NP; this may 

or may not be generally 

relevant across all FLMAs 

(McKinley); (Morton); (Scavo); 

(Simmons); (Tormey); (Wood); 

(Chon) Impact

Probability

M Mitigate, maintain 

or enhance

Somewhat likely with 

limited occurrence

A minimal potential 

change to numbers or 

frequency of motor 

vehicles and other 

transportation modes 

resulting in reduction 

or interruption of 

wildlife migration or 

movement; change in 

airborne dust; affected 

visitor viewing of 

wildlife and their 

habitat...

• Impact to wildlife is minor to significant depending on the number 

and frequency of vehicles; 

• Impact to road infrastructure is minor to moderate as any change in 

number and frequency of motor vehicles; 

• Impact to motor vehicle and other modal traffic is possible as most 

users encounters with other users will increase/decrease; Impact to 

natural and cultural resources is also possible. 

• Significant challenge that FLMAs have for next ten years are new 

points of entry and continued economic demands/opportunities by 

private inholders; Need to better define access permits; 

Administrative, 

Compliance 

Managers, 

Concessions 

Managers, Law 

Enforcement, and 

Transportation 

Supervisors

Periodic review per 

FLMA Access Plans; 

review of cumulative 

commercial and 

mining ROW use. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

55

Attachment C. 

Additional Presentations
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

56

Unstable Slope Management Program (USMP) – Brian Collins 

• FHWA developed the USMP with partners. It has mostly been used by NPS; FS has done a few pilot studies; 

counties and local govt. have also used it. 

• Using the tool NPS identified over 100 sites on Denali Park Road with unstable slopes. 

• Units can input the data themselves using a rating form, a new slope event form, or a maintenance form. Data can 

be inputted using an app. 

• The website/app is a generic system – a similar interface could be set up for roads and trails. The app works offline, 

and then lets you upload the data into the website. They designed it to be easy to fill out – you don’t need to be a 

geotech engineer to use it. 

• The tool lets you do a quantitative assessment of risk for specific slopes. 

• Q: Could this type of platform be easily adopted for safety management or culverts?

o A: Yes. You would need GIS experts and technical experts to make the tool. 

Vulnerability Assessment Protocol – Blair Tormey 

• WCU and NPS developed the vulnerability assessment protocol and used it on 19 pilot projects. These projects 

were all coastal, but are now moving inland.

• Vulnerability of infrastructure = exposure + sensitivity; adaptive capacity considered at the end of the process. 

• The coastal hazard/exposure indicators in the tool are: flooding potential, extreme event flooding, SLR flooding, 

shoreline change, and reported coastal hazards (non-GIS information reported by people on the ground). 

• Sitka is the only project they’ve done in Alaska. 

• The protocol looks at vulnerability of structures and transportation assets. The result is an exposure map showing 

assets that are in areas of low, medium, or high risk. 

• To evaluate the sensitivity of an asset, the park completes a questionnaire (e.g., historical damage, protective 

engineering). 

• WCU did an annotated bibliography of types of vulnerability assessments across different agencies.

• Exposure score + sensitivity score = vulnerability score

o Don’t weight any of the factors

• The reports include a list of potential adaptation strategies. Ideally parks would use vulnerability assessment results 

to implement adaptation strategies. 

• Yellowstone is the first inland park they are looking at. Slope stability will be an issue, as will a number of other 

factors relevant to AK. 

• They use a 30 year time window for climate impacts, since this is a relevant planning timeline for parks. 

• All of the GIS data, spreadsheets, and databases are made available to the park at the end of the process. The 

NPS facilities division also has the data, and is trying to figure out where to store it. 

Transportation Resource Stewardship Planning Tool (TRSPT) - Ryan Schavo 

• NPS is using this tool in coordination with TINA to identify natural and cultural resources w/in 300 ft. of road corridor 

that could be influenced by transportation. The tool generates response strategies. 

• The tool was originally developed for NPS, but they have broadened it to include all LRTP agencies. They have 

tested it on one unit per agency.

• The TRSPT wants to do data validation with FWS, FS, and BLM units. 

• This includes permafrost data and maps – new within last year. They are also incorporating this data into TINA. 

• Christy at NPS is working on this. The next step is to engage with each of the agencies to validate. Proposal to put 

the results on the agenda for one of the monthly LRTP calls. 

• Discussion on the need to coordinate on maps for the LRTP between TRSPT, TINA, Volpe. 

• Suggestion to have a comprehensive list of data sources for all of these tools. Erica can be the clearinghouse of 

keeping track of this data. 

• Ryan has executive summary about the TRSPT project and can share with the group soon. 

TINA – Zack, Laura, and Doug 

• TINA is a weighted overlay hotspot layer. NPS has used it at Denali and Golden Gate. 

• Recently, they looked at goals from the LRTP, and stacked together GIS layers to identify hotspots/priority areas. 

Then they overlaid this with the transportation network. 

• The goal is to find specific locations for investment needs. 
Alaska CLRTP Risk Assessment Workshop – December12-14, 2017

57

• Discussion on the issue of scale when doing a statewide analysis. They may focus on priority hotspots and then 

look at what data they need there (otherwise, there is a chance that the hotspots will just be the areas with the most 

data available. 

• Related projects can be incorporated into TINA layers – vulnerability assessments, congestion management, etc. 

Discussion 

• Moving forward with the LRTP, how are the different tools going to inform the process? Are the different tools 

appropriate for different scales? 

• Data in high risk areas can be identified in TINA tool (to the extent possible/data is available).