Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix A

System Management Technical Report

Appendix Page 1
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Alaska Region 

Long Range Transportation Plan 

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION TECHNICAL REPORT 

Draft Preliminary 

May 2011

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Appendix Page 3
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Alaska Region 

Long Range Transportation Plan 

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION TECHNICAL REPORT 

Draft Preliminary 

May 2011

Prepared for the National Park Service 

Alaska Region 

Prepared by HDR Alaska, Inc. 

2525 C Street, Suite 305 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

Appendix Page 5
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 1 

1. System Optimization Report Overview 

The System Optimization Technical Report is one of several reports comprising a region-wide long range 

transportation plan for the National Park Service Alaska Region. This report presents the background 

information and analytical approach used in creating the transportation asset management plans 

contained in Appendices A through D. The approach closely follows the methodologies used in the park 

asset management planning process, or PAMPs, except they consist of only transportation assets as 

defined by each respective park unit. Similar to the PAMP process, the transportation asset 

management planning process does the following: documents the current footprint of transportation 

assets; examines the current funding available for transportation assets (based on historical averages); 

examines the financial requirements needed for operating and maintaining the transportation assets; 

and examines the relationship between financial requirements and available funding. 

1.1 Introduction of the LRTP 

The National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Region (AKR) is developing a long range transportation plan 

(LRTP) to guide future transportation program development and implementation. The LRTP will also 

bring the NPS into compliance with Federal legislation requiring Federal Land Management Agencies to 

conduct long range transportation planning in a manner consistent with U.S. Department of 

Transportation planning practices for State and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The AKR 

LRTP will provide NPS decision-makers with information and data necessary for informing future 

planning and operational decisions. 

This LRTP effort is being led by a core team consisting of NPS staff from the AKR office; NPS staff from a 

number of Alaska park units; staff from Western Federal Lands Highways Division of the Federal 

Highway Administration; and the NPS’ consultant, HDR Alaska, Inc. At the onset of this effort in late 

2009, the core team developed the following mission statement for the LRTP: 

“To implement an Alaska Region long range transportation plan that provides overarching 

strategies compatible with individual Park missions.”

Early in the LRTP process, the core team developed a list of goals, objectives, and strategies and 

obtained supporting data. Goals were generally related to one of five categories: asset management, 

visitor experience, mobility, or cultural and natural resources. Four categories were presented in a 

report produced by the core team in April 2010 entitled Alaska Region State of the Regional 

Transportation System Report. 

The core team developed the following goals and objectives for system optimization. 

Appendix Page 6
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 2 

The AKR LRTP draft goal for system optimization is 

Develop a long-term transportation system to satisfy current and future land management needs.

The AKR LRTP draft objectives are

Objective 1a: Asset Management

Apply available financial resources to essential transportation infrastructure. 

Objective 1b: Asset Investment Planning

Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new assets in the planning process. 

Objective 1c: Coordination

Accomplish interagency, interregional, and inter-park coordination by setting priorities for needs, 

exchanging data, and discussing mutual policies in order to facilitate shared execution and 

potential economic savings for projects of mutual interest and benefit.

 Coordinate between Federal Land Management Agencies in Alaska

 Coordinate between NPS Regions

 Coordinate between NPS Parks in Alaska

 Coordinate between Alaska Region and local and state governments

1.2 Report Organization 

To fulfill the goals and objectives of the AKR LRTP, the system optimization technical report describes 

the background and processes undertaken to define and assess the region’s transportation asset 

portfolio with the purpose of enabling park staff to better understand and articulate the current state of 

transportation assets within the region and the funding requirements of those assets. 

Section one introduces the system optimization goal and objectives in the context of the AKR NPS LRTP 

effort and states the contents of this report. 

Section two describes asset management and its significance to the NPS in relation to transportation 

planning. The concept of Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) is introduced and how the NPS is 

utilizing this process to assist the development of strategic, long-range plans in order to optimize limited 

financial resources. 

Section three explains the analytical approach used to develop the transportation asset management 

plans as well as the sources for financial data for the park units. This section also describes the “cluster 

group” approach used to organize Alaska’s 16 park units into four “clusters” based on their geography 

and accessibility requirements. 

Section four summarizes the key findings from the four cluster transportation asset management plans 

as well as highlighting key statistics of the National Park Service’s transportation asset portfolio at a 

regional level. 

At the heart of the System Optimization Technical Report are the Transportation Asset Management 

Plans for the respective park clusters. Appendix A contains the Alaska Snapshot, which provides a 

regional perspective and statistics on the transportation assets analyzed in the four cluster plans. 

Appendices B through E contain the four cluster transportation asset management plans. 

Appendix Page 7
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 3 

2. Asset Management 

Significant research and effort have been directed toward 

improvements in asset management by the National Park 

Service since the late 1980s with the advent of the 1986 

National Park Service Maintenance Management System. This 

management philosophy was further codified in the policies and 

requirements outlined in Director’s Order #80, Real Property 

Asset Management, in November, 2006. The NPS Management 

Policies 2006 states: 

In protecting the park resources and values, the Service 

will demonstrate environmental leadership and a 

commitment to the principles of sustainability and asset 

management in all facility developments and 

operations. 

The vision for asset management within the NPS is to sustain all 

high priority, mission critical transportation assets at acceptable 

conditions today and for future generations. 

Since the NPS Asset Management Plan (AMP) was first 

published in February 2006, the NPS has made significant 

progress addressing its inventory of transportation assets, 

assessing their condition, and formalizing and communicating 

the decision-making framework, business practices, and data to 

ensure that region and park-level staff are using these tools to manage their transportation investment 

decisions. 

2.1 Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) 

As the NPS asset management program continues to mature greater emphasis is being placed on 

development of strategic, long-range plans that optimize available resources. Generally speaking, total 

cost of facility ownership (TCFO) involves quantifying costs associated with planning, designing, 

constructing, operating, and ultimately disposing of an individual or system of assets, and then 

examining a range of scenarios based on those quantifications to identify a preferred investment 

strategy for the organization. 

 

Evaluation of preferred investment alternatives typically involves the application of aLife Cycle Cost 

Analysis (LCCA) methodology. LCCA identifies the present value of each alternative based on a selected 

discount rate for a defined period of time. Use of discount rate normalizes the analysis by putting all of 

the options in constant dollar terms, i.e., today’s dollars. Thus the LCCA process can be used to develop 

constrained comparable estimates of TCFOs for a set of infrastructure investment alternatives.1

 

1 Draft NPS White Paper entitled, “ Defining the Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO),” dated August 6, 2010.

Many of the national park assets are 

located in remote areas which makes 

operations and maintenance more

difficult and costly.

Such is the case in Katmai National 

Park and Preserve, where visitors 

arrive at Brooks Camp by small float 

plane or tour boat and are then able to 

board a bus that takes them to the 

Three Forks Overlook via the 23-mile 

Road to 10,000 Smokes. The road is 

unpaved, narrower than the standard 

two-lanes, and includes a number of atgrade river crossings which makes the 

entire journey a rustic adventure for all 

motorists.

Appendix Page 8
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 4 

The TCFO planning process and its implementation is still being developed within the NPS. The NPS asset 

management program has the components in place necessary to develop TCFO estimates; however, 

standards are needed to ensure quality data and consistency in estimates, especially when considering 

more than one asset at a time. 

3. Analytical Approach to System Optimization 

This section describes the analytical approach to assessing system optimization as well as descriptions of 

the various data sources used in the analyses. 

3.1 Cluster Group Analysis 

Understanding the diversity of transportation infrastructure and needs across the region, as well as to 

streamline the transportation planning analysis, the park units were grouped into four “clusters,” as 

defined by their location in Alaska and unique multi-modal needs. Table 1 lists the cluster grouping by 

park unit; Figure 1 illustrates each park cluster in context with the State of Alaska and the highway 

system. 

Table 1: Alaska Region Park Units by Cluster Group 

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks* Road Parks*

Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve

Cape Krusenstern 

National Monument

Gates of the Arctic 

National Park and 

Preserve

Kobuk Valley National 

Park 

Noatak National 

Preserve

Alagnak Wild River

Aniakchak National 

Monument and 

Preserve

Katmai National Park 

and Preserve

Lake Clark National 

Park and Preserve

Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve

Klondike Gold Rush 

National Historical 

Park

Sitka National 

Historical Park

Denali National Park 

and Preserve

Kenai Fjords National 

Park

Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park and 

Preserve

Yukon-Charley Rivers 

National Preserve

*Note: Cruise Ship Parks are those accessed mostly via boats, while Road Parks are those that are accessed 

predominantly via a road network. 

Appendix Page 9
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 5 

Figure 1: Alaska’s 16 Park Units by Cluster Group

3.2 Transportation Asset Management Plan Analysis 

The transportation asset management plan process closely follows the format of the park asset 

management plans (PAMP). Similar to the PAMPs, the transportation asset management plans found in 

Appendices B through E are organized into four sections: current footprint, current funding, current 

requirements, and managing the gap. They are organized into the four cluster groups described above 

and examine only assets that are considered transportation assets. 

To begin, transportation assets for each park unit had to be defined. Currently there is not an official 

definition of what constitutes a transportation asset and general queries of the NPS Facility 

Management Software System (FMSS) by asset codes can be overly inclusive. To establish the list of 

transportation assets the individual park units were interviewed by NPS staff in May and June of 2010 

and asked to select their transportation assets from their overall asset list. The individual park units 

identified a total of 693 assets collectively as transportation assets. It is important to note that not all 

693 assets were analyzed in the transportation asset management plans. Assets removed from analysis 

included all fleet assets as well as planned assets. Additionally, an updated report of FMSS was printed 

in January 2011 and used in the plans which identified several transportation assets previously selected 

by the parks as either removed or decommissioned. The comprehensive list of each cluster’s 

transportation assets used in the analyses can be found at the end of their respective transportation 

asset management plans in Appendices B through E. 

Appendix Page 10
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 6 

3.3 Data Sources 

This section summarizes the various data sources and files used in the transportation asset management 

plans. 

Facility Management Software System (FMSS): A report of the FMSS database was run on January 2, 

2011 to provide the most current information on the park-defined transportation assets. The report 

contained all assets present in FMSS for each asset category being examined (i.e., roads (1100), parking 

(1300), road bridges (1700), trails (2100), trail bridges (2200), trail tunnels (2300), buildings (4100), fuel 

systems (5700), marina/waterfront systems (6300), aviation systems (6400), and fleet (8999)). The parkdefined transportation assets were then matched using a vertical lookup function in Excel and extracted 

from the larger database query. 

The FMSS report provides values for the following information as reported in Section 1, Current 

Footprint, of the transportation asset management plans: 

Location numbers2

Location descriptions 

Park units (abbreviations) 

Occupant information 

Asset code 

Status 

Asset Priority Index (API) rating 

Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating 

Current replacement value (CRV) 

Deferred maintenance (DM) values 

Rank 

Priority band (1-5 as established in the PAMPs; 1 being highest priority, 5 being lowest) 

Quantity 

Unit of measure 

Historic (Y or N) 

Year built 

Project Management Information System (PMIS): Section 2, Current Funding, of the transportation 

asset management plans examines funding available to the park units that had historically been directed 

towards the transportation assets. The annual funding amounts presented on page 9 of the plans listed 

as “Project Programs” is based on an annual average of funding occurring over the past fiver years (2006 

through 2010). An attempt was made to match up projects in PMIS with the transportation asset list. 

The project descriptions in PMIS were carefully read as to only include projects that funded a 

transportation asset. 

Page 12 of each transportation asset management plan provides a breakdown of the transportation 

projects by funding source. 

 

2

 A location as defined in FMSS is commonly referred to as an asset; however can be comprised of one or more 

individual assets. For example, an individual building has a location number but its components (walls, windows, etc.) 

are listed in FMSS individually as assets. For the purposes of this analysis the term asset is used to represent a location. 

Appendix Page 11
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 7 

Optimizer spreadsheets (O&M data): During the PAMPs, each park unit developed an “Optimizer” 

spreadsheet that documented the costs of operating and maintaining each park asset. The O&M figures 

contained in the Optimizer files were based on 2008 values and all numbers used from these 

spreadsheets were increased to 2011 dollars using a 4% inflation rate. The O&M figures contained in the 

Optimizer files represent both the industry standard benchmark O&M figures as well as the planned 

O&M figures that are reported in each transportation asset management plan. Each park units 

Optimizer file was matched to the master transportation asset list and only O&M figures for the 

transportation assets were included in the analyses. The O&M benchmarks and planned expenditures 

are presented in Sections 3 and 4 of the transportation asset management plans. 

O&M Actuals: A spreadsheet of all work orders entered in FMSS for 2010 was examined to provide an 

estimate on each park’s actual budget directed towards operations and maintenance. The information 

was matched to the transportation asset list and was used in Section 2 of the transportation asset 

management plans to capture the each park’s current funding requirements. The O&M Actuals 

spreadsheet contains information on operations (Ops), recurring maintenance (RM), preventative 

maintenance (PM), and unscheduled maintenance (UM). 

Indirect costs for each cluster were calculated taking each park’s percentage of indirect costs to its total 

O&M budget (found in the PAMPs) and applying that percentage to the O&M Actuals and then 

aggregating the amount by cluster group3

. The indirect costs were included with the other O&M costs to 

provide a total operations and maintenance budget for each cluster (as reported on page 9 of the 

transportation asset management plans). 

Component renewal: A spreadsheet containing component renewal (CR) information by location was 

examined to estimate each cluster’s 20-year lifecycle component renewal costs. The information comes 

from FMSS and was dated August 24, 2010. The CR data was again matched to the transportation asset 

list and each specific asset was rolled up to the location level and aggregated by cluster. Each cluster’s 

component renewal costs are described on pages 16 and 17 of the transportation asset management 

plans. 

PAMPs Graphics File: The PAMPs graphics file is an elaborate Excel spreadsheet that was produced for 

each park unit during the PAMP planning process. This file was used as a guide for the transportation 

asset management plans where the transportation asset information from FMSS was entered into the 

graphics file and corrections were made to various equations and reference formulas to produce many 

of the graphs and tables presented in the transportation asset management plans. 

 

3

 An adjustment was made to account for a shared position within the WEAR parks and GAAR and YUCH. Per Jason 

Huart (NPS) $6,000 was removed from both GAAR and YUCH and added to both BELA and WEAR to account for 

this shared job position. 

Appendix Page 12
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 8 

4. Analysis Results 

This section presents some of the key results from the transportation asset management plans. Refer to 

Appendices A through E for the complete analysis and presentation of results. 

4.1 Overview of Transportation Asset Portfolio 

Table 2 presents a snapshot of the Alaska Region transportation assets organized by asset type. Road 

and building assets are the most valuable assets as determined by the current replacement value (CRV). 

Deferred maintenance (DM) for roads comprises about 63% of the total DM. Table 3 presents the 

transportation asset portfolio by cluster. Denali and the park road heavily influence the totals for the 

Road Parks. 

Table 2: Transportation Asset Portfolio by Cluster 

Table 3: Transportation Asset Portfolio by Cluster 

 

Table 4 breaks down the transportation deferred maintenance by park unit to further illustrate the 

influence that the park road in Denali has on transportation assets for the Road Park cluster and the 

region as a whole. Denali accounts for 65% of the total DM on transportation assets. Glacier Bay 

accounts for 16% of the total DM. 

Appendix Page 13
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 9 

Table 4: DM by Park Unit 

 

4.2 Park Cluster Financial Requirements Summary 

The four park cluster transportation asset management plans presented in Appendices B through E 

contain detailed information on financial requirements and available funding as well as how the 

amounts were derived. A primary goal of the transportation asset management plans is to identify 

transportation funding shortfalls, if applicable, so that the region has a better understanding of its . 

Table 5 presents a culmination of data that illustrates the projected funding gaps based on each cluster’s 

estimated requirements of DM and CR funding and the available project funding (historical average) 

intended to be directed towards DM- and CR-related projects. In total, the annual projected funding gap 

for all four park cluster is approximately $1,441,695. In other words, this additional amount, at a 

minimum, is required to address each cluster’s anticipated annual deferred maintenance and 

component renewal requirements. 

Appendix Page 14
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 10

Table 5: Projected Funding Gap by Park Cluster 

Park Cluster Annual DM 

Requirement

Annual CR 

Requirement

Annual Project 

Funding 

Available

Total Project 

Funding Gap

Remote North Parks $19,126 $15,417 $26,811 $7,732

Remote South Parks $273,588 $20,844 $141,571 $152,861

Cruise Ship Parks $1,031,476 $609,897 $1,082,166 $559,207

Road Parks $3,534,195 $584,819 $3,397,119 $721,895

TOTAL $4,858,385 $1,230,977 $4,647,667 $1,441,695

Tables 6 through 9 summarize the O&M funding gaps for each park cluster. These tables measure the 

gap between the base O&M allocations (O&M Actuals) and the benchmark totals and list the percent 

coverage. Each park clusters’ assets are broken down by the O&M Optimizer Priority Band and, for each 

of the tables, the total gap for priority bands 1-3 can more closely approximate the additional O&M 

funding needs. 

As described in the Remote North Parks transportation asset management plan, the data on base O&M 

expenditures is sparse and likely incomplete. This results in all asset priority bands showing a 0% 

coverage (Table 6). 

Table 6: O&M Gap: Remote North Parks 

Also of note, the Road Parks cluster (Table 9) has the highest percent coverage for its higher priority 

assets. In particular, highest priority assets are almost entirely funded based on benchmark totals. The 

deficit for the top three priority bands is only $680K, which is 34% of the total O&M gap. 

O&M Optimizer 

Priority Band

Asset 

Count

Base O&M 

Allocations

O&M 

Benchmarks

Percent 

Coverage

O&M 

Funding Gap

(1) Highest Priority 3 $28 $89,267 0% $89,239

(2) High Priority 3 $7 $64,130 0% $64,123

(3) Medium Priority 9 $49 $161,879 0% $161,830

(4) Lower Priority 4 $0 $3,217 0% $3,217

(5) Lowest Priority 1 $0 $235 0% $235

Totals 20 $84 $318,728 0% $318,644

Gap for Bands 1-3

$315,192

Appendix Page 15
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Page 11

Table 7: O&M Gap: Remote South Parks 

Table 8: O&M Gap: Cruise Ship Parks 

Table 9: O&M Gap: Road Parks 

Conclusions for each of the park cluster transportation asset management plans can found on page 29 

of each of the plans. 

O&M Optimizer 

Priority Band

Asset 

Count

Base O&M 

Allocations

O&M 

Benchmarks

Percent 

Coverage

O&M 

Funding Gap

(1) Highest Priority 22 $6,972 $289,555 2% $282,583

(2) High Priority 26 $21,018 $180,336 12% $159,318

(3) Medium Priority 49 $17,312 $277,480 6% $260,168

(4) Lower Priority 9 $0 $147,805 0% $147,805

(5) Lowest Priority 4 $11,600 $407,450 3% $395,850

Totals 110 $56,902 $1,302,626 4% $1,245,724

Gap for Bands 1-3

$702,069

O&M Optimizer 

Priority Band

Asset 

Count

Base O&M 

Allocations

O&M 

Benchmarks

Percent 

Coverage

O&M 

Funding Gap

(1) Highest Priority 15 $99,056 $751,492 13% $652,436

(2) High Priority 19 $207,591 $606,948 34% $399,357

(3) Medium Priority 40 $32,244 $94,100 34% $61,856

(4) Lower Priority 54 $153,923 $723,592 21% $569,669

(5) Lowest Priority 6 $180 $79,760 0% $79,580

Totals 134 $492,994 $2,255,892 22% $1,762,898

Gap for Bands 1-3

$1,113,649

O&M Optimizer 

Priority Band

Asset 

Count

Base O&M 

Allocations

O&M 

Benchmarks

Percent 

Coverage

O&M 

Funding Gap

(1) Highest Priority 41 $1,702,979 $1,745,122 98% $42,143

(2) High Priority 65 $299,676 $549,888 54% $250,212

(3) Medium Priority 58 $12,351 $400,214 3% $387,863

(4) Lower Priority 90 $29,074 $753,505 4% $724,431

(5) Lowest Priority 70 $39,332 $613,717 6% $574,385

Totals 324 $2,083,412 $4,062,445 51% $1,979,033

Gap for Bands 1-3

$680,218

Appendix Page 16
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Appendix A: Alaska Snapshot: Transportation Asset Management 

Plan for the Alaska Region 

Appendix Page 17
System 

Optimization

1

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Alaska Snapshot: Transportation Asset Management 

Plan for the Alaska Region

Appendix Page 18
System 

Optimization

2

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Section 1: Current Footprint

• This section compares the complete asset portfolio found in 

FMSS to the Park-defined transportation assets 

• The asset information contained herein is based from FMSS 

records dated January 2011

Appendix Page 19
System 

Optimization

3

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Alaska Region Transportation Assets –

Comprehensive Overview from FMSS

Below is a summary of an all asset query of FMSS dated January 06, 2011 for the Alaska Region. 

This table includes all assets within the FMSS database for each asset category.

Appendix Page 20
System 

Optimization

4

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

Below is an illustration of the total number of assets reported in FMSS by asset category by Park S NAPSHOT

Unit.

Alaska Region Transportation Assets –

Comprehensive Overview from FMSS

Appendix Page 21
System 

Optimization

5

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Alaska Region Transportation Assets –

Park Selected List

The Park Units were interviewed in May and June, 2010, and asked specifically to identify their 

transportation assets from the comprehensive asset list from FMSS. The resulting list of assets 

was the basis for the cluster transportation assets analyses. Below is the summary of the 

officially defined transportation asset portfolio for the Alaska Region.

Note: All Fleet inventory were removed from the analyses.

The Park selected list of transportation assets accounts for 39% of all the assets in FMSS for 

those asset categories. The CRV and DM amounts for the transportation assets both account for 

55% of the total in FMSS. 

Appendix Page 22
System 

Optimization

6

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Alaska Region Transportation Assets –

Park Selected List

Below is an illustration of the total number of Park defined transportation assets reported by 

Park Unit.

Appendix Page 23
System 

Optimization

7

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Transportation Assets – Deferred Maintenance

• Denali accounts for 65% of the total deferred 

maintenance on transportation assets for the Alaska 

Region. Glacier Bay accounts for 16%

• When examined at the cluster level, Road Parks account 

for 73% of the total deferred maintenance on 

transportation assets; Cruise Ship Parks = 21%, Remote 

South Parks = 6%, and Remote North Park = less than 1%

Appendix Page 24
System 

Optimization

8

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Transportation Assets – Condition Summary

0.5

• The overall conditions of the transportation asset portfolio 

are displayed above in the FCI/API distribution plot

• Overall, the conditions of each asset category is considered 

GOOD, with the exception of the roads, which is considered 

in poor condition.

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

Appendix Page 25
System 

Optimization

9

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Section 2: Current Footprint by Park Cluster

• This section provides an overview of each Park Cluster’s transportation asset portfolio and their 

condition 

Appendix Page 26
System 

Optimization

10

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Remote North Parks - Overview

• Bering Land Bridge National Preserve

• Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve

• Western Arctic National Parklands

(Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Noatak

National Preserve, and Kobuk Valley National Park)

• The Remote North Parks have the fewest 

number of transportation assets

• Buildings are most valuable transportation 

asset for this cluster: the Nome VC and 

Headquarters building, the Northwest Alaska 

Heritage Center, and the Kotzebue 

Headquarters account for 87% of this 

cluster’s CRV, all of which have an FCI of 0.0

Transportation Asset API/FCI Distribution

Appendix Page 27
System 

Optimization

11

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Remote South Parks - Overview

• Katmai National Park & Preserve

• Lake Clark National Park & Preserve

• Alagnak Wild River

• Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve

• Alagnak and Aniakchak have no 

transportation assets

• 69%, or 76 of the 110, of the Remote South 

Parks’ transportation assets are high priority 

in good condition, i.e., FCI < 0.15 and API ≥ 

50

Transportation Asset API/FCI Distribution

Appendix Page 28
System 

Optimization

12

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Cruise Ship Parks - Overview • Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

• Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park

• Sitka National Historic Park

• The majority of the Cruise Ship Parks’ 

priority transportation assets are in good 

condition. 65%, or 88 of the 135, have an FCI 

< 0.15 and API ≥ 50

• The Cruise Ship Parks considered more 

trails to be transportation assets than the 

other clusters

Transportation Asset API/FCI Distribution

Appendix Page 29
System 

Optimization

13

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

A LASKA

R EGION

S NAPSHOT

Road Parks - Overview • Denali National Park & Preserve

• Kenai Fjords National Park

• Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve

• Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve

• Deferred maintenance on road assets 

($26.3 M) for the Road account for 54% of all 

DM for the entire region. The Denali Park 

Road is the primary reason

• 52%, or 184 of 355, of the Road Parks’ 

priority transportation assets are in good 

condition, i.e., have an FCI < 0.15 and API ≥ 

50

Transportation Asset API/FCI Distribution

Appendix Page 30
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Appendix B: Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Remote North Parks 

Appendix Page 31
System 

Optimization

1

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Remote North Parks

The Remote North Parks Cluster contains:

• Bering Land Bridge National Preserve

• Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve

• Cape Krusenstern National Monument

• Kobuk Valley National Park

• Noatak National Preserve

Western Arctic 

National Parklands 

(WEAR)

Appendix Page 32
System 

Optimization

2

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The transportation asset management plan for the Remote North 

Parks Cluster follows a similar process as the PAMP analysis. It 

explored four key topics:

Appendix Page 33
System 

Optimization

3

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Section 1: Current Footprint

• This section examines the Remote North Parks’ existing transportation asset portfolio, highlighting 

its value, size, and occupancy

• The asset information contained herein is based from FMSS records as of January 2011

Appendix Page 34
System 

Optimization

4

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks’ transportation asset portfolio consists of 21 

assets

• The Remote North Parks have no roads to 

maintain and only one trail considered a 

transportation asset. 

• All Remote North Parks’ transportation assets 

are NPS owned

• Most WEAR assets are located in Kotzebue, 

which eliminates the need for much 

infrastructure. Most are building or housing 

related

• All Remote North Parks transportation assets 

are remote and require park managed utility 

systems (fuel systems), which have high O&M 

requirements

Appendix Page 35
System 

Optimization

5

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks’ transportation asset portfolio is valued at over 

$21 million

FCI is a metric calculated by dividing the 

deferred maintenance by the current 

replacement value.

FCI= Deferred Maintenance

Current Replacement 

Value

The FCI is used by facility managers to 

better understand the relative condition of 

assets within a portfolio. A score closer to 

0.0 reflects better condition.

The overall FCI for 

Remote North Parks 

is GOOD

• Overall FCI for transportation assets is considered GOOD

• The Fuel System assets are rated as POOR

• Building assets account for 99% of CRV and 89% of deferred 

maintenance for the Remote North Parks. This is due to the 

expensive nature of maintaining building structures in remote 

Alaskan locations (primarily Bettles, Nome, and Kotzebue)

• Building assets are in good condition. The Remote North Parks’ 

most expensive buildings all have an FCI of 0:

• Nome VC and Headquarters, CRV = $2.1M

• Northwest AK Heritage Center, CRV = $14.6M

• Kotzebue Headquarters, CRV = $2.2M 

Definitions:

DM = Deferred Maintenance

CRV = Current Replacement Value

FCI = Facility Condition Index

Appendix Page 36
System 

Optimization

6

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks’ transportation asset portfolio is lacking 

year built information on its few assets

• Most of the Remote North Parks transportation assets are lacking a recorded year of 

construction. Only 24%, or 5 of the 21 assets, have year built information

• Although lacking the data, many of the transportation assets were likely built before 2000 

and the Remote North Parks should plan for significant component renewal in the near 

future

• With the relatively new assets, the Remote North Parks have an opportunity to maintain 

them and improve their longevity, reducing the need to replace assets with new 

construction

Appendix Page 37
System 

Optimization

7

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Section 2: Current Funding

• This section discusses the Remote North Parks’ current base and special project funding situation

• Understanding stable and varied funding sources year to year is important to successfully 

managing the transportation asset portfolio

Appendix Page 38
System 

Optimization

8

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Annual funding specifically directed towards transportation assets for the 

Remote North Parks consists of operational funds and special project 

funding

• Total O&M budget was determined by matching records from the Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS) for work order history specifically to the transportation assets identified by each park

• The project programs budget is based on historical figures (past 5 years) directed towards DM and CR 

projects. Only projects found in the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) that are 

specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

Appendix Page 39
System 

Optimization

9

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks have sparse records on total budget 

expenditures for their transportation assets

• According to the PAMP, WEAR does not track 

expenses and labor against FMSS work orders. By 

keeping better records, true expenses required to 

maintain transportation assets can provide for 

better analyses.

• Not counting indirect costs, the Remote North 

Parks spend less than $100 on its transportation 

assets. 

Appendix Page 40
System 

Optimization

10

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

According to available information, the total O&M budget for 

transportation assets is small

• Indirect costs factor into the total cost of ownership 

for transportation assets and were included in the 

total amount directed towards operating and 

maintaining transportation assets. However, as stated 

in the PAMPs, indirect costs are typically excluded for 

modeling and understanding direct costs associated 

with maintenance

• Indirect cost for the Remote North Parks cluster was 

determined by first identifying each park’s percentage 

of indirect costs to its total O&M budget (found in the 

PAMPs), applying that percentage to the total O&M 

budget for transportation assets, and then rolling 

together to the cluster level

• Unscheduled maintenance accounts for 64% of total 

O&M budget

Definitions:

Ops = Operations

UM = Unscheduled Maintenance

RM = Recurring Maintenance

PM = Preventative Maintenance

Appendix Page 41
System 

Optimization

11

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks receive approximately $27K annually in special 

project funding 

• The forecasted project budget is based on historical figures (past 5 years) directed towards 

deferred maintenance (DM) and component renewal (CR) projects. Only projects in PMIS that 

are specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

• Project funding totals were determined by examining all funded transportation projects over 

the past 5 years and annualizing the total

• Significant funds can come from funding 

sources other than ones directed towards 

DM and CR. These LIC funds were for the 

Northwest Alaska Heritage Center

Appendix Page 42
System 

Optimization

12

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Section 3: Current Requirements

• This section reviews the Remote North Parks’ operating and project requirements

• Industry requirements are benchmarks that can assist park managers in determining the 

appropriate level of care necessary for their transportation assets. It is important, however, to 

recognize that each park (and each cluster) has unique maintenance requirements and this 

transportation asset management plan addresses those needs as appropriate

Appendix Page 43
System 

Optimization

13

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks would require over $318K annually for O&M of 

transportation assets based on industry standard benchmarks

• According to benchmark standards, buildings account for largest expenditure of O&M 

funds for the Remote North Parks 

• All O&M figures were taken from PAMP Optimizer files and totals were adjusted to 2011 

dollars by applying a 4% annual inflation rate

• As documented in the AKR PAMPs, O&M benchmarks are modeled from industry standard 

national averages (RS Means) and other relevant sources. Non-industry standards unique 

assets are estimated based on 2 percent of CRV (a current federal government benchmark 

for budgeting and out-year planning)

Appendix Page 44
System 

Optimization

14

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

O&M benchmarks exceed current funding by more than $318K

• According to available information, it appears that the Remote North Parks’ transportation assets are 

significantly underfunded based on industry standards

• As previously noted, inadequate record keeping of expenses and labor against FMSS work orders may 

account for some of this discrepancy 

• Without adequate O&M funding, portfolio condition will decline and the deferred maintenance backlog of 

$191K will continue to grow

• Given the gap in funding, the Remote North Parks need to identify strategies for allocation of limited O&M 

funding

Appendix Page 45
System 

Optimization

15

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

In addition to annual O&M requirements, the Remote North Parks have a 

lifecycle component renewal (CR) cost of over $308k over the next twenty 

years

• A twenty-year horizon was examined for asset component renewal to better assess future funding 

requirements and account for spikes 

• CR profile is based on equipment lifecycle data, which incorporates estimated replacement date and 

replacement cost for the Remote North Parks’ transportation assets

Component Renewal Through 2030

Appendix Page 46
System 

Optimization

16

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks should plan for occasional spikes in budget 

requirements for component renewal

Component Renewal by Asset Category

• Buildings account for 97% of component renewal costs over the next 20 years

• The large spike in 2024 represents anticipated maintenance and equipment replacement for the 

Maintenance Shop 297 and the Northwest Alaska Heritage Center buildings

• Some asset types, such as the roads, parking, and trails, appear to have no furture component renewal 

requirements and may have incomplete FMSS equipment records

• Actual CR need may be higher once all equipment/feature records are completed in FMSS

Appendix Page 47
System 

Optimization

17

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Future Requirements

• Currently, the total deferred maintenance on transportation assets for the Remote North Parks is 

$191,261 over the next 10 years

• The total component renewal requirements over the next 20 years are $308,331

• By taking an annual average of future funding requirements to address DM and CR needs and applying 

an anticipated annual project funding amount, the Remote North Parks will have an annual funding gap 

of approximately $8K

Appendix Page 48
System 

Optimization

18

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Section 4: Managing the Gap

• How can the Remote North Parks manage the gap between their current funding situation 

and O&M/project requirements?

• Incorporating an asset’s condition and relative importance (as done in the PAMPs) can 

help park managers prioritize and direct available funding 

Appendix Page 49
System 

Optimization

19

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Asset Priority Index (API) Profiles

• Metrics such as Asset Priority Index (API) can assist park management in identifying funding priorities 

based on the most important assets

• Only 28% of the Remote North Parks’ transportation assets have an API higher than 70

• The Remote North Parks should focus its limited resources on maintaining its highest priority assets

The Remote North Parks should target base and project 

funds on the top priority assets. Assets with high API 

scores are a logical starting point for determining 

maintenance priorities.

Appendix Page 50
System 

Optimization

20

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Plotting the Remote North Parks’ transportation assets on this matrix 

demonstrates the distribution in terms of both condition and priority

• The scatter plot reflects the current transportation asset distribution for the Remote North Parks

• 67% of the Remote North Parks’ transportation assets have an FCI equal to zero; those assets are 

either in excellent condition or the park has not yet assessed them for deficiencies 

• Over time as base and project funding is allocated to high priority assets, the distribution of 

transportation assets will shift to a negatively tending curve, reflecting more effective asset 

management

Remote North Parks API/FCI Distribution

API

FCI

Appendix Page 51
System 

Optimization

21

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

During the PAMP process each Remote North Park prioritized their assets 

to assist in strategizing funding decisions

• The table below demonstrates the final prioritization results of transportation assets

• Assets falling within the lowest groups should receive minimal O&M funding

Appendix Page 52
System 

Optimization

22

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Park management employed logical criteria when establishing priority 

level for all assets in the portfolio during the development of the PAMPs

• Examining the reasons why assets end up in different priority bands helps develop a better estimate of 

true additional need for O&M funding

-- By moving assets into priority bands that will receive little to no funding, management can see 

exactly what functions they are not able to perform

• Assets were slotted into O&M priority bands using the following general guidelines:

-- Highest Priority Assets – Highly important to the park mission, these asset have high visitor use. 

Critical systems, some Operations, RM and PM will be addressed

-- High Priority Assets – Important to the park mission, some Operations and very little RM and PM 

will be addressed

-- Medium Priority Assets – These assets, while important will only have essential operations 

funded

-- Low Priority Assets – These assets are important but not critical to park operations or do not 

require much maintenance funding. Very little O&M money will be spent on these assets unless 

more funding becomes available

-- Lowest Priority Assets – These assets may not be required for the operations and mission of the 

park. Many are backcountry assets or are targeted to receive project funding in the next few years

Appendix Page 53
System 

Optimization

23

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

O&M amounts by priority band

• As previously noted, inadequate record 

keeping of expenses and labor against 

FMSS work orders may account for the 

apparent lack of information

•The Remote North Parks have the most 

assets within the priority band 3, which is 

why O&M amounts are highest

• The Remote North Parks should work 

towards improving API/FCI of their 

transportation assets so that more funding 

is directed towards higher priority assets

0.15 0.30 0.50 0.75 1.00

1

2

3

4

21

50

75

88

1

2

3

4

Minimal Investment Disposal

Facility Condition Index

Asset Priority Index

$28

$7

$49

$0

$0

Appendix Page 54
System 

Optimization

24

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Remote North Parks O&M expenditures by work type

• Industry standard O&M costs can be broken down according to work type activities and divided into 

priority bands

• According to the available information, even the relatively few transportation assets of the Remote 

North Parks are significantly underfunded when compared to industry benchmarks

Appendix Page 55
System 

Optimization

25

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

The Remote North Parks’ current O&M base budget for transportation 

assets is minuscule and significantly less than industry standards. All 

assets within each priority band require additional funding 

• Priority bands 1 – 3 comprise $315K of the gap, a number that more closely approximates the 

additional O&M funding needs

• Band 5 assets either not maintained or planned to be renovated with project money and 

therefore do not require O&M funding

• The use of other funding sources can help alleviate the base funding shortfall

Appendix Page 56
System 

Optimization

26

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Planned allocation of O&M funds will result in changes to the way the 

Remote North Parks manage some of their asset types

• It’s likely that O&M budgeted amounts do not accurately reflect 

actual amounts spent due to incomplete FMSS record keeping, with 

amounts for buildings being the most off based

• Aside from gaps in accurate O&M budget data, planned spending is 

comparable to industry standard requirements

Appendix Page 57
System 

Optimization

27

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

If the Remote North Parks were required to address their entire DM 

backlog in the next 10 years using the current available annual project 

funding, the condition of their transportation asset portfolio would 

continue to decline

• The dramatic increase in the transportation asset portfolio FCI over the next 10 years is a result, in 

part, of the anticipated deterioration rate of this cluster’s large CRV of its expensive buildings 

(headquarters and visitor centers) 

• In other words, current funding levels will not be adequate to address the anticipated maintenance 

requirements of the building assets and FCI will increase

Appendix Page 58
System 

Optimization

28

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

General Conclusions

• Due to their remoteness and general lack of infrastructure, the Remote North Parks have very few 

transportation assets when compared to other clusters in the Alaska Region. Planning for and 

management of transportation assets has traditionally not been perceived as a significant need for these 

parks. As demonstrated by this analysis, data on the financial requirements of this cluster’s transportation 

assets is sparse and likely incomplete. The actual financial needs of the Remote North Parks for O&M and 

project funding is potentially much higher than reported in this analysis.

• With the recent addition of several visitor centers, the Remote North Parks cluster has had a significant 

increase in value of its transportation asset portfolio. While the current O&M and CR needs of this cluster 

are relatively small, the O&M of these new assets will eventually require more resources than this cluster 

has historically needed. The Remote North Parks should look towards additional funding mechanisms to 

help fund operations as well as additional project needs. Developing new partnership agreements, for 

example, could help to alleviate or reduce this cluster’s maintenance responsibilities. 

• Nome VC and Headquarters, CRV = $2.1M

• Northwest AK Heritage Center, CRV = $14.6M

• Kotzebue Headquarters, CRV = $2.2M 

Appendix Page 59
System 

Optimization

29

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

N ORTH

PARKS

Appendix A: Remote North Parks Transportation Asset List

Source: NPS FMSS, printed on 1/06/2011

Appendix Page 60
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Appendix C: Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Remote South Parks 

Appendix Page 61
System 

Optimization

1

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Remote South Parks

The Remote South Parks Cluster contains:

• Alagnak Wild River

• Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve

• Katmai National Park & Preserve

• Lake Clark National Park & Preserve

Appendix Page 62
System 

Optimization

2

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The transportation asset management plan for the Remote South 

Parks follows a similar process as the PAMP analysis. It explored 

four key topics:

Appendix Page 63
System 

Optimization

3

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Section 1: Current Footprint

• This section examines the Remote South Parks’ existing transportation asset portfolio, highlighting 

its value, size, and occupancy

• The asset information contained herein is based from FMSS records as of January 2011

Appendix Page 64
System 

Optimization

4

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks’ transportation asset portfolio consists of 110 

assets

• Alagnak and Aniakchak, while a part of the 

Remote South Parks, have no transportation 

assets

• Both Katmai and Lake Clark have transportation 

assets that are concessionaire owned or other 

Appendix Page 65
System 

Optimization

5

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks’ transportation asset portfolio is valued at over 

$71 million

FCI is a metric calculated by dividing the 

deferred maintenance by the current 

replacement value.

FCI= Deferred Maintenance

Current Replacement 

Value

The FCI is used by facility managers to 

better understand the relative condition of 

assets within a portfolio. A score closer to 

0.0 reflects better condition.

The overall FCI for 

Remote South Parks 

is GOOD

• Overall, the conditions of transportation assets for the Remote 

South Parks are GOOD 

• This cluster’s most valuable asset categories—roads, trail bridges, 

and buildings—all have an FCI condition rated as GOOD

• This cluster does, however, have an overall FCI rating as POOR for 

its parking areas, fuel systems, and marina/waterfront systems

Definitions:

DM = Deferred Maintenance

CRV = Current Replacement Value

FCI = Facility Condition Index

Appendix Page 66
System 

Optimization

6

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks’ transportation asset portfolio has many newer 

assets

• 58% of transportation assets were built after 1980

• 42% of the transportation assets were built before 1980

• 32% of the Remote South Parks’ assets have an unknown year built

• Based on their aging infrastructure, the Remote South Parks should plan for 

substantial component renewal costs in the future

Appendix Page 67
System 

Optimization

7

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Katmai has the only planned transportation assets for the Remote South 

Parks

• When complete these additions will add over $5.5 million to the Remote South Parks’ CRV

• Using O&M models and park knowledge of maintenance needs on similar assets, the Remote 

South Parks can establish more accurate benchmark costs that could be used to plan for future 

funding of new assets

Appendix Page 68
System 

Optimization

8

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Section 2: Current Funding

• This section discusses the Remote South Parks’ current base and special project funding situation

• Understanding stable and varied funding sources year to year is important to successfully managing 

the transportation asset portfolio 

Appendix Page 69
System 

Optimization

9

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Annual funding specifically directed towards transportation assets for the 

Remote South Parks consists of operational funds and special project 

funding

• Total O&M budget was determined by matching records from the Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS) for work order history specifically to the transportation assets identified by each park

• The project program budget is based on an annual average of historical funding occurring over the 

past 5 years. Only projects found in the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) that are 

specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

Appendix Page 70
System 

Optimization

10

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

While Remote South Parks budget for funding across all asset types, trails 

and buildings account for approximately 73% of total budget

• Buildings account for 51% of 

transportation budget 

expenditures

• Fuel Systems account for 18% 

of transportation budget 

expenditures

Appendix Page 71
System 

Optimization

11

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks budget approximately $226K to their 

transportation assets, 61% of which goes toward unscheduled 

maintenance • Indirect costs factor into the total cost of ownership 

for transportation assets and were included in the 

total amount directed towards operating and 

maintaining transportation assets. However, as stated 

in the PAMPs, indirect costs are typically excluded for 

modeling and understanding direct costs associated 

with maintenance

• Indirect cost for the Remote South Parks cluster was 

determined by first identifying each park’s percentage 

of indirect costs to its total O&M budget (found in the 

PAMPs), applying that percentage to the total O&M 

budget for transportation assets, and then rolling 

together to the cluster level

• 61% of the O&M budget is directed towards 

unscheduled maintenance

•The Road Parks should continue to focus attention on 

preventative maintenance (0%) to keep assets in 

serviceable working order and avoid more costly 

unscheduled maintenance

Definitions:

Ops = Operations

UM = Unscheduled Maintenance

RM = Recurring Maintenance

PM = Preventative Maintenance

Appendix Page 72
System 

Optimization

12

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks receive approximately $141K annually in special 

project funding 

• The forecasted project budget is based on an annual average of historical funding directed towards 

deferred maintenance (DM) and component renewal (CR) occurring over the past 5 years. Only projects 

in PMIS that are specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

• The Recreation Fee 20% and Recreation Fee Demonstration 20% funds have historically provided 

approximately $25K annually on average. With these funds going away, the Remote South Parks will have 

less money available and need to keep a closer eye on their budgets

• Forecasting future funding levels is 

difficult due to the inconsistent nature 

of the funds, especially when 

analyzing funding directed specifically 

towards transportation assets. Future 

funding levels may vary from historical 

averages

Appendix Page 73
System 

Optimization

13

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Section 3: Current Requirements

• This section reviews the Remote South Parks’ operating and project requirements

• Industry requirements are benchmarks that can assist park managers in determining the 

appropriate level of care necessary for their transportation assets. It is important, however, to 

recognize that each park (and each cluster) has unique maintenance requirements and this 

transportation asset management plan addresses those needs as appropriate

Appendix Page 74
System 

Optimization

14

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks would require over $1.3 million annually for 

O&M based on industry standard benchmarks

• According to benchmark standards, buildings account for over 60% of O&M funding 

requirements

• All O&M figures were taken from PAMP Optimizer files and totals were adjusted to 2011 

dollars by applying a 4% annual inflation rate

• As documented in the AKR PAMPs, O&M benchmarks are modeled from industry standard 

national averages (RS Means) and other relevant sources. Non-industry standards unique 

assets are estimated based on 2 percent of CRV (a current federal government benchmark 

for budgeting and out-year planning)

Appendix Page 75
System 

Optimization

15

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

O&M benchmarks exceed current funding by more than $1.2 million

• Current O&M funding is only 4% of the recommended industry benchmark

• Fuel Systems is the only asset category where actual funding exceeds the benchmark totals

• Buildings are the most insufficiently funded assets (by dollar amount) within the Remote 

South Parks

• Given the gap in funding, the Remote South Parks need to identify approaches to guide 

allocation of their limited O&M base dollars

Appendix Page 76
System 

Optimization

16

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

In addition to annual O&M requirements, the Remote South Parks have 

a lifecycle component renewal (CR) cost of over $400k over the next 

twenty years, most of which will occur beyond 2020

• Component renewal costs over the next twenty years total $416,877 with the majority of 

those costs occurring beyond 2020

• CR profile is based on equipment lifecycle data: estimated replacement dates and 

replacement costs

Appendix Page 77
System 

Optimization

17

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks should budget for occasional spikes in budget 

requirements for component renewal

Component Renewal by Asset Category

• Buildings account for 51% of component renewal costs over the next 20 years

• Fuel Systems account for 35% of component renewal costs over the next 20 years

• In 2021, Lake Clark should budget for an increased component renewal requirement to fund 

improvement to their fuel systems

• As evidenced in the graph, some asset types (roads, parking, and trails) have incomplete FMSS equipment 

records. Actual CR need may be higher once all equipment/feature records are completed in FMSS

Appendix Page 78
System 

Optimization

18

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Future Requirements

• Currently, the total deferred maintenance on transportation assets for the Remote South Parks is 

$2,735,878 over the next 10 years

• The total component renewal requirements over the next 20 years are $416,877

• By taking an annual average of future funding requirements to address DM and CR needs and applying 

an anticipated annual project funding amount, the Remote South Parks will have an annual funding gap 

of approximately $153K

• The annual project funding available is based on an average of the past 5 years of funding directed 

specifically towards Remote South Parks transportation assets. Funding levels are inconsistent year to 

year and the annual project funding anticipated in coming years may change

Appendix Page 79
System 

Optimization

19

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Section 4: Managing the Gap

• How can the Remote South Parks manage the gap between their current funding situation 

and O&M/project requirements?

• Incorporating an asset’s condition and relative importance (as done in the PAMPs) can 

help park managers prioritize and direct available funding 

Appendix Page 80
System 

Optimization

20

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks should focus its limited resources on 

maintaining its highest priority assets

• Metrics such as Asset Priority Index (API) can assist park management in identifying 

funding priorities based on the most important assets

• 60% of the Remote South Parks transportation assets have an API of 70 or lower

The Remote South Parks should target base and project 

funds on the top priority assets. Assets with high API 

scores are a logical starting point for determining 

maintenance priorities.

Appendix Page 81
System 

Optimization

21

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Plotting the Remote South Parks’ transportation assets on this matrix 

demonstrates the distribution in terms of both condition and priority

Remote South Parks API/FCI Distribution

API

FCI

• Of the 110 transportation assets (excluding those with an FCI > 1) depicted below, many are in good 

condition: 76 have and FCI < 0.15 and API ≥ 50, which accounts for 69% of the total

• A total of 27 assets, or 25%, have an API ≥ 50 and an FCI > 0.15

• 43% of the Remote South Park transportation assets have an FCI equal to zero; those assets are either in 

excellent condition or the park has not yet assessed them for deficiencies 

• Over time as base and project funding is allocated to high priority assets, the distribution of 

transportation assets will shift to a negatively tending curve, reflecting more effective asset management

Appendix Page 82
System 

Optimization

22

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

During the PAMP process each Remote South Park prioritized their assets 

to assist in strategizing funding decisions

• The table below demonstrates the final prioritization results of transportation assets

• Assets falling within the lowest groups should receive minimal O&M funding

Appendix Page 83
System 

Optimization

23

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Park management employed logical criteria when establishing priority 

level for all assets in the portfolio

• Examining the reasons why assets end up in different priority bands helps develop a better estimate of 

true additional need for O&M funding

-- By moving assets into priority bands that will receive little to no funding, management can see 

exactly what functions they are not able to perform

• Assets were slotted into O&M priority bands using the following general guidelines:

-- Highest Priority Assets – Highly important to the park mission, these asset have high visitor use. 

Critical systems, some Operations, RM and PM will be addressed

-- High Priority Assets – Important to the park mission, some Operations and very little RM and PM 

will be addressed.

-- Medium Priority Assets – These assets, while important will only have essential operations 

funded

-- Low Priority Assets – These assets are important but not critical to park operations or do not 

require much maintenance funding. Very little O&M money will be spent on these assets unless 

more funding becomes available

-- Lowest Priority Assets – These assets may not be required for the operations and mission of the 

park. Many are backcountry assets or are targeted to receive project funding in the next few years

Appendix Page 84
System 

Optimization

24

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

O&M amounts by priority band

• As intended by the PAMP process, the 

majority of budgeted funds are directed 

to higher priority assets

• Low priority assets receive little, if any, 

operating funds for anything other than 

basic services (utilities)

0.15 0.30 0.50 0.75 1.0

0

1

2

3

4

21

50

75

88

1

2

3

4

Minimal Investment Disposal

Facility Condition Index

Asset Priority Index

$7K

$21K

$17K

$0

$12K

Appendix Page 85
System 

Optimization

25

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

• Industry standard O&M costs can be broken down according to work type 

activities and divided into priority bands

• Total O&M budget of $57K covers only 4% of the industry standard 

requirements for the transportation asset portfolio

• An increase in O&M funding will be required to meet the RM and PM 

needs for the portfolio if the Remote South Parks hope to avoid 

accumulating DM

Remote South Parks O&M expenditures by work type: Actuals vs. 

Benchmarks

Appendix Page 86
System 

Optimization

26

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks’ current O&M base budget for transportation 

assets is $1.2 million less than industry standards. The deficit for the top 

3 priority bands is over $700K.

• Priority bands 1 – 3 comprise $702,069 of the gap, a number that more closely approximates 

the additional O&M funding needs

•The use of other funding sources can help alleviate the base funding shortfall

Appendix Page 87
System 

Optimization

27

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Planned allocation of O&M funds will result in changes to the way the 

Remote South Parks manage some of their asset types.

• During the PAMP process, each park developed a planned budget based on the relative importance of 

each asset. Planned level of O&M funding towards transportation assets will increase in all assets 

categories over current O&M levels, except for fuel systems

• These planned levels are more reflective of industry standard divisions of O&M money across asset 

types

Appendix Page 88
System 

Optimization

28

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

The Remote South Parks will see conditions of their transportation 

assets decline based on current project funding levels

• The Remote South Parks will not have enough funding on an annual basis to eliminate 

their DM backlog over the next ten years and will therefore see a deterioration of its 

transportation assets

• According to this model, by 2020, the overall FCI rating of this cluster’s transportation 

assets will increase from 0.04 in 2011 to 0.12

Appendix Page 89
System 

Optimization

29

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

General Conclusions

• Although the identified funding gap between O&M base allocations and benchmarks is approximately 

$1.2M , the gap the highest priority transportation assets—priority bands 1 through 3—is only 

approximately $700K. This number more closely approximates additional O&M needs.

• The approximate annual project funding gap is $150K. This gap could be reduced or eliminated by 

reducing the annual DM requirements.

• The Remote South Parks have many transportation assets that have a 

lower API score and an FCI of 0. 43% of this cluster’s transportation assets 

have an FCI of 0. It is possible that some of these assets have incomplete FCI 

records in FMSS and, once examined for condition, could be good 

candidates for disposal.

• Approximately 15% of funding from previous years was provided by the

Recreation Fee 20% and Recreation Fee Demonstration 20% funds. These 

funds will no longer be available in future years and the Remote South Parks should look towards 

additional funding mechanisms to help fund operations and project needs. Developing new partnership 

agreements, for example, could help to alleviate or reduce this cluster’s maintenance responsibilities. 

Appendix Page 90
System 

Optimization

30

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Appendix A: Remote South Parks Transportation Asset List

Appendix Page 91
System 

Optimization

31

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Appendix Page 92
System 

Optimization

32

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Appendix Page 93
System 

Optimization

33

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Appendix Page 94
System 

Optimization

34

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R EMOTE

S OUTH

PARKS

Source: NPS FMSS, printed on 1/06/2011

Appendix Page 95
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Appendix D: Transportation Asset Management Plan for the Cruise 

Ship Parks 

Appendix Page 96
System 

Optimization

1

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Cruise Ship Parks

The Cruise Ship Parks Cluster contains:

• Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

• Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park

• Sitka National Historical Park

Appendix Page 97
System 

Optimization

2

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The transportation asset management plan for the Cruise Ship 

Parks cluster follows a similar process as the PAMP analysis. It 

explored four key topics:

Appendix Page 98
System 

Optimization

3

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Section 1: Current Footprint

• This section examines the Cruise Ship Parks’ existing transportation asset portfolio, highlighting its 

value, size, and occupancy

• The asset information contained herein is based from FMSS records as of January 2011

Appendix Page 99
System 

Optimization

4

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation asset portfolio consists of 135 

assets

• All but two of the Cruise Ship Parks’ 

transportation assets are NPS owned

• The Cruise Ship Parks cluster has the highest 

number of trails reported as transportation 

assets, mainly due to the amount of trails in GLBA

• Many of this cluster’s assets are culturally or 

historically significant, which can present 

additional maintenance concerns and expenses

Appendix Page 100
System 

Optimization

5

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation asset portfolio is valued at over 

$362 million

FCI is a metric calculated by dividing the 

deferred maintenance by the current 

replacement value.

FCI= Deferred Maintenance

Current Replacement 

Value

The FCI is used by facility managers to 

better understand the relative condition of 

assets within a portfolio. A score closer to 

0.0 reflects better condition.

The overall FCI for 

Cruise Ship Parks is 

GOOD

• Overall FCI for transportation assets is considered GOOD

• When examined alone, Roads, Parking, and Trail Bridges are in 

POOR condition. 

• These three asset categories account for 21% of the cluster’s 

current replacement value, but 49% of its deferred maintenance

Definitions:

DM = Deferred Maintenance

CRV = Current Replacement Value

FCI = Facility Condition Index

Appendix Page 101
System 

Optimization

6

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation asset portfolio has many newer 

assets

• 61% of transportation assets were built after 1980

• All assets predating 1950 belong to Klondike Gold Rush and have 

historic status. Despite their age and associated cost for 

maintaining, these assets are important to the Park 

Appendix Page 102
System 

Optimization

7

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Glacier Bay has the only planned transportation assets for the Cruise Ship 

Parks.

• Glacier Bay has the only planned transportation assets within the 

Cruise Ship Parks

• When complete these additions will add over $18 million to Cruise 

Ship Parks’ CRV, which will also require an increase in O&M expenses 

Appendix Page 103
System 

Optimization

8

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Section 2: Current Funding

• This section discusses the Cruise Ship Parks’ current base and special project funding situation

• Understanding stable and varied funding sources year to year is important to successfully managing 

the transportation asset portfolio 

Appendix Page 104
System 

Optimization

9

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

• Total O&M budget was determined by matching records from the Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS) for work order history specifically to the transportation assets identified by each park

• The project programs budget is based on an annual average of historical funding occurring over the 

past 5 years. Only projects found in the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) that are 

specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

Annual funding specifically directed towards transportation assets for the 

Cruise Ship Parks consists of operational funds and special project 

funding

Appendix Page 105
System 

Optimization

10

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

While Cruise Ship Parks budget for funding across all asset types, trails 

and buildings account for approximately 73% of total budget

• Buildings account for 46% of 

transportation budget 

expenditures

• Trails account for 27% of the 

budget

Appendix Page 106
System 

Optimization

11

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks direct well over half of their O&M budget on 

recurring and unscheduled maintenance

• Indirect costs factor into the total cost of ownership 

for transportation assets and were included in the 

total amount directed towards operating and 

maintaining transportation assets. However, as stated 

in the PAMPs, indirect costs are typically excluded for 

modeling and understanding direct costs associated 

with maintenance

• Indirect cost for the Cruise Ship Parks cluster was 

determined by first identifying each park’s percentage 

of indirect costs to its total O&M budget (found in the 

PAMPs), applying that percentage to the total O&M 

budget for transportation assets, and then rolling 

together to the cluster level

• Unscheduled maintenance accounts for 25% of total 

O&M budget. The Cruise Ship Parks should continue 

to focus attention on preventative maintenance (only 

2%) to keep assets in serviceable working order and 

avoid more costly unscheduled maintenance Definitions:

Ops = Operations

UM = Unscheduled Maintenance

RM = Recurring Maintenance

PM = Preventative Maintenance

Appendix Page 107
System 

Optimization

12

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks receive approximately $1.1 million annually in 

special project funding 

• The forecasted project budget is based on an annual average of historical funding directed towards deferred maintenance 

(DM) and component renewal (CR) projects occurring over the past 5 years. Only projects in PMIS that are specific to this 

cluster’s transportation assets are included

• The Recreation Fee 20% and Recreation Fee Demonstration 20% funds have historically provided approximately $91K 

annually on average. With these funds going away, the Cruise Ship Parks will have less money available and need to keep a 

closer eye on their budgets • The 2009 economic recovery funds are not available on a recurring basis. 

Some other funding occur only intermittently, such as the Non-NPS 

funding for the Gustavus dock replacement. These funds are difficult for 

the cluster to rely on due to irregular funding schedules and are not 

included in the project funding forecast

• Forecasting future funding 

levels is difficult due to the 

inconsistent nature of the 

funds, especially when 

analyzing funding directed 

specifically towards 

transportation assets. Future 

funding levels may vary from 

historical averages

Appendix Page 108
System 

Optimization

13

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Section 3: Current Requirements

• This section reviews the Cruise Ship Parks’ operating and project requirements

• Industry requirements are benchmarks that can assist park managers in determining the 

appropriate level of care necessary for their transportation assets. It is important, however, to 

recognize that each park (and each cluster) has unique maintenance requirements and this 

transportation asset management plan addresses those needs as appropriate

Appendix Page 109
System 

Optimization

14

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks would require over $2.2 million annually for O&M 

based on industry standard benchmarks

• According to benchmark standards, buildings account for almost 50% of O&M funding 

requirements

• All O&M figures were taken from PAMP Optimizer files and totals were adjusted to 2011 

dollars by applying a 4% annual inflation rate

• As documented in the AKR PAMPs, O&M benchmarks are modeled from industry standard 

national averages (RS Means) and other relevant sources. Non-industry standards unique 

assets are estimated based on 2 percent of CRV (a current federal government benchmark 

for budgeting and out-year planning)

Appendix Page 110
System 

Optimization

15

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

O&M benchmarks exceed current funding by more than $1.7 million 

per year

• Without adequate funding, conditions of transportation assets will decline and the 

deferred maintenance backlog of more than $10 million will continue to grow

• Of the apparent $1.7 million difference between base funding and industry benchmarks, 

not all of it represents true additional immediate funding needs. This fact will be addressed 

when discussing O&M priorities and planned spending 

Appendix Page 111
System 

Optimization

16

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

In addition to annual O&M requirements, the Cruise Ship Parks have a 

lifecycle component renewal (CR) cost of over $12 million over the next 

twenty years, most of which will occur beyond 2020.

• As illustrated in the graph, 

component renewal costs increase 

dramatically over the period 2021 

to 2030, with a major spike 

occurring in 2021

• A twenty-year horizon was examined for asset component renewal to better assess future funding 

requirements and account and better plan for annual spikes 

• CR profile is based on equipment lifecycle data, which incorporates estimated replacement date and 

replacement cost for the Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation assets

Appendix Page 112
System 

Optimization

17

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

The Cruise Ship Parks should budget for occasional spikes in budget 

requirements for component renewal

Component Renewal by Asset Category

• Trails account for 71% of the projected component renewal requirements for the Cruise Ship Parks over 

the next 20 years

• In 2021, Glacier Bay should budget for a significant component renewal requirement to fund trail 

maintenance. This expenditure is over $8 million

• In 2023, Glacier Bay anticipates needing nearly $1.5 million for component renewal requirements for 

roads

• Some asset types, such as the 

marina and waterfront systems, 

appear to have relatively small 

component renewal requirements 

and may have incomplete FMSS 

equipment records

• Actual CR need may be higher 

once all equipment/feature 

records are completed in FMSS

Appendix Page 113
System 

Optimization

18

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Future Requirements

• Currently, the total deferred maintenance on transportation assets for the Cruise Ship Parks is 

$10,314,756 over the next 10 years

• The total component renewal requirements over the next 20 years are $12,197,933

• By taking an annual average of future funding requirements to address DM and CR needs and applying 

an anticipated annual project funding amount, the Cruise Ship Parks will have an annual funding gap of 

approximately $560K

• The annual project funding available is based on an average of the past 5 years of funding directed 

specifically towards Cruise Ship Parks transportation assets. Actual annual funding amounts may vary

Appendix Page 114
System 

Optimization

19

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Section 4: Managing the Gap

• How can the Cruise Ship Parks manage the gap between their current funding situation 

and O&M/project requirements?

• Incorporating an asset’s condition and relative importance (as done in the PAMPs) can 

help park managers prioritize and direct available funding 

Appendix Page 115
System 

Optimization

20

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Asset Priority Index (API) Profiles

• Metrics such as Asset Priority Index (API) can assist park management in identifying funding priorities 

based on the most important assets

• 55% of the Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation assets have an API of 70 or lower

• The Cruise Ship Parks should focus its limited resources on maintaining its highest priority assets

The Cruise Ship Parks should target base and project 

funds on the top priority assets. Assets with high API 

scores are a logical starting point for determining 

maintenance priorities.

Appendix Page 116
System 

Optimization

21

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Plotting the Cruise Ship Parks’ transportation assets on this matrix 

demonstrates the distribution in terms of both condition and priority.

Cruise Ship Parks API/FCI Distribution

API

FCI

• Of the 135 transportation assets (excluding those with an FCI > 1) depicted below, many are in good 

condition: 88 have and FCI < 0.15 and API ≥ 50, which accounts for 65% of the total

• A total of 19 assets, or 14%, have an API ≥ 50 and an FCI > 0.15

• 36% of the Cruise Ship Park transportation assets have an FCI equal to zero; those assets are either in 

excellent condition or the park has not yet assessed them for deficiencies 

• Over time as base and project funding is allocated to high priority assets, the distribution of 

transportation assets will shift to a negatively tending curve, reflecting more effective asset management

Appendix Page 117
System 

Optimization

22

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

During the PAMP process each Cruise Ship Park prioritized their assets to 

assist in strategizing funding decisions

• The table below demonstrates the final prioritization results of transportation assets based 

results from the PAMP process

• Assets falling within the lowest groups should receive minimal O&M funding

Appendix Page 118
System 

Optimization

23

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Park management employed logical criteria when establishing priority 

level for all assets in the portfolio

• Examining the reasons why assets end up in different priority bands helps develop a better estimate of 

true additional need for O&M funding

-- By moving assets into priority bands that will receive little to no funding, management can see 

exactly what functions they are not able to perform

• Assets were slotted into O&M priority bands using the following general guidelines:

-- Highest Priority Assets – Highly important to the park mission, these asset have high visitor use. 

Critical systems, some Operations, RM and PM will be addressed

-- High Priority Assets – Important to the park mission, some Operations and very little RM and PM 

will be addressed.

-- Medium Priority Assets – These assets, while important will only have essential operations 

funded

-- Low Priority Assets – These assets are important but not critical to park operations or do not 

require much maintenance funding. Very little O&M money will be spent on these assets unless 

more funding becomes available

-- Lowest Priority Assets – These assets may not be required for the operations and mission of the 

park. Many are backcountry assets or are targeted to receive project funding in the next few years

Appendix Page 119
System 

Optimization

24

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

O&M amounts by priority band

0.15 0.30 0.50 0.75 1.00

1

2

3

4

21

50

75

88

1

2

3

4

Minimal Investment Disposal

Facility Condition Index

Asset Priority Index

$99K

$207K

$32K

$154K

$180

• As intended by the PAMP process, the 

majority of the Road Parks base funds are 

directed to higher priority assets with 

62% of funding going to the top two 

priority bands

• Low priority assets receive little, if any, 

funding for anything other than basic 

services

Appendix Page 120
System 

Optimization

25

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

• Industry standard O&M costs can be broken down according to work type 

activities and divided into priority bands

• Total O&M budget of $493 thousand covers only 22% of the industry 

standard requirements for the transportation asset portfolio

• There is 62% of available funding (for band levels 1 and 2) directed towards 

just 25% of the transportation asset portfolio, but that percentage contains 

the highest priority assets

• An increase in O&M funding will be required to meet the RM and PM 

needs for the portfolio if the Cruise Ship Parks hope to avoid accumulating 

DM

Cruise Ship Parks O&M expenditures by work type: Actuals vs. 

Benchmarks

Appendix Page 121
System 

Optimization

26

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Even though the Cruise Ship Parks’ current O&M base budget for 

transportation assets is almost $1.8 million less than industry benchmark, 

the deficit for the top 3 priority bands is $1.1 million

• Priority bands 1 – 3 comprise $1,113,649 of the gap, a number that more closely approximates 

the additional O&M funding needs

• Band 5 assets area either not maintained or planned to be renovated with project money and 

therefore do not require O&M funding

• The use of other funding sources can help alleviate the base funding shortfall

Appendix Page 122
System 

Optimization

27

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Planned allocation of O&M funds will result in changes to the way the 

Cruise Ship Parks manage some of their asset types

• During the PAMP process, each park developed a planned budget 

based on the relative importance of each asset. According to the 

available information, planned O&M spending will increase for 

every asset category over what is currently budgeted

Appendix Page 123
System 

Optimization

28

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

If the Cruise Ship Parks were required to address their entire DM 

backlog in the next 10 years using the current available annual project 

funding, the condition of the transportation asset portfolio would 

continue to decline

• If the Cruise Ship Parks continue with an annual project funding average of 

approximately $1.1M, the FCI of their transportation asset portfolio will increase from 

0.08 in 2011 to 0.10 over the course of 10 years, which is still considered a good rating

• Component renewal costs spike dramatically beyond 2020 and would need to be 

planned for in order to avoid an increase of the DM portfolio

Appendix Page 124
System 

Optimization

29

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

General Conclusions

• Although the identified funding gap between O&M base allocations and benchmarks is approximately 

$1.8M , the gap the highest priority transportation assets—priority bands 1 through 3—is $1.1M. This 

number more closely approximates additional O&M needs.

• The future component renewal requirements for the Cruise Ship Parks are significantly influenced by the 

projected trail maintenance requirements in 2021. This requirement occurring in Glacier Bay should be 

anticipated and perhaps measures could be taken in earlier years to reduce the projected costs.

• The Cruise Ship Parks have many transportation assets that have a lower API score and an FCI of 0. It is 

possible that some of these assets have incomplete FCI records in FMSS and, once examined for 

condition, could be good candidates for disposal.

• The Cruise Ship Parks rely on fewer funding sources than does the Road Parks to fund their 

transportation assets. It’s largest funding source comes from the Federal Lands Highway Program, or FLHP, 

which has historically accounted for approximately 60% of funding. Although exactly levels of federal 

funding from this source are uncertain, it is reasonable to assume that these funds at about the historical 

levels will be available in future years. 

• The Cruise Ship Parks should look towards additional funding mechanisms to help fund operations and 

project needs. Developing new partnership agreements, for example, could help to alleviate or reduce 

this cluster’s maintenance responsibilities. 

Appendix Page 125
System 

Optimization

30

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Appendix A: Cruise Ship Parks Transportation Asset List

Appendix Page 126
System 

Optimization

31

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Appendix Page 127
System 

Optimization

32

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Appendix Page 128
System 

Optimization

33

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Appendix Page 129
System 

Optimization

34

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

C RUISE

S HIP

PARKS

Source: NPS FMSS, printed on 1/06/2011

Appendix Page 130
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2011

Appendix E: Transportation Asset Management Plan for the Road 

Parks

Appendix Page 131
System 

Optimization

1

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Transportation Asset Management Plan for the 

Road Parks

The Road Park Cluster contains:

• Denali National Park & Preserve

• Kenai Fjords National Park

• Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve

• Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve

Appendix Page 132
System 

Optimization

2

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The transportation asset management plan for the Road Parks 

cluster follows a similar process as the PAMP analysis. It explored 

four key topics:

Appendix Page 133
System 

Optimization

3

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Section 1: Current Footprint

• This section examines the Road Parks’ existing transportation asset portfolio, highlighting its value, 

size, and occupancy

• The asset information contained herein is based from FMSS records as of January 2011

Appendix Page 134
System 

Optimization

4

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks’ transportation asset portfolio consists of 355 assets

• Only Denali has transportation assets that are not 

NPS owned: 21% of Denali’s transportation assets 

are owned by concessionaires or under other 

ownership 

• Denali’s transportation assets account for nearly 

60% of the cluster’s total asset count

• Due to the large transportation asset base, Denali 

will need significantly more funding than the other 

Road Parks to address maintenance requirements 

Appendix Page 135
System 

Optimization

5

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

FCI is a metric calculated by dividing the 

deferred maintenance by the current 

replacement value.

FCI= Deferred Maintenance

Current Replacement 

Value

The FCI is used by facility managers to 

better understand the relative condition of 

assets within a portfolio. A score closer to 

0.0 reflects better condition.

The Road Parks’ transportation asset portfolio is valued at over $362 

million

The overall FCI for 

Road Parks is GOOD

• Overall, transportation asset conditions of the Road Parks are 

GOOD 

• Road assets, the cluster’s most valuable and costly to maintain 

asset category, have an FCI condition rating of POOR

Definitions:

DM = Deferred Maintenance

CRV = Current Replacement Value

FCI = Facility Condition Index

Appendix Page 136
System 

Optimization

6

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks’ transportation asset portfolio has many newer assets

• 34% of transportation assets were built after 2000

• However, 44% of transportation assets were built in 1980 or earlier

• 15% of the Road Parks transportation assets have an unknown year built

• Based on their aging infrastructure, the Road Parks should plan for substantial 

component renewal costs in the future 

Appendix Page 137
System 

Optimization

7

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks (primarily DENA) have many planned transportation 

assets that will require significant additional O&M funding once 

operational

• When complete these 

additions will add over 

$64 million to the Road 

Parks’ CRV

• Using O&M models and 

park knowledge of 

maintenance needs on 

similar assets, the Road 

Parks can establish more 

accurate benchmark costs 

that could be used to plan 

for future funding of new 

assets

* FMSS database printed 12/09/2010

Appendix Page 138
System 

Optimization

8

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Section 2: Current Funding

• This section discusses the Road Parks’ current base and special project funding situation

• Understanding stable and varied funding sources year to year is important to successfully managing 

the transportation asset portfolio 

Appendix Page 139
System 

Optimization

9

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

• Total O&M budget was determined by matching records from the Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS) for work order history specifically to the transportation assets identified by each park

• The Project Programs budget is based on an annual average of historical funding occurring over the 

past 5 years. Only projects found in the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) that are 

specific to this cluster’s transportation assets are included

Annual funding specifically directed towards transportation assets for the 

Road Parks consists of operational funds and special project funding

Appendix Page 140
System 

Optimization

10

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks budget for funding across all asset types, but roads and 

buildings account for approximately 94% of total budget

• Roads account for 66% of 

actual transportation budget 

expenditures. Of this amount, 

recurring maintenance on Denali 

roads heavily influences this 

amount and accounts for 85% of 

the total

• Buildings are the second most 

costly expenditure, accounting 

for approximately 28% of the 

total transportation budget 

Appendix Page 141
System 

Optimization

11

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks direct nearly half of their $3 million budget to recurring 

maintenance requirements

• Indirect costs factor into the total cost of ownership 

for transportation assets and were included in the 

total amount directed towards operating and 

maintaining transportation assets. However, as stated 

in the PAMPs, indirect costs are typically excluded for 

modeling and understanding direct costs associated 

with maintenance

• Indirect cost for the Road Parks cluster were 

determined by first identifying each park’s percentage 

of indirect costs to its total O&M budget (found in the 

PAMPs), applying that percentage to the total O&M 

budget for transportation assets, and then rolling 

together to the cluster level

• The Road Parks should continue to focus attention 

on preventative maintenance (only 6%) to keep assets 

in serviceable working order and avoid more costly 

unscheduled maintenance

Appendix Page 142
System 

Optimization

12

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks receive approximately $3.4 million annually in special 

project funding 

• Forecasting future funding 

levels is difficult due to the 

inconsistent nature of the 

funds, especially when 

analyzing funding directed 

specifically towards 

transportation assets. Future 

funding levels may vary from 

historical averages

• The forecasted project budget is based on an 

annual average of historical funding directed 

towards deferred maintenance (DM) and 

component renewal (CR) projects occurring 

over the past 5 years. Only projects in PMIS 

that are specific to this cluster’s 

transportation assets are included

• The Recreation Fee 20% and Recreation Fee 

Demonstration 20% funds have historically 

provided approximately $120K annually on 

average. With these funds going away, the 

Road Parks will have less money available and 

need to keep a closer eye on their budgets

• The 2009 economic recovery funds are not available on a 

recurring basis. Some other funding occur only intermittently, 

such as the emergency funds in 2007. These funds are difficult 

for the cluster to rely on due to irregular funding schedules and 

are not included in the project funding forecast

Appendix Page 143
System 

Optimization

13

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Section 3: Current Requirements

• This section reviews the Road Parks’ operating and project requirements

• Industry requirements are benchmarks that can assist park managers in determining the 

appropriate level of care necessary for their transportation assets. It is important, however, to 

recognize that each park (and each cluster) has unique maintenance requirements and this 

transportation asset management plan addresses those needs as appropriate

Appendix Page 144
System 

Optimization

14

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks would require over $4 million annually for O&M based 

on industry standard benchmarks

• According to benchmark standards, buildings account for over 50% of O&M funding 

requirements

• All O&M figures were taken from PAMP Optimizer files and totals were adjusted to 2011 

dollars by applying a 4% annual inflation rate

• As documented in the AKR PAMPs, O&M benchmarks are modeled from industry standard 

national averages (RS Means) and other relevant sources. Non-industry standards unique 

assets are estimated based on 2 percent of CRV (a current federal government benchmark 

for budgeting and out-year planning)

Appendix Page 145
System 

Optimization

15

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

O&M benchmarks exceed current funding by almost $2 million

• Current O&M funding is only 52% of the recommended industry benchmark

• Current O&M funding for roads greatly exceeds the benchmark totals, primarily due to the 

park road in Denali

• All other asset categories for the Road Parks are significantly underfunded based on 

industry benchmarks

• Without adequate funding, conditions of transportation assets will decline and the 

deferred maintenance backlog of more than $35 million will continue to grow

Appendix Page 146
System 

Optimization

16

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

In addition to annual O&M requirements, the Road Parks have a lifecycle 

component renewal (CR) cost of almost $11.7 million over the next 

twenty years

• Component renewal costs over the next twenty years total $11,696,384, with the majority 

of those costs occurring beyond 2020

• Significant cost spikes will occur in years 2022 and 2027 and component renewal costs 

must be planned for as to keep this from going to deferred maintenance

Appendix Page 147
System 

Optimization

17

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS • Significant funding for roads will be necessary in beyond 2020

• A variety of roads in Denali will require surface maintenance in 2022, costing over $1M

• A significant funding requirement should be anticipated for 2027 when multiple parking 

areas require maintenance in Denali, estimated at over $1.8M

Component Renewal by Asset Category

The Road Parks should budget for occasional spikes in budget 

requirements for component renewal

Appendix Page 148
System 

Optimization

18

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Future Requirements

• Currently, the total deferred maintenance on transportation assets for the Road Parks is $35,341,947 

over the next 10 years

• The total component renewal requirements over the next 20 years are $11,696,384

• By taking an annual average of future funding requirements to address DM and CR needs and applying 

an anticipated annual project funding amount, the Road Parks will have an annual funding gap of 

approximately $722K

• The annual project funding available is based on an average of the past 5 years of funding directed 

specifically towards Road Parks transportation assets. Actual annual funding amounts may vary

Appendix Page 149
System 

Optimization

19

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Section 4: Managing the Gap

• How can the Road Parks manage the gap between their current funding situation and 

O&M/project requirements?

• Incorporating an asset’s condition and relative importance (as done in the PAMPs) can 

help park managers prioritize and direct available funding 

Appendix Page 150
System 

Optimization

20

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks should focus its limited resources on maintaining its 

highest priority assets

• Over 70% of the Road Parks’ transportation assets have an API lower than 70

• Metrics such as Asset Priority Index (API) can assist park management in identifying 

funding priorities based on the most important assets

The Road Parks should target base and project funds on 

the top priority assets. Assets with high API scores are a 

logical starting point for determining maintenance 

priorities.

Appendix Page 151
System 

Optimization

21

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Plotting the Road Parks’ transportation assets on this matrix 

demonstrates the distribution in terms of both condition and priority

• Of the 355 transportation assets (excluding those with an FCI > 1) depicted below, many are in good 

condition: 184 have and FCI < 0.15 and API ≥ 50, which accounts for 52% of the total

• A total of 61 assets, or 17%, have an API ≥ 50 and an FCI > 0.15

• 65% of the Road Park transportation assets have an FCI equal to zero; those assets are either in excellent 

condition or the park has not yet assessed them for deficiencies 

• Over time as base and project funding is allocated to high priority assets, the distribution of 

transportation assets will shift to a negatively tending curve, reflecting more effective asset management

Road Parks API/FCI Distribution

API

FCI

Appendix Page 152
System 

Optimization

22

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

During the PAMP process each Road Park prioritized their assets to assist 

in strategizing funding decisions

• The table below demonstrates the final prioritization results of transportation assets

• Assets falling within the lowest groups should receive minimal O&M funding

Appendix Page 153
System 

Optimization

23

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Park management employed logical criteria when establishing priority 

level for all assets in the portfolio

• Examining the reasons why assets end up in different priority bands helps develop a better estimate of 

true additional need for O&M funding

-- By moving assets into priority bands that will receive little to no funding, management can see 

exactly what functions they are not able to perform

• Assets were slotted into O&M priority bands using the following general guidelines:

-- Highest Priority Assets – Highly important to the park mission, these asset have high visitor use. 

Critical systems, some Operations, RM and PM will be addressed

-- High Priority Assets – Important to the park mission, some Operations and very little RM and PM 

will be addressed.

-- Medium Priority Assets – These assets, while important will only have essential operations 

funded

-- Low Priority Assets – These assets are important but not critical to park operations or do not 

require much maintenance funding. Very little O&M money will be spent on these assets unless 

more funding becomes available

-- Lowest Priority Assets – These assets may not be required for the operations and mission of the 

park. Many are backcountry assets or are targeted to receive project funding in the next few years

Appendix Page 154
System 

Optimization

24

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

O&M amounts by priority band

• As intended by the PAMP process, the 

majority of the Road Parks base funds are 

directed to higher priority assets with 

96% of funding going to the top two 

priority bands

• Low priority assets receive little, if any, 

funding for anything other than basic 

services

0.15 0.30 0.50 0.75 1.00

1

2

3

4

21

50

75

88

1

2

3

4

Minimal Investment Disposal

Facility Condition Index

Asset Priority Index

$1.7M

$300K

$12K

$29K

$39K

Appendix Page 155
System 

Optimization

25

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Road Parks O&M expenditures by work type: Actuals vs. Benchmarks

• Industry standard O&M costs can be broken down according to work type 

activities and divided into priority bands

• Total O&M budget of $2.1 million only covers 51% of the industry standard 

requirements for the transportation asset portfolio. However, band level 1 

(highest priority) assets are almost entirely funded according to the 

benchmark

• There is 96% of the budget (for band levels 1 and 2) directed towards just 

30% of the transportation asset portfolio, but that percentage contains the 

highest priority assets

• An increase in O&M funding will be required to meet the O&M needs for 

the portfolio if the Road Parks hope to avoid accumulating DM

Appendix Page 156
System 

Optimization

26

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

The Road Parks’ current O&M base budget for transportation assets is 

$1.98 million less than industry standards. The deficit for the top 3 

priority bands is $680 thousand.

• Priority bands 1 – 3 comprise $680K of the gap, a number that more closely approximates the 

additional O&M funding needs

Appendix Page 157
System 

Optimization

27

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Planned allocation of O&M funds will result in changes to the way the 

Road Parks manage some of their asset types

• Based on the optimized planned spending resulting from the PAMP 

processes, spending on roads will be significantly reduced

• All asset categories except roads and trails are likely candidates for 

receiving more funding in future years

Appendix Page 158
System 

Optimization

28

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

If the Road Parks were required to address their entire DM backlog in 

the next 10 years using the current available annual project funding, the 

condition of the transportation asset portfolio would decline

• If the Road Parks continue with an annual project funding average of approximately 

$3.4M, the FCI of their transportation asset portfolio will increase from 0.10 in 2011 to 

0.12 over the course of 10 years, which is still considered a good rating

• In addition, by addressing only DM, the Road Parks would be forced to neglect other 

requirements normally addressed with project funds such as RM, leading to a more rapid 

deterioration of the transportation asset portfolio

Appendix Page 159
System 

Optimization

29

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

General Conclusions

• Although the identified funding gap between O&M base allocations and benchmarks is approximately 

$2M , the gap the highest priority transportation assets—priority bands 1 through 3—is only $680K. This 

number more closely approximates additional O&M needs.

• Future funding for the Road Parks is uncertain. Historically, these parks have

relied upon a diverse set of funding sources, several of which will no longer be available in the future or 

were only one-time occurrences. The Road Parks should look towards additional funding mechanisms to 

help fund operations and project needs. Developing new partnership agreements, for example, could help 

to alleviate or reduce this cluster’s maintenance responsibilities.

• Although there are not many assets falling into the lower right quadrant, 

these low priority, poor condition assets are good candidates for disposal 

or mothballing. This is a good start to reducing O&M on unnecessary assets

and reducing the Road Parks’ transportation asset DM and CR requirements.

• The approximate annual project funding gap is $700K. This gap 

could be greatly reduced or eliminated by reducing the annual DM 

requirements. 

Appendix Page 160
System 

Optimization

30

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix A: Road Parks Transportation Asset List

Appendix Page 161
System 

Optimization

31

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 162
System 

Optimization

32

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 163
System 

Optimization

33

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 164
System 

Optimization

34

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 165
System 

Optimization

35

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 166
System 

Optimization

36

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 167
System 

Optimization

37

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 168
System 

Optimization

38

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 169
System 

Optimization

39

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Appendix Page 170
System 

Optimization

40

ALASKA REGION LONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION PLAN

R OAD

PARKS

Source: NPS FMSS, printed on 1/06/2011

Appendix Page 171
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix B

Mobility Technical Report

Appendix Page 173
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page i

Table of Contents

1. Mobility Technical Report Overview....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Addressing Mobility within the LRTP...................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Alaska’s Unique Transportation Challenges and Multi‐Modal Travel................................................................. 2

3. Analytical Approach to Mobility............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1. Methodologies and Approaches to Developing Mobility Information ............................................................... 4

3.2. Mobility Overview and Cluster Group Analysis................................................................................................... 4

3.2.1. Remote North Parks .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2.2. Remote South Parks .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.3. Cruise Ship Parks........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.4. Road Parks............................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment: Other Mobility‐Related Information........................................... 11

3.3.1. Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview .................................................................... 11

3.3.2. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Mobility‐Related Projects................................. 14

3.3.3. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Mobility .......................................................................................... 17

3.3.4. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Mobility ................................................ 19

4. Access...................................................................................................................................................................21

4.1. Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview................................................................................. 21

4.1.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Access‐Related Projects.................................... 23

4.1.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Access............................................................................................. 23

4.1.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Access................................................... 23

4.2. Multimodal Access by Necessity ....................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.1. Alaska’s Highway System......................................................................................................................... 25

4.2.2. Rail ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.2.3. Water....................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.2.4. Air............................................................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.5. Trails ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.3. Other Alaska‐Unique Access Issues in Alaska.................................................................................................... 33

4.3.1. ANCSA / ANILCA.......................................................................................................................................33

4.3.2. ANCSA 17(b) Public Easements ............................................................................................................... 34

4.3.3. RS 2477 Right‐of‐way............................................................................................................................... 34

4.4. Access Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 35

5. Safety ...................................................................................................................................................................36

5.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.2. Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview ................................................................................. 36

5.2.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Safety‐Related Projects..................................... 37

5.2.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Safety.............................................................................................. 38

5.2.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Safety.................................................... 40

5.3. Safety Data Overview........................................................................................................................................ 40

5.3.1. NPS Accident Data ...................................................................................................................................41

5.3.2. Alaska DOT&PF Statewide Roadway Fatality Data.................................................................................. 42

5.3.3. National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Data ............................................................... 43

5.3.4. U.S. Coast Guard Boating Accident Data ................................................................................................. 45

5.4. Safety Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 45

6. Visitor Information................................................................................................................................................47

6.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix Page 175
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page ii

6.2. Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview............................................................. 47

6.2.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Visitor Information‐Related Projects................48

6.2.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Visitor Information ......................................................................... 49

6.2.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Mobility ................................................ 49

6.3. Visitor Information Overview............................................................................................................................ 50

6.4. Methods to Disseminate Information to the NPS Traveler............................................................................... 50

6.4.1. NPS Visitor Survey‐Identified Information Sources................................................................................. 50

6.4.2. Technology: Websites, Social Media, and Smartphones......................................................................... 52

6.4.3. Traveler Information System................................................................................................................... 55

6.5. Other State and Federal Agency Methods to Disseminate Information to the Traveler.................................. 56

6.5.1. Alaska Public Lands Information Centers................................................................................................ 56

6.5.2. Alaska Travel Industry Association Visitor Information Content and Conduits ...................................... 56

6.5.3. 511 in Alaska............................................................................................................................................58

6.5.4. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Webcam..................................................................................... 58

6.6. Visitor Information Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 58

7. General Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................61

7.1. Data Gaps and Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 61

Tables

Table 1:  Alaska Region Park Units Characteristics Summary ................................................................................................. 3

Table 2:  Alaska Region Park Units by Cluster Group.............................................................................................................. 5

Table 3:  Remote North Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010 .......................................................................................... 7

Table 4:  Remote South Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010 .......................................................................................... 8

Table 5:  Cruise Ship Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010................................................................................................ 9

Table 6:  Road Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010 ....................................................................................................... 10

Table 7:  Summary of Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs.............................................................. 12

Table 8:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Mobility‐Related Projects .............................................. 16

Table 9:  Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys............................................ 18

Table 10:  Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management

Documents.................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 11:  Summary of Identified Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs............................................................... 22

Table 12:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Access‐Related Projects............................................... 23

Table 13:  Identified Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management Documents...24

Table 14:  Access Modes to Alaska Region Park Units by Cluster Group.............................................................................. 25

Table 15:  Summary of Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs ............................................................... 37

Table 16:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Safety‐Related Projects................................................ 38

Table 17:  Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys............................................. 39

Table 18:  Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management Documents....40

Table 19:  Summary of Identified Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs........................................... 48

Table 20:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Visitor Information‐Related Projects........................... 49

Table 21:  Identified Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys ........................ 49

Table 22:  Information Sources AKR Visitors Used Prior to their Park Visit, as Reported in NPS Visitor Surveys ................51

Appendix Page 176
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page iii

Figures

Figure 1:  Alaska’s Park Units by Cluster Group ...................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2:  Number of Mobility‐Type Projects in PMIS, February 2011 ................................................................................. 14

Figure 3:  Alaska’s Highway and National Park Systems....................................................................................................... 26

Figure 4:  Number of Vehicular Accidents by Park Unit (1990‐2006)................................................................................... 41

Figure 5:  Location of Accidents within Denali National Park and Preserve (1990‐2006) .................................................... 42

Figure 6:  Major Highway Fatalities in Alaska (2007‐2010)................................................................................................... 43

Figure 7:  Aviation Crashes in Alaska (2000‐2009)................................................................................................................ 44

Figure 8:  Aviation Crashes within Alaska Region Park Units (2000‐2009) ........................................................................... 44

Figure 9:  Information Sources that Park Visitors Used Prior to their Park Visit, by Percentage ......................................... 52

 

Appendix Page 177
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AKR Alaska Region

AMHS Alaska Marine Highway System

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

API Asset Priority Index

ATIA Alaska Travel Industry Association

ATV All‐terrain vehicle

BARD Boating Accident Report Database

CRV Current replacement value

DOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FCI Facility condition index

FLMA Federal Land Management Agency

GMP General management plan

IRR Indian reservation roads

LRTP Long range transportation plan

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NPS National Park Service

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

ORV Off‐road vehicle

PAMP Park asset management plan

PMIS Project Management Information System

ROW Right‐of‐way

RS Revised Statute

SMIS Safety Management Information System

STARS Service‐wide Traffic Accident Reporting System

TIS    Traveler information systems

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Photo credits 

Carl Siebe: Brooks Lake access to Katmai (p2); Float plane shuttle, Katmai (p7); Kennecott Mine, Wrangell‐St. Elias (p49);

White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad accesses Skagway, “Gateway to the Klondike” (p28).  

Nancy Tankersley: Chilkoot Trail, Klondike Gold Rush (p31).

John Wolfe: Gates of the Arctic (p6); Taxi boat unloading kayaks, Kenai Fjords (p29); Aialik Bay, Kenai Fjords (p23).  

Joli Weiss: Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad (p9); Alaska Railroad along Turnagain Arm and the Seward Highway (p27

and cover); Cruise ships in Southeast Alaska (p8 and cover); Wildlife Viewing on Denali Park Road (p14).

Dirk Greeley: May Creek Airstrip, Wrangell‐St. Elias (p30).  

Ron Nicholl: Winter trail marker along the Iditarod Trail (p31 and cover).

Tom Brigham: Concessionaire shuttle bus, Denali (p53 and cover).

Appendix Page 178
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 1 of 59

1. Mobility Technical Report Overview 

The National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Region (AKR) is developing a long range transportation plan (LRTP) to guide

future transportation program development and implementation. The LRTP will also bring the NPS into compliance with

Federal legislation requiring Federal Land Management Agencies to conduct long range transportation planning in a

manner consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation planning practices for State and Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs). The AKR LRTP will provide NPS decision‐makers with information and data necessary for

informing future planning and operational decisions.  

This LRTP effort is being led by a core team consisting of NPS staff from the AKR office; NPS staff from a number of

Alaska park units; staff from Western Federal Lands Highways Division of the Federal Highway Administration; and the

NPS’ consultant, HDR Alaska, Inc. At the onset of this effort in late 2009, the core team developed the following mission

statement for the LRTP:

“To implement an Alaska Region long range transportation plan that provides overarching strategies

compatible with individual Park missions.”

Early in the LRTP process, the core team developed a list of goals, objectives, and strategies and obtained supporting

data. Goals were generally related to one of five categories: asset management, visitor experience, mobility, or cultural

and natural resources. Four categories were presented in a report produced by the core team in April 2010 entitled

Alaska Region State of the Regional Transportation System Report.  

The purpose of this technical report is to present the mobility goal and supporting information. The core team

developed the following goal for mobility:  

Provide safe, efficient, affordable, and Park‐appropriate access to and through Park lands.

This technical report details the objectives for achieving the mobility goal, which are improving visitor access, safety, and

visitor information.   

Section one introduces the mobility goal in the context of the AKR NPS LRTP effort and states the contents of this report.  

Section two presents the mobility goal and supporting objectives as defined by the core team.  

Section three explains the analytical approach to developing and obtaining supporting information and data. This

section describes the “cluster group” approach used to address Alaska’s park units, based on their geographic location

and unique multi‐modal needs.  

Section four details the unique transportation challenges and modes used to access the park units.

Sections five and six present data and information to support the safety and visitor information objectives, respectively.  

Section seven summarizes some of the key mobility issues that were identified in this report. Draft recommended

actions have been included to provide a basis for discussion to achieving the objectives goal and objectives. This section

also describes some of the gaps and limitations of the data and information that was collected.

Appendix Page 179
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 2 of 59

The AKR LRTP draft goal for mobility is 

 Provide safe, efficient, and appropriate access to and through NPS lands. 

The AKR LRTP draft objectives are 

 Safety: Provide safe access to and within NPS lands. 

 Access: Provide access for recreational and subsistence users consistent with the purposes of the parks 

using appropriate modes and seamless connections to and through NPS lands. 

 User Information: Provide accurate and accessible information through a variety of means about how 

to travel to and through the NPS lands. 

2. Addressing Mobility within the LRTP 

One of the main purposes of having a transportation system is to

provide mobility. The purpose of mobility is to move people, goods and

services to the places they need to go. For the NPS, mobility is about

how easy it is for visitors to access its park units, whether it is traveling

to, through, or within the park.  

In the context of the Alaska Region and its LRTP effort, the ease with

which one can access a park unit is related to access, safety, and

availability of visitor information.  

Access is addressed in Section 4 of this report. Safety is addressed in Section 5. Coordination planning, as defined as

visitor information in this technical report, is addressed in Section 6. Safety and visitor information help to address

moving park visitors to and within the park units.

2.1. Alaska’s Unique Transportation Challenges

and Multi‐Modal Travel  

Alaska is vast and diverse and so are many of the park units

contained within. The NPS oversees management of more than 84

million acres of land, of which approximately 65% is located in

Alaska.  The Alaska Region has an even greater challenge than most

other NPS regions in the country due to the expansiveness of the

region and the remoteness of the park units.

Table 1 highlights some characteristics of Alaska’s park units  and

begins to paint the big picture of just how great the travel distances

are, how large some of the park units are, and the limited types of

Brooks Lake access to Katmai

Mobility reflects a purpose to move 

people and goods from place to place. 

Mobility provides benefits to society. 

The ability to move people and goods 

freely provides increased opportunities 

to improve the quality of life.

Appendix Page 180
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 3 of 59

transportation modes used to access the park units. Mobility is more easily addressed when decision‐makers have a

sense of Alaska’s transportation challenges and the types of transportation modes available and that are used.

Table 1:  Alaska Region Park Units Characteristics Summary

Park Unit

Approx. distancefrom AKR office inAnchorage (miles)Approx. Size (acres)AKR Size Ranking2010 Visitation(recreation only)2010 Visitation(non‐recreation only)2010 Visitation Total% of 2010 visitorsreported as aRecreational VisitorOnlyPrimaryTransportationMode(s)Accessible by Road?

Alagnak Wild River 290 SW 24,000 14 * * * * Air NO

Aniakchak National

Monument and

Preserve

450 SW 600,000 13 62 0 62 100% Air NO

Bering Land Bridge

National Preserve 550 NW 2.8 million 8 2,642 1,128 3770 70% Air NO

Cape Krusenstern

National Monument 560 NW 660,000 11 2,521 390 2911 87% Air NO

Denali National Park

and Preserve 240 N 6 million 4 378,855 872,110 1,250,965 30% Road,Rail YES

Gates Of The Arctic

National Park and

Preserve

400 N 8 million 2 10,840 0 10,840 100% Air indirectly

Glacier Bay National

Park and Preserve 530 SE 3.3 million 7 444,530 454 444,984 99% Boat NO

Katmai National Park

and Preserve 290 SW 4.7 million 5 55,172 0 55,172 100% Air NO

Kenai Fjords National

Park 120 S 607,000 12 297,596 0 297,596 100% Road,Boat YES

Klondike Gold Rush

National Historical Park 530 E 13,000 15 797,716 0 797,716 100% Boat YES

Kobuk Valley National

Park 610 NW 1.7 million 10 3,164 370 3,534 90% Air NO

Lake Clark National

Park and Preserve 150 SW 3.6 million 6 9,931 0 9,931 100% Air NO

Noatak National

Preserve 600 NW 6.6 million 3 3,257 350 3,607 90% Air NO

Sitka National

Historical Park 590 SE 107 16 189,176 0 189,176 100% Boat NO

Wrangell ‐ St Elias

National Park and

Preserve

340 E 13.2 million 1 73,170 0 73,170 100% Road,

Air YES

Appendix Page 181
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 4 of 59

Park Unit

Approx. distancefrom AKR office inAnchorage (miles)Approx. Size (acres)AKR Size Ranking2010 Visitation(recreation only)2010 Visitation(non‐recreation only)2010 Visitation Total% of 2010 visitorsreported as aRecreational VisitorOnlyPrimaryTransportationMode(s)Accessible by Road?

Yukon ‐ Charley Rivers

National Preserve 350 NE 2.5 million 9 6,211 0 6,211 100% Air,Boat indirectly

* Alagnak visitation numbers are included within Katmai National Park and Preserve Visitation numbers.

Source: Visitation data from NPS Public Use Statistics Office (accessed at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/).

3. Analytical Approach to Mobility 

3.1. Methodologies and Approaches to Developing Mobility Information

Mobility is one of the identified goals for the AKR LRTP. Three objective themes supporting the mobility goal were

identified by the core team1

; these are (1) access, (2) safety, and (3) visitor information. Subsequent to the development

of this goal and related objectives, the team searched for relevant mobility data to set a baseline condition and to

identify possible trends. Trends of the system condition, visitation data, and other data sets were obtained to consider

what may affect the future of the AKR transportation system.

For access, the team took a qualitative look at how visitors access Alaska’s vast and diverse national park system. Safety

data was obtained, for both NPS‐owned and ‐managed transportation assets and systems, and also those assets and

systems not under NPS’ management or jurisdiction, such as State‐owned facilities or systems. Available safety‐related

crash or incident data is included in this report. For visitor information, the team investigated how the region as a whole

disseminates visitor information. Several other sources of mobility‐related information were obtained, including projects

listed in the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS), park unit surveys conducted specifically for this LRTP

effort, and a review of other NPS planning and management documents.

3.2. Mobility Overview and Cluster Group Analysis

Data related to access entailed taking a qualitative look at how visitors access each park unit in Alaska. Each park unit

provides varying mobility challenges. In order to streamline the transportation planning analysis, the park units were

grouped into four “clusters,” depending upon their location in Alaska and unique multi‐modal needs. The four cluster

groups of AKR park units are identified below in Table 2 and on  

Figure 1 and further detailed in subsequent sections.

 

1 A fourth objective was initially identified but removed due to its redundancy with other objectives. This was “Multimodal Transportation: Invest in

mode‐appropriate transportation to and within parks.”

Appendix Page 182
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 5 of 59

Table 2:  Alaska Region Park Units by Cluster Group

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks* Road Parks*

Bering Land Bridge National

Preserve

Cape Krusenstern National

Monument

Gates of the Arctic National

Park and Preserve

Kobuk Valley National Park  

Noatak National Preserve

Alagnak Wild River

Aniakchak National

Monument and Preserve

Katmai National Park and

Preserve

Lake Clark National Park

and Preserve

Glacier Bay National Park

and Preserve

Klondike Gold Rush National

Historical Park

Sitka National Historical

Park

Denali National Park and

Preserve

Kenai Fjords National Park

Wrangell‐St. Elias National

Park and Preserve

Yukon‐Charley Rivers

National Preserve

*Note: Cruise Ship Parks are those accessed mostly via boats, while Road Parks are those that are accessed predominantly via a road network.  

Appendix Page 183
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

Figure 1: Alaska’s Park Units by Cluster Group

Appendix Page 184
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 7 of 59

3.2.1. Remote North Parks  

Bering Land Bridge, Cape Krusenstern, Noatak, Kobuk, and Gates of the

Arctic comprise the Remote North Parks cluster group.  

Characteristics:  The Remote North Parks are characterized by

remoteness; vastness; few facilities and no services; necessity for self‐

reliance; and limited access with oftentimes atypical transportation

modes, including fixed‐wing aircraft, water access via motorized or non‐

motorized watercraft, snowmachines, or dog sleds. Four of the five park

units in this cluster (excluding Gates of the Arctic) are contained within

the Western Arctic National Parklands management unit

Gates of the Arctic is included as one of the Remote North Parks

because of its similar characteristics and geographic proximity to the

other Remote North Parks. Unlike the other four park units that are not connected to the road system, Gates of the

Arctic can be accessed indirectly by a roadway via foot.

Visitation:  This cluster group has the least number of reported recreation visitors. In 2010, the number of reported

recreation visits to these five park units was 22,424. See Table 3. Excluding Gates of the Arctic, the Remote North Parks

have the highest percentage of non‐recreation2 visits compared to other cluster groups. In 2010, between 10 and 30% of

the total number of visitors to Bering Land Bridge, Cape Krusenstern, Kobuk Valley, and Noatak were reported as non‐

recreational visits. In 2008, the percentage of non‐recreation visitors reported was even greater, with between about 40

or 50% of the total visitation coming from non‐recreational visitors. All Remote North Park units except for Gates of the

Arctic reported increased recreation visits between 2008 and 2009. Between 2009 and 2010, all Remote North Park units

reported increased recreation visitation. Compared to the other cluster groups, the Remote North Parks cluster group

reported the greatest change in recreation visits between 2009 and 2010 (30%).

Table 3:  Remote North Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010

Park Unit Reported Recreation Visits Only % Change % Change  

2010 2009 2008 2008–2009 2009–2010

Bering Land Bridge 2,642 1,054 1,019 3% 150%

Cape Krusenstern 2,521 1,810 1,575 15% 39%

Gates of the Arctic 10,840 9,975 11,397 ‐12% 9%

Kobuk Valley 3,164 1,879 1,565 20% 68%

Noatak 3,257 2,474 2,147 15% 32%

TOTAL 22,424 17,192 17,703 8% 30%

 

2 A non‐recreation visitor is defined as a reportable non‐recreation visit that includes through traffic, persons going to and from inholdings, trades‐

people with business in the park, and government personnel (other than NPS employees) with business in the park. In Alaska and especially for the

Remote North Parks, this may also include subsistence users and locals.  

Small planes are the primary transportation

mode used to access Gates of the Arctic  

Appendix Page 185
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 8 of 59

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office.

3.2.2. Remote South Parks

Alagnak, Aniakchak, Katmai, and Lake Clark comprise the

Remote South Parks cluster group.

Characteristics:  None of the Remote South Parks are located

on the road system. Commercial jets and small aircraft are

the most common transportation modes to these parks.

Despite their remoteness, Katmai and Lake Clark receive a fair

amount of visitors. Katmai is popularly known for its brown

bear viewing opportunities. Lake Clark is relatively

geographically close to Anchorage and provides recreational

opportunities via the Anchorage area, where nearly half the

State population resides. Aniakchak is one of the least visited

in the entire NPS system, due to its extreme remoteness and

notorious bad weather. All four park units contain Wild or

Scenic designated rivers.

Visitation:  This cluster group is the second least visited of the four cluster groups. See Table 4. A change in methodology

for how visitation is reported could be one of the reasons the percent change between years is so high.  

Table 4:  Remote South Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010

Park Unit Reported Recreation Visits Only % Change % Change

2010 2009 2008 2008–2009 2009–2010

Aniakchak 62 14 10 40% 343%

Katmai * 55,172 43,035 7,970 440% 28%

Lake Clark 9,931 9,711 6,802 43% 2%

TOTAL 65,165 52,760 14,782 174% 23%

* Alagnak visitation numbers are included within Katmai.

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office.

Float plane shuttle, Katmai  

Appendix Page 186
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 9 of 59

3.2.3. Cruise Ship Parks

Glacier Bay, Klondike Gold Rush, and Sitka comprise the

Cruise Ship Parks cluster group.

Characteristics:  The Cruise Ship Parks are generally

characterized by intense numbers of visitors in short

amounts of time due to the nature of the cruise industry

schedules and ports of call.

The Cruise Ship Parks are located in or near coastal

communities that are ports of call for cruise ships

traveling through the Inside Passage in Southeast

Alaska. All three park units are serviced by the Alaska

Marine Highway System (AMHS). The AMHS constructed

a new ferry dock in Gustavus in 2010 and regular ferry service began late 2010. Klondike Gold Rush is the only park unit

in this cluster group accessible by the road system; the other two are accessible only via water or air.

Visitation:  The Cruise Ship Parks cluster group is the most visited of the four cluster groups. In 2009, the NPS reported

more than 1.5 million recreation visits for the three park units. In 2010, there were approximately one million less

recreational visits reported for these three park units. According to Alaska Cruise Line Agencies, the overall number of

cruise ship passengers remained relatively the same between 2008 and 2009. This is reflected in the NPS‐reported

recreation visitor numbers as well. See Table 5. Cruise ship industry visitation to Alaska dropped between 2009 and 2010

because fewer cruise ships came to Alaska.

Due to the cruise ship industry, the Cruise Ship Parks units are all in the top 5 of the most visited parks in the AKR.

Klondike Gold Rush received the highest number of recreation visitors in 2009 and 2010 out of all the AKR park units.

However, Klondike Gold Rush was the only park that saw a decrease in reported recreation visitation over two

consecutive years (between 2008 and 2010).

Table 5:  Cruise Ship Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010

Park Unit Reported Recreation Visits Only % Change % Change

2010 2009 2008 2008–2009 2009–2010

Glacier Bay 444,530 438,361 418,911 5% 1%

Klondike Gold Rush 797,716 880,512 935,940 ‐6%  ‐9%

Sitka 189,176 246,866 241,407 2%  ‐23%

TOTAL   1,431,422 1,565,739 1,596,258 0%  ‐9%

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office.

Cruise ships in Southeast Alaska

Appendix Page 187
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 10 of 59

3.2.4. Road Parks

Denali, Kenai Fjords, Wrangell‐St. Elias, and Yukon‐Charley Rivers

comprise the Road Parks cluster group.

Characteristics:  The Road Parks are generally characterized as the

most easily accessible park units in Alaska, thereby making them

some of the most popular and most visited. Despite the easier

access to these park units, they are also characterized by rugged

Alaskan wilderness.  

Wrangell‐St. Elias is the largest park unit in the entire NPS system,

containing nearly 10 million acres of designated and managed

Wilderness area.  

All four of these park units are also distinctly different from the other in terms of transportation and mobility. Denali is

the only AKR park unit that has a concessionaire‐run shuttle bus system, partly due to its popularity and also because

the NPS formally capped the number of vehicles that could travel on its main park road by special regulation (36 CFR

13.932). The character and management of the Denali Park Road itself is one of the most important factors influencing

mobility for this park.  

Only a small portion of Kenai Fjords is actually accessible by roadway. The rest of Kenai Fjords is accessible by charter

boat tours or by personal boat. Wrangell‐St. Elias is most commonly accessed by private vehicles along the road system.

For Yukon‐Charley Rivers, access is generally via small boat or small plane.

Visitation:  This cluster group is the second most visited of the four cluster groups, partially due to a number of reasons,

including easy access, proximity to the State’s larger population centers, and influence from the cruise industry.

Reported recreation visits decreased significantly between 2008 and 2009 for all the Road Parks except for Yukon‐

Charley Rivers. This was partially due to the economic downturn and lower volume of cruise passengers visiting Alaska.

In 2010, the percent change for this cluster group was positive again. See Table 6.

Table 6:  Road Parks Recreation Visitation, 2008–2010

Park Unit Reported Recreation Visits Only % Change

2008–2009

% Change

2010 2009 2008 2009–2010

Denali 378,855 358,041 432,309 ‐17% 6%

Kenai Fjords 297,596 218,358 272,190 ‐20% 36%

Wrangell‐St. Elias 73,170 59,966 65,693 ‐9% 22%

Yukon‐Charley Rivers 6,211 6,432 4,942 30%  ‐3%

TOTAL   755,832 642,797 775,134 ‐4% 18%

Source: NPS Public Use Statistics Office.

Seward Highway and Alaska Railroad  

Appendix Page 188
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 11 of 59

3.3. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment: Other Mobility‐Related Information  

3.3.1. Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview

An important part of long term planning is to assess the existing conditions and needs. Three additional sources of

information were reviewed to assess the existing conditions and needs related to mobility at the cluster group level.

These sources include:

 NPS online database called Project Management Information System (PMIS), which is used to track requests for

funding.  

 Unit‐level surveys conducted specifically for this LRTP effort.  

 Other existing NPS planning and management documents.  

The results of looking at the PMIS mobility‐related projects, conducting the park unit surveys, and reviewing other NPS

planning and management documents are summarized below and listed in Table 7. This information may also be found

in the respective access, safety, and visitor information sections. The mobility topics listed below contain those existing

conditions and needs that were identified in more than one cluster group.  

Access

 Access studies are needed. (Three of the four cluster groups, excluding the Remote North Parks)

 New non‐NPS sponsored transportation or utility corridors and/or development have been identified as

occurring near parks or even through park units. These identified developments and corridors have the potential

to impact park resources. (Three of the four cluster groups, excluding the Cruise Ship Parks)

 All‐Terrain Vehicle / Off‐Road Vehicle (ATV/ORV) access management is needed. (Two cluster groups: Remote

North Parks and Road Parks)

Safety  

 Severe weather conditions or natural hazards can impact the transportation system. (Three of the four cluster

groups, excluding the Remote North Parks)

 Trail improvements or restoration efforts are needed due to safety concerns. (All four cluster groups)

 Road and pedestrian improvements are needed due to inadequate or unsafe infrastructure. (Two cluster groups:

Remote South Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

 Boating safety concerns exist. (Two cluster groups: Remote South Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

 Need for rehabilitation or maintenance of airstrips. (Three cluster groups: Remote North Parks, Cruise Ship

Parks, and Roads Parks)  

 Pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion are safety issues. (Two cluster groups: Cruise Ship Parks and Road Parks)

Appendix Page 189
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 12 of 59

Visitor Information  

 Concessionaires or air taxis do most of the advertising and marketing. (Three of the four cluster groups, excludes

Remote North Parks)

 Interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks are needed. (Two cluster groups: Remote North Parks and Road Parks)

Table 7:  Summary of Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs

Identified Mobility‐Related Issue Information Source  

PMIS   Unit Surveys   NPS Planning

Documents

Cluster

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad Parks

Access

Interagency coordination       X              

Access study needed    X X X               X

Improve water/ land connection    X                    

Dock improvements       X                  

Pedestrian congestion relief    X                  

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rehabilitations     X                  

Acquire visitor transit buses     X                  

Trail restoration/ improvements      X                

ATV/ ORV access management      X         X     X

Potential new non‐NPS access corridors/ development

identified near park unit          X X    X

More than 100 air taxi operators access park           X    

Safety

Insufficient infrastructure    X X    

Inconsistent safety data reporting X

Severe weather conditions or natural hazards and impacts   X X X X X X

Search and rescue/ coordination with other groups X

Road and airport safety concerns    X

Appendix Page 190
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 13 of 59

Identified Mobility‐Related Issue Information Source  

PMIS   Unit Surveys   NPS Planning

Documents

Cluster

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad Parks

Boating safety/ analyze safety of fleet vessel X    X X

Inadequate lighting in parking lot    X

Modal conflicts and capacity issues     X

Road safety improvements needed or proposed X X     X X

Inadequate information about road conditions     X

Winter trail safety X X     X

Facilitate safe bear viewing X      

Commercial operator training X      

Trail safety/ restoration improvements X X X      

Rehabilitate / maintain airstrip surface    X X X     X

Pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion    X X       X

Dock improvements    X      

More than 100 air taxi operators access park          X

Visitor Information

Visitor information materials are outdated X

Non‐NPS entities (air taxis or concessionaires) do the

marketing/ advertising

X X X

Lack of visitor information    X

Provide interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks X X

Repair /replace information signs X

Implement shuttle system and associated infrastructure X

New visitor information materials proposed    X

Appendix Page 191
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 14 of 59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Remote North

Parks

Remote South

Parks

Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

Project Type

Access Safety Visitor Information

3.3.2. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Mobility‐Related Projects

PMIS is the NPS’ service‐wide online database used to manage project funding information. PMIS enables park units and

NPS regional offices to submit project proposals to be reviewed, approved, and prioritized at park units, regional levels,

and the NPS Washington Office. Project proposals are submitted, reviewed, approved, prioritized, and then formulated

under an available funding source by utilizing PMIS.3

  

A review of AKR projects in PMIS extracted on February 10, 2011 showed about 160 projects were related to the specific

mobility topics of access, safety, and visitor information. Of these 160 transportation‐related projects, the Road Parks

had the most projects in PMIS (103 projects), followed by Cruise Ship Parks (36 projects), Remote South Parks (16

projects), and Remote North Parks (5 projects). Of the three mobility categories, 94 projects were safety‐related, 55

projects were access‐related, and 11 projects were related to visitor information. See Figure 2. Table 8 summarizes

these AKR PMIS projects, which includes the funding status and project types by mobility type (access, safety or visitor

information) and cluster group.  

Figure 2:  Number of Mobility‐Type Projects in PMIS, February 2011

 

3 Source: NPS Focus, digital library and research station webpage. Accessed on February 11, 2011 at:

http://npsfocus.nps.gov/docs/guide/metadata/AboutPMIS.htm.

Appendix Page 192
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 15 of 59

Remote North Parks  

The five projects listed for the Remote North Parks are related to winter trail safety and visitor information along the

Dalton Highway for Gates of the Arctic. No access‐related projects are listed for any of the Remote North Parks.

Remote South Parks  

The 16 projects listed for the Remote South Parks are access‐ and safety‐related. There are no visitor information

projects in PMIS for Remote South Parks. Access projects listed in PMIS include an access study for Aniakchak and a

multi‐modal transportation analysis for Katmai. Other projects are safety‐related to bear viewing at Katmai.

Cruise Ship Parks

Thirty‐six projects are listed in PMIS for the Cruise Ship Parks. These projects are either access‐ or safety‐related; no

visitor information projects are listed. Two‐thirds of these projects are safety projects, with many addressing pedestrian

safety on trails, docks, roads, and boardwalks, particularly in Sitka and Klondike Gold Rush. Some access projects revolve

around the Gustavus dock. ADA rehabilitations and pedestrian congestion projects are also included.

Road Parks

Nearly two‐thirds of all the AKR PMIS projects are for the Road Parks. This is the only cluster group that has projects for

all three mobility types (access, safety, and visitor information). More than half of these projects are safety‐related, with

Denali accounting for most of the projects. Access‐related projects relate mostly to ORV and subsistence access. A

number of access studies or plans have been requested for

some of these park units.  

   

Wildlife viewing on the Denali Park Road

Appendix Page 193
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 16 of 59

Table 8:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Mobility‐Related Projects

Cluster

Group

Mobility‐Type PMIS Projects  

Access Safety Visitor Information

Remote

North Parks

No projects 3 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: none

 Funded: 2

Types of projects

Winter trail safety

Facility rehabilitation

2 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: 1

 Funded: none

Types of projects

Install roadside kiosks  

Dalton Highway audio tour

Remote

South Parks

5 projects

 Requested: 5

 Formulated: none

 Funded: none

Types of projects

Subsistence activity/access study

Improve water/land connections

11 projects

 Requested: 4

 Formulated: 1

 Funded: 6

Types of projects

Facilitate safe bear viewing

Commercial operator training

Road/trail safety improvements

No projects

Cruise Ship

Parks

11 projects

 Requested: 5

 Formulated: 3

 Funded: 3

Types of projects

Dock improvements

Pedestrian congestion relief

ADA rehabilitations

Acquire visitor transit buses

25 projects

 Requested: 6

 Formulated:203

 Funded: 9

Types of projects

Rehabilitate airstrip surface

Pedestrian/vehicle congestion

Trail safety improvements

Analyze safety of fleet vessel

Dock safety

No projects

Road Parks

39 projects

 Requested: 7

 Formulated: 6

 Funded: 26

Types of projects

Trail restoration/ improvements

Access plan (Kennecott District)

Develop studies/plans re: Denali

visitor transportation system

55 projects

 Requested: 3

 Formulated:6

 Funded: 46

Types of projects

Pedestrian/vehicle traffic safety

Trail safety improvements

Road safety improvements

Rehabilitate airstrip surface

9 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: 0

 Funded: 8

Types of projects

Install roadside kiosks (McCarthy

Road)

Repair/replace information signs

Implement shuttle system and

Appendix Page 194
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 17 of 59

ATV/ORV access management associated infrastructure

3.3.3. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Mobility  

As part of this LRTP process, park unit‐level transportation surveys were conducted in person or via teleconference in

May and June 2010. Table 9 summarizes some of the key mobility‐related issues discussed or describes existing

conditions as reported by local park unit‐level NPS personnel. Survey results by cluster group are summarized below. A

majority of the issues identified during the surveys were related to safety, as compared to access or visitor information.

This may be indicative of park units having firsthand “on the ground” knowledge. This is not intended to be an

exhaustive or all‐inclusive list of the existing conditions or issues.  

Remote North Parks  

The park unit surveys conducted for the Remote North Parks indicate there is some interagency coordination occurring

with regard to winter trail staking. Winter trail staking and marking was identified as a key safety issue due to the severe

winter weather conditions that often blow the stakes away. Other safety conditions and needs identified include safety

shelter cabins being in poor condition, inconsistent and oftentimes no safety data being reported, and the need for basic

runway maintenance. For access, there appears to be opportunities to coordinate with other agencies. For visitor

information, some visitor materials are outdated.

Remote South Parks  

No access‐related conditions or needs were reported during the surveys for the Remote South Parks. A variety of road

and airport safety concerns were voiced, some of which include motor vehicle crashes due to soft road shoulders and a

fatal of aviation crash occurring in 2010. Natural hazards, such as volcanoes, bad weather, and severe snowstorms were

reported as having impacts to aviation. Aviation safety is a key issue for these remote parks, particularly because the

NPS does not control aviation into the park. For visitor information, a lot of the advertising is done by the air taxis (Lake

Clark).  

Cruise Ship Parks

No access‐related conditions or needs were reported during the surveys for the Cruise Ship Parks. Vessel groundings

occur every other year in Glacier Bay, possibly due to outdated charts and in spite of efforts to educate. Sitka reported

inadequate lighting in its parking lot. Modal conflicts and capacity issues related to cruise ship visitation were also

reported.  

Road Parks

No access‐related conditions or needs were reported during the surveys for the Road Parks. A number of safety‐related

issues were identified. Road and pedestrian infrastructure improvements were cited as being needed. For visitor

information, a lot of the advertising and marketing is done by others, such as the concessionaire or the Alaska Railroad.

Appendix Page 195
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 18 of 59

Table 9:  Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys

Remote North Parks

Access Interagency coordination: Potential opportunity for additional coordination (e.g., Indian

Reservation Roads [IRR])

Safety Interagency coordination: Interagency coordination is occurring (Bering Land Bridge)

 Shishmaref relocation with DOT&PF; winter trail staking with Kawerak (nonprofit)

Insufficient infrastructure (winter trail markings, shelter cabins)

Lack of basic runway maintenance

Inconsistent safety data reporting among units  

 Some units lack crash or fatality data unless learned by word of mouth. Other units

document incidents in a yearly report.

Severe weather conditions and impacts

 Thawing permafrost results in frost heaves on airstrips.

 Winter trail markings are blown over by heavy winds.

Search and Rescue coordination: NPS assists with approximately 12 search and rescue operations

along winter trails yearly (Western Arctic National Parklands management unit)

Visitor Information Visitor information materials are outdated (Bering Land Bridge)

Remote South Parks

Access Nothing reported

Safety Road and airport safety concerns (Katmai and Lake Clark)

Visitor Information Airtaxis do marketing/advertising (Lake Clark General Management Plan cites more than 100 air taxis)  

Cruise Ship Parks

Access Nothing reported

Safety Boating safety: Vessel groundings occur every other year in Glacier Bay, in spite of NPS efforts to

educate. Charts are out of date.  

Inadequate lighting in parking lot (Sitka)

Modal conflicts and capacity issues (Klondike Gold Rush)

Visitor Information Concessionaire does the marketing/advertising (Aramark for Glacier Bay)  

Lack of visitor information: There is little to no public outreach. Wayfinding at the dock and at

the ferry terminal is inadequate (Sitka).

Road Parks

Access Nothing reported

Safety Inadequate infrastructure/ road safety improvements needed: There is a lack of shoulder for

bicycles and pedestrians in roadways (Kenai Fjords).

Natural hazards: Natural hazards generate safety concerns, such as ice on planes and wilderness

smoke that compromises visibility for aviation and boating (Yukon‐Charley).

Road safety: The road design is dangerous (McCarthy Road).

Inadequate information about road conditions (Wrangell‐St. Elias)

Road safety: Park road conditions are variable, including soft shoulders, soft road areas, and

narrow sections (Denali).

Appendix Page 196
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 19 of 59

Visitor Information Concessionaire and the Alaska Railroad do their own advertising/marketing

3.3.4. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Mobility

A number of NPS planning and management documents were reviewed to identify trends and existing conditions and

needs including park unit general management plans (GMPs), foundation statements, and park asset management plans

(PAMPs). Based on a review of these documents, there are a number of common transportation‐related issues that a

majority of the park units and/or cluster groups encountered (see Table 10). Visitor information issues were not

immediately identifiable in the documentation. Common access and safety issues cited in the plans included:  

 Potential transportation and/or utility corridors or resource development and the subsequent impacts to

wilderness, park lands, and/or environmental resources (three clusters: Remote North Parks, Remote South

Parks, and Road Parks).

 ORV trail impacts and/or use, and subsequent ORV planning needs (two clusters: Remote North Parks and Road

Parks).

 Access as it relates to wilderness, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and/or subsistence (one cluster group: Remote North Parks).

 Revised Statute (RS) 2477 trails and/or right‐of‐way issues (three clusters: Remote North Parks, Remote South

Parks, and Cruise Ship Parks).

 Intense congestion during selected times (mostly related to the Cruise Ship Parks, which see a high number of

cruise industry visitors.   

General Management Plans (GMPs) are the broadest level of NPS planning and form the foundation for NPS 

long-range decision making within each park unit. GMPs focus on why the park was created and establish the 

direction and parameters for resource preservation and visitor use in a park unit. GMPs encompass a 20-year 

planning horizon. Most of the NPS GMPs provide general guidelines for managing rights-of-way and easements 

as transportation corridors. The plans also identify potential transportation needs and issues regarding the 

development of these corridors. Most of the Alaska Region GMPs were last written or updated in the 1980s. 

Foundation statements identify the most important features of a park unit, describing the park’s purpose, 

significance, fundamental resources and values, primary interpretive themes, and special mandates. Foundation 

statements are intended to ensure that park planning and decision-making is conducted in a context that is based 

on these key features. 

Park Asset Management Plans (PAMPs) are required for each park. The purpose of these plans is to generate 

an asset strategy and road map with the purpose of determining how to efficiently allocate limited resources. 

Two components of PAMPs are (1) an asset inventory and condition assessment (through Asset Priority Index 

[API] ratings) and (2) asset valuation (through current replacement values [CRVs]). The idea is to decrease the 

Facility Condition Index (FCI) over time, which is intended to improve the overall condition of the NPS’ and 

parks’ asset portfolios. PAMPs help to budget operating and maintenance funding and special project funding to 

secure NPS and Congressional funding. For the smaller, remote park units, PAMPs are mostly used as a guide 

for operation and maintenance scheduling. 

Appendix Page 197
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 20 of 59

Table 10:  Identified Mobility‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management Documents

Identified Transportation Issues

Remote North Parks

Access Potential new non‐NPS transportation or utility corridors or development identified near a park

unit: Several potential utility, transportation or mining access corridors or development were

identified near or possibly through park units, as cited in GMPs (for all Remote North Parks).

ORV use and subsistence access: Two GMPs (Noatak and Gates of the Arctic) cite ORV use for

subsistence as not allowed because it has not been shown as a traditional means of access.

Safety Severe weather conditions can occur year‐round, causing delays in transportation.

Airstrip maintenance: The Bering Land Bridge GMP calls for landing strip maintenance at

Serpentine Hot Springs in Bering Land Bridge.

Winter trail marking: The Kobuk Valley GMP cites the State of Alaska as funding the marking of

winter trails throughout Northwest Alaska.

Visitor Information Issues are not immediately identifiable in the documentation.  

Remote South Parks

Access Air access: The Lake Clark GMP cites multiple air taxi operators that access the park unit.  

Potential new transportation or utility corridor: The Aniakchak GMP cites a potential new

development (a trans‐peninsula transportation/pipeline corridor) located near or in the park

unit.

Safety Boat safety: Public safety is a growing safety concern in Alagnak with potential collisions

associated with high‐speed motorboats.

Frequent and severe weather conditions affect access, resulting in closed runways.  

Visitor Information New visitor information materials proposed: The Katmai GMP cites upgrades and improvements,

which includes interpretive exhibits.

Cruise Ship Parks

Access Issues are not immediately identifiable in the documentation.  

Safety Pedestrian congestion: Short‐condensed park visits by large numbers of cruise ship passengers

cause high congestion at times, presenting challenges to park staff.

Visitor Information Issues are not immediately identifiable in the documentation.

Road Parks

Access Coordination proposed. A Denali‐specific Needs Assessment Study (YEAR) recommended linking

park entrance area park bus services with hotel shuttles to provide a consolidated and

coordinated transportation system.

Proposed new visitor center and access enhancements: A number of plans, including the GMP,

recommends a new visitor center and access node on the southern end of Denali.  

ORV access: ORV trail planning is a major transportation issue (Wrangell‐St. Elias).

Potential oil and minerals exploration opportunity near park unit: The Yukon‐Charley GMP cites a

potential nearby area for oil and mineral exploration.

Safety Proposed road design: To address road safety concerns, a previous DOT&PF study (Interior

Region Transportation Study) recommended McCarthy Road to be widened, though the NPS

recommended that DOT&PF maintain the road in essentially its current condition with

improvements for public safety as needed.

Appendix Page 198
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 21 of 59

Visitor Information Either issues are not immediately identifiable in the documentation or there are none.

4. Access 

4.1. Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview

An important part of long term planning is to assess the existing conditions and needs. Three sources of information

were reviewed to assess the existing conditions and needs related to mobility at the cluster group level. These sources

include:

 NPS PMIS online database  

 Unit‐level surveys conducted specifically for this LRTP effort.  

 Other existing NPS planning and management documents.  

The results of looking at the PMIS mobility‐related projects, conducting the park unit surveys, and reviewing other NPS

planning and management documents are summarized below and listed in Table 11. The mobility topics listed below

contain those existing conditions and needs that were identified in more than one cluster group.  

Access

 Access studies are needed. (Three cluster groups: Remote South Parks, Cruise Ship Parks, and Road Parks)

 New non‐NPS sponsored transportation or utility corridors and/or development have been identified as

occurring near parks or even through park units. These identified developments and corridors have the potential

to impact park resources. (Three cluster groups: Remote North Parks, Remote South Parks, and Road Parks)

 ATV/ORV access management is needed. (Two cluster groups: Remote North Parks and Road Parks)

Appendix Page 199
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 22 of 59

Table 11:  Summary of Identified Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs

Identified Access‐Related Issues Information Source  

PMIS   Unit Surveys   NPS Planning

Documents

Cluster

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad Parks

Access

Interagency coordination       X              

Access study needed    X X X               X

Improve water/ land connection    X                    

Dock improvements       X                  

Pedestrian congestion relief    X                  

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rehabilitations     X                  

Acquire visitor transit buses     X                  

Trail restoration/ improvements      X                

ATV/ ORV access management      X         X     X

Potential new non‐NPS access corridors/ development

identified near park unit          X X    X

More than 100 air taxi operators access park           X    

Appendix Page 200
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 23 of 59

4.1.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Access‐Related Projects

A review of AKR projects in PMIS extracted on February 10, 2011 showed about 160 projects were related to the specific

mobility topics of access, safety, and visitor information. Of the three mobility categories, 55 projects were related to

access. Table 12 summarizes these AKR PMIS projects, which includes the funding status and project type by cluster

group.

Table 12:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Access‐Related Projects

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

No projects 5 projects

 Requested: 5

 Formulated: none

 Funded: none

Types of projects

Subsistence activity/access

study

Improve water/land

connections

11 projects

 Requested: 5

 Formulated: 3

 Funded: 3

Types of projects

Dock improvements

Pedestrian congestion relief

ADA rehabilitations

Acquire visitor transit buses

39 projects

 Requested: 7

 Formulated: 6

 Funded: 26

Types of projects

Trail restoration/ improvements

Access plan (Kennecott District)

Develop studies/plans re: Denali

visitor transportation system

ATV/ORV access management

4.1.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Access  

As part of this LRTP process, park unit‐level transportation surveys were conducted in person or via teleconference in

May and June 2010. Very few specific access‐related issues were identified during the park unit surveys; whereas most

of the identified issues were related to safety.  The Remote North Parks cluster group did, however, identify the

potential for additional interagency coordination (e.g., Indian Reservation Roads [IRR]). The other three cluster groups

(Remote South Parks, Cruise Ship Parks, and Road Parks) did not report access‐related issues or concerns.

4.1.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Access

A number of NPS planning and management documents were reviewed to identify trends and existing conditions and

needs including park unit general management plans (GMPs), foundation statements, and park asset management plans

(PAMPs). The identified access conditions and needs are summarized in Table 13.

Appendix Page 201
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 24 of 59

Table 13:  Identified Access‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management Documents

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

 Potential new non‐NPS

transportation or utility

corridors or development

identified near a park

unit: Several potential

utility, transportation or

mining access corridors or

development were

identified near or possibly

through park units, as

cited in GMPs (for all

Remote North Parks).

 ORV use and subsistence

access: Two GMPs

(Noatak and Gates of the

Arctic) cite ORV use for

subsistence as not

allowed because it has

not been shown as a

traditional means of

access.

 Air access: The Lake

Clark GMP cites

multiple air taxi

operators that access

the park unit.  

 Potential new

transportation or

utility corridor: The

Aniakchak GMP cites a

potential new

development (a trans‐

peninsula

transportation/pipelin

e corridor) located

near or in the park

unit.

Issues are not

immediately

identifiable in the

documentation.  

 Coordination proposed. A Denali‐

specific Needs Assessment Study

(YEAR) recommended linking park

entrance area park bus services with

hotel shuttles to provide a

consolidated and coordinated

transportation system.

 Proposed new visitor center and

access enhancements: A number of

plans, including the GMP,

recommends a new visitor center and

access node on the southern end of

Denali.  

 ORV access: ORV trail planning is a

major transportation issue (Wrangell‐

St. Elias).

 Potential oil and minerals exploration

opportunity near park unit: The

Yukon‐Charley GMP cites a potential

nearby area for oil and mineral

exploration.

4.2. Multimodal Access by Necessity

The overall NPS transportation system is made up of many modes of

transportation. Whereas roads, trails, and transit systems are

common in the Lower 48, these modes are less common in Alaska.

As a result, Alaska faces a much different set of transportation issues

and travel demands that are not typically encountered in other NPS

regions.  For example, only one‐fourth of the park units in Alaska are

directly accessible by surface roadway. Instead, local residents and

visitors access Alaska’s park units through multiple transportation

modes not typically thought of as primary means of travel. These

modes may include floatplane or fixed‐wing aircraft (small bush

planes), boat, snowmachine, dogsled, and foot. In many cases,

remoteness and high cost of travel limit visitor use and demand.   Aialik Bay, Kenai Fjords  

Appendix Page 202
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 25 of 59

The highways, roads, and ferry routes that do provide access to and within NPS units, are an important element of the

park‐related transportation system in Alaska. But there are relatively few highways in Alaska. More communities in the

state are located off the main road systemsometimes referred to as "the bush"than on it.4

  

The AKR park units were grouped into four clusters, based on their location and unique multi‐modal needs and modes

used to access the parks. Table 14 summarizes the general access modes used to access the AKR park units by cluster

groups.  

Table 14:  Access Modes to Alaska Region Park Units by Cluster Group  

Park Cluster Group

Access Mode

Road Rail Ferry Air

Remote North Parks   NO1 NO NO Most common mode

Remote South Parks NO   NO NO Most common mode

Cruise Ship Parks 1 of 3 park units2 NO YES   Not very common

Road Parks 3 of 4 park units3 2 of 4 park units4 NO Somewhat common 1

None of the Remote North Parks are accessible via road. Gates of the Arctic is indirectly accessible by road via foot. 2 Klondike Gold Rush is the only Cruise Ship Park accessible via road. 3 Yukon‐Charley Rivers is indirectly accessible via road. 4 Denali and Kenai Fjords are accessible via rail.

4.2.1. Alaska’s Highway System

Only one‐fourth of the AKR park units are accessible directly by the road system: Denali, Kenai Fjords, Wrangell‐St. Elias

(three out of the four Road Parks), and the Klondike Gold Rush (a Cruise Ship Park). Figure 3 depicts Alaska’s Highway

system. Almost all of the other AKR park units are accessed mostly by boat or air, or in rare cases by foot via a distant

roadway (Yukon‐Charley Rivers or Gates of the Arctic).  

Alaska is unique in that its state ferry system, the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), is a part of the National

Highway System. The AMHS provides regularly scheduled service for the primary purpose of providing transportation.

 

4 According to the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs, there are 163 incorporated cities and boroughs in Alaska. Of those, 24

communities/boroughs are on the road system and connect to the rest of the country. (Communities will sometimes have roads connecting them

to nearby villages, but not to the Alaska road and highway system). The state ferry system serves about 30 Alaska communities, only five of which

are also on the road system. Considering both unincorporated and incorporated communities, there are 393 communities in Alaska. Of the 393

communities, about one‐third (139 communities) are on the road system. That means approximately two‐thirds of the communities in Alaska are

only reachable by ferry or air.

Appendix Page 203
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 26 of 59

Figure 3:  Alaska’s Highway and National Park Systems

The National Scenic Byways Program is part of the Federal Highway Administration, established as a grassroots

collaborative effort to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. The U.S.

Secretary of Transportation recognizes certain roads as All‐American Roads or National Scenic Byways based on one or

more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities.5 Additionally, the State of Alaska also

operates the Alaska Scenic Byway program to recognize roads with outstanding scenic or cultural attributes. The USFS

also operates a scenic byways program, to recognize particularly scenic routes through national forests. The best known

 

5

National Scenic Byway Program website. http://www.byways.org/learn Accessed April 6, 2010.

Appendix Page 204
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 27 of 59

of the Alaska scenic byways is the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Seward. It is recognized by all three scenic

byway programs, and its All‐America Road designation is the highest designation given by the National Scenic Byway

program. The Seward Highway’s designation means that it has features that do not exist elsewhere in the U.S. and are

scenic enough to be considered a tourist destination unto itself. All routes within the AMHS collectively also have the All‐

American Road designation.  

As these byway programs gain public recognition, they will increasingly encourage travel on these routes within Alaska

and as portions of trips to Alaska’s national parks. Other National Scenic Byways designations in Alaska have been given

to segments of the Parks, Glenn, and Haines highways. All but the Haines Highway provide direct access to an AKR park

unit. Byway designations provide the opportunity for possible grant funding for byway‐related projects.

The Alaska program also includes both the Seward and Parks highways. In addition to these highways, there are a few

state byways that lead to access nodes for jumping off into park units. These include either portions or the entire length

of the highway. They are described in the following paragraphs where applicable.

Remote North Parks  

 Dalton HighwayGates of the Arctic: For an adventurer, Gates of the Arctic can be accessed by foot from the

Dalton Highway. The Dalton Highway, also known as the “Haul Road” or Alaska Route 11, stretches more than

400 miles and begins 70 miles north of Fairbanks and terminates in Deadhorse near the Arctic Ocean and the

Prudhoe Bay oil fields. The highway is designated as a state byway. Near the communities of Wiseman and

Coldfoot, the park boundary is just west of the highway corridor, about 5 miles from the roadway at its closest

point.  According to available backcountry permit data for 2004 and 2006‐2010, 289 people accessed Gates of

the Arctic by foot during these years.6

Remote South Parks  

No Remote South Park is accessed by a road.

Cruise Ship Parks  

 Klondike HighwayKlondike Gold Rush: The coastal community of Skagway, located at the north end of the

Lynn Canal in Southeast Alaska, is known as the “Gateway to the Klondike.” The Klondike Gold Rush park

headquarters is located in Skagway. Skagway is also the terminus of the Klondike Highway, which connects to

the Alaska Highway 110 miles to the north in Canada near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. Only 15 miles of the

Klondike Highway is located in Alaska, and the rest is in Canada.  

 Haines HighwayKlondike Gold Rush and Glacier Bay: The Haines Highway, also known as Alaska Route 7,

extends south from Haines Junction in Canada on the Alaska Highway and dead‐ends at the community of

Haines, a Southeast Alaska town located on the Lynn Canal, 14 miles by ferry from Skagway. Haines could be an

access node for either the Klondike Gold Rush or Glacier Bay. The Haines Highway has state byway designation.

 

6 Draft Gates of the Arctic Transportation Data and Visitor Projection Analysis, provided by the National Park Service. Date not specified.

Appendix Page 205
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 28 of 59

Road Parks  

 George Parks HighwayDenali: The George Parks Highway, also known as Alaska Route 3, is 323 miles long. It

begins 35 miles north of Anchorage at a junction with the Glenn Highway and terminates in Fairbanks. It is

usually just called the Parks Highway. This highway and the Alaska Railroad, which generally parallels the

highway, connect Fairbanks to Anchorage and together provide primary access to one Alaska park unit: Denali.

Before the Parks Highway was constructed, the Alaska Railroad provided the only direct surface link to Denali.

Like all of Alaska’s highways, the Parks Highway is owned

and maintained by the DOT&PF.  

 Seward HighwayKenai Fjords: The Seward Highway, also

known as Alaska Route 1, is 127 miles in length and

connects Seward to Anchorage. The highway traverses the

Kenai Peninsula and continues north along Turnagain Arm.

The Seward Highway provides road access to one park

unitKenai Fjords. The 9‐mile‐long Exit Glacier Road,

which is partly owned and maintained by the NPS,

branches off the Seward Highway near Seward and

provides access to the popular Exit Glacier.  

 McCarthy Road, Edgerton Highway, Richardson Highway,

and the Nabesna RoadWrangell‐St. Elias: The main road

access into Wrangell‐St. Elias is by the 60‐mile McCarthy Road, which begins in Chitinajust outside the

western boundary of the park – and ends in McCarthy. The McCarthy Road is located within State right‐of‐way

(ROW), and is owned and maintained by DOT&PF. The McCarthy Road is a classic case of “it is the journey, not

the destination.” It is known for its gravel, washboard surface, and it usually takes 3 to 4 hours to drive the 60

miles. Chitina is the terminus of the 33‐mile Edgerton Highway, which connects to the Richardson Highway near

Copper Center and Glennallen. Primitive road access into the park is also available to the north via the 42‐mile

Nabesna Road, which begins in Slana. Slana is located on the 125‐mile Tok Cut‐off, which connects the

Richardson and Alaska Highways. The Nabesna Road is also located largely within the park, but on State ROW.

The Richardson Highway, also known as Alaska Route 4, has a state byway designation.

 Indirect access via roadYukon‐Charley Rivers: For an adventurer, Yukon‐Charley Rivers could possibly be

accessed indirectly via the Steese Highway near Circle or the Taylor Highway near Eagle. The park boundary is

located more than five miles from these two highways, which would likely require some “bushwhacking” or river

travel to actually cross into the park unit boundary. The Steese Highway, also known as Alaska Route 6, extends

north of Fairbanks and dead‐ends at the town of Circle. The Taylor Highway, also known as Alaska Route 5,

extends north of the Alaska Highway and dead‐ends at the town of Eagle. Both the Steese and Taylor highways

are designated as state byways.

Alaska Railroad along Turnagain Arm and the

Seward Highway

Appendix Page 206
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 29 of 59

4.2.2. Rail  

Only two park units are accessible directly by the Alaska Railroad mainline: Denali and Kenai Fjords, both Road Parks. A

third park unit, Klondike Gold Rush, is accessed by a tourist train. The number of visitors using rail to access the Kenai

Fjords and Klondike Gold Rush is somewhat negligible, as these are not the most common modes to access these parks.

On the other hand, rail is the most common method visitors use to access Denali. The Alaska Railroad has been

designated as a state byway.

Remote North Parks and Remote South Parks

No Remote North Parks or Remote South Parks are accessed by

the Alaska Railroad.  

Cruise Ship Parks  

 White Pass and Yukon Route RailroadKlondike Gold

Rush: Visitors may also travel from Skagway via the White

Pass and Yukon Route railroad to park access points.

Once used to haul freight between Whitehorse and

Skagway prior to the construction of the Klondike

Highway in 1978, the railroad is now a tourist narrow‐

gauge route that operates passenger service between

Skagway and Carcross, Yukon Territory. The tracks still

extend from Carcross to Whitehorse but that section is no

longer operated. DOT&PF owns and maintains the 15 miles of the Klondike Highway located in the Alaska.

Skagway is also served by the Alaska Marine Highway System, which provides service year‐round. During the

summer, Skagway serves as a key stop for cruise ships touring Southeast Alaska, bringing more visitors to the

Klondike Gold Rush than any other mode or means.

Road Parks  

 Alaska RailroadDenali: The Alaska Railroad operates one train between Anchorage and Fairbanks in each

direction each day during the summer, with Denali as a key destination. The trains include Alaska Railroad cars

as well as cars owned and staffed by the major tour companies. More recently, Princess Cruises has contracted

with the railroad to operate two trains per week that operate from the docks in Whittier directly to Denali.

 Alaska RailroadKenai Fjords: The Alaska Railroad, owned and operated as an Alaska State corporation, also

operates between Anchorage and Seward. During the summer, one daily train (the “Coastal Classic”) is operated

round‐trip from Anchorage to Seward and return.  

White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad accesses

Skagway, “Gateway to the Klondike”

Appendix Page 207
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 30 of 59

4.2.3. Water  

Water access to some of the park units can be via the AMHS, cruise ships, or by smaller boats. The AMHS accesses only

the Cruise Ship Parks cluster group. At one time, the AMHS provided service to Seward (and therefore Kenai Fjords) but

service was discontinued in 2004.  

Remote North Parks

No Remote North Parks are accessed by the AMHS or cruise ships. Locals

and very few adventurers may access some park units by smaller boats.

Remote South Parks

No Remote South Parks are accessed by the AMHS or cruise ships. Locals

and very few adventurers may access some park units by smaller boats.

Cruise Ship Parks

All three Cruise Ship Parks can be accessed by the AMHS. The AMHS

provides service to about 30 communities in Alaska. Most of these

communities are off the “road” system. However, the AMHS is a critical

element to Alaska’s transportation system because it does serve as part

of the National Highway System. The AMHS carries about 300,000 passengers and 100,000 vehicles every year.7 For

most residents of Southeast and Southwest Alaska, the ferry system is their highway, providing connections to other

communities and the road system. In addition to the 30 Alaskan communities, the AMHS also provides service to Prince

Rupert, British Columbia, and Bellingham, Washington. In 2010, the State, City of Gustavus, and National Park Service

constructed a new ferry dock in Gustavus, thereby allowing regular ferry service to begin for accessing Glacier Bay.  

The cruise industry plays a key role in the AKR visitation. All three of the Cruise Ship Parks (Glacier Bay, Sitka, and the

Klondike Gold Rush) are directly accessed by cruise ships. These three park units see a substantial number of visitors

who arrive by cruise ship. Changes in the number of vessels deployed in Alaska and in the itineraries each summer have

a large impact on visitation to the Cruise Ship Parks in Southeast Alaska.  

Smaller day tour boats and other personal boats are used to access these park units as well.  

Road Parks  

No Road Parks are accessed by the AMHS. Kenai Fjords is the only park unit in this cluster group that is directly accessed

by cruise ships. While Denali is not directly accessed by cruise ships, there are a substantial number of cruise ship visitors

who visit Denali. The high number of cruise ship passengers visiting Denali can be contributed partly to its location and

relatively easy accessibility by highway or rail. Also, especially in the case of Denali, the cruise industry focuses a lot of its

marketing on the parks and their attractions.  

Smaller day tour boats and other personal boats are used to access these park units as well.  

 

7 DOT&PF. February 2008. Let’s Get Moving 2030, Alaska Statewide Long‐Range Transportation Policy Plan. In association with Dye Management

Group, Inc., and HDR Alaska, Inc.

Taxi boat unloading kayaks, Kenai Fjords

Appendix Page 208
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 31 of 59

4.2.4. Air  

Air access is the most common mode for many of the park units in Alaska, particularly for the Remote North Parks and

Remote South Parks cluster groups.  

In Alaska, airports, air strips, lakes, and rivers provide

important access to communities and to those NPS units not

connected to the road or ferry systems. There are 257 public

airports owned, maintained, and operated by the State, and

42 owned and/or operated by boroughs (counties), cities, or

Federal agencies. Given that many of these airports are the

primary transportation link connecting communities to the

rest of the state, the State’s role in airports and airstrips is

much like its role in building, operating and maintaining the

network of highways in Alaska. Some of these facilities are

key for accessing NPS units.  

Parks accessed by fixed‐wing aircraft must balance providing

access to these remote areas with protecting resources.  To

plan for these park interests, many of the park unit GMPs

have called for an inventory of landing strips in the parks.8

  

  

4.2.5. Trails

In Alaska, trails are commonly used for transportation as well as recreation, whether by dogsled, snow machine, horse,

foot, bicycle, or ORVs/ATVs. In rural parts of the state, ORVs are used for work, basic transportation, subsistence, and for

recreation. Because the roadway system in Alaska is very limited, traveling by snow machine and ORV is a way of life for

many rural Alaskans.  

 

8 Draft Overview of Alaska National Park Transportation Needs and Issues paper provided by the National Park Service. Date not specified.  

May Creek Airstrip, Wrangell‐St. Elias

The key role of aviation in accessing remote Alaska park units can be illustrated by considering the example 

of visiting the Gates of the Arctic. Visitors who are interested primarily in wilderness backpacking or wildlife 

viewing can fly to Bettles from Fairbanks on a semi-scheduled small air carrier, and then fly from Bettles into 

the park on a body of water, such as a lake or river. Alternatively, one can drive from Fairbanks on the 

Dalton Highway to Coldfoot, and then fly into the park on a small plane equipped with tundra tires that can 

land on sandbars or other unimproved sites. A third option is to fly via a scheduled small carrier to the village 

of Anaktuvuk Pass, and hike into the park from the village. Apart from the Anaktuvuk Pass airport, there are 

no other public, improved facilities in the park.

Appendix Page 209
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 32 of 59

Hiking Trails

Unlike many parks in the contiguous 48 states that have

developed networks of well‐built and maintained hiking trails,

parks in Alaska feature relatively few miles of such trails. There

are several reasons for this:

 Many areas within the AKR park units are managed as

Wilderness, with no designed improvements, including

trails.

 Remote, low levels of visitation or use result in a lack of

concentrated traffic

 Much of the groundcover in many park units is easily‐traversed tundra, and trails are not generally needed.

Most commonly traveled routes cross administrative boundaries, which requires coordinated planning

Winter Trails

Winter trails for snowmachine, and to a lesser extent, dogsled,

provide vital transportation networks for local residents, particularly

in Remote North Parks. These trails are often the only available

mode of travel between villages and to subsistence resources.  

However, severe winter weather can include high winds, blowing

snow and white‐out conditions, making route finding nearly

impossible. In winter, some trails are marked for snowmachine

travel. Trail markings are an important safety element, used to

identify hazardous areas and mark direction changes in the trail.

Other available safety mechanisms used in these remote locations

include GPS, search and rescue operations, and emergency shelters.

Some emergency shelter cabins have been constructed along some of the winter trails in rural Alaska.

OHV Trails

Trails created by and for ORVs are a more complex matter. Because of the potential for resource damage, ORVs are

generally prohibited off established roads and designated routes. This prohibition includes the use of ORVs for

subsistence purposes, unless they have been shown to be a traditional means of access. ANILCA guarantees the right of

access to inholdings within park areas, subject to reasonable regulations to protect natural and other values of park

lands (see Section 4.3.1). Generally other “customary and traditional methods of access” are preferred, but if these

methods of access are not feasible or do not provide adequate access, then use of ORVs for access to inholdings may be

Chilkoot Trail, Klondike Gold Rush

Winter trail marker along the Iditarod Trail

Appendix Page 210
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 33 of 59

allowed.9  NPS decision makers have to address a wide variety of compliance considerations in determining whether to

allow or prohibit ORV uses in their areas. OHV use and access is considered on a park by park basis.

Several Alaska park unit GMPs have identified the adverse impacts caused by ORVs on park natural, aesthetic, cultural,

and scenic values as an issue needing to be addressed. ORV use is a sensitive issue, both to those who use them and to

those who want their use prohibited, particularly as it relates to crossing NPS lands. The NPS is preparing an

environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for managing recreational ORV use and its impacts in

Wrangell‐St. Elias. Glacier Bay also prepared an ORV use plan and environmental assessment (EA) for authorizing and

regulating the use of ORVs on specific routes in the preserve in support of commercial fishing as well as subsistence,

recreational activities, and other uses. Both these plans involved monitoring ORV trails and use, closing and restoring

damaged areas, designating routes, and formulating mitigation for reducing impacts. It is likely that similar planning

efforts will be needed in the future for the other Alaskan parks.10  

4.3. Other Alaska‐Unique Access Issues in Alaska

The NPS recognizes and considers a number of acts and statutes as they pertain to addressing access issue sin Alaska.

This section briefly describes the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA). Other specific access issues related to easements and rights of way.

4.3.1. ANCSA / ANILCA

Prior to statehood, nearly all land in Alaska was federally‐owned. The 1959 Alaska Statehood Act granted the State

selection of 104 million acres of federal public land. Much of the land selected for State ownership consisted of lands

traditionally used by Alaska Natives. Contention and several lawsuits arose as a result. This situation finally led to broad

Alaska Native community objections and resulted in a freeze on further state land selections until Congress could settle

the Native claim issues.

In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), a fundamental purpose of which was

resolution of Native land claims. ANCSA created thirteen Native‐owned regional corporations, granted them nearly $1

billion in seed money, and entitled the Native corporations to select 44 million acres of federal public lands in Alaska.

ANCSA Section 17(d)(2) also provided for withdrawal of 80 million acres to be studied for possible designation as

national parks, fish and wildlife refuges, national forests, and wild and scenic rivers.

Signed into law on December 2, 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) created 21 new

conservation system units, designated 3210 miles of wild and scenic rivers and 57 million acres of designated wilderness,

and expanded 12 existing parks and refuges, influencing over 157 million acres in Alaska.  

ANILCA provides management direction for all federal public lands in Alaska. Title VIII and Title XI contain relevant

sections of statutes that apply to transportation, as indicated in the following paragraphs.

 

9 Draft Overview of Alaska National Park Transportation Needs and Issues paper provided by the National Park Service. Date not specified. 10 Ibid.

Appendix Page 211
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 34 of 59

Title VIII – Subsistence management and use  

Section 810 of Title VIII discusses subsistence and land use decisions. Section 810 requires that federal agencies must

consider the effects of their actions on subsistence use and take reasonable steps to minimize the impacts. The federal

agencies have adopted a formal process for conducting subsistence evaluations.  

Section 811 of Title VIII discusses access. Section 811(a) ensures that residents shall have reasonable access to

subsistence resources, and Section 811(b) provides for the appropriate and reasonably regulated use of snowmobiles,

motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally utilized by local residents.

Title XI– Transportation and utility systems in and across, and access into, conservation system

units

Title XI of ANILCA provides for:

 Adequate and feasible access to and from villages, home sites, traditional activities, and State and private

inholdings for economic and other activities

 The use of snowmachines, motorboats, airplanes and nonmotorized surface transportation, subject to

reasonable regulations

 A decision‐making process for evaluating transportation and utility system across all federal public lands.

Section 1110 of Title XI addresses special access and access to inholdings.  Section 1110(b) guarantees access for state,

Native and other private inholders. This is one of the sections where there is much discussion and conflict between

federal land management agencies and Alaska residents.

4.3.2. ANCSA 17(b) Public Easements

The U.S. Congress passed ANCSA in 1971 to settle Native Alaskan’s native land claims. Subsequently, Native corporations

were created and were granted the right to select and receive title to withdrawn public lands. To guarantee continued

access to publicly‐owned lands, major water ways, and other public uses as specified in the regulations, public

easements were granted, known as 17(b) public easements.

The validity of 17(b) public easement claims and whether or not 17(b) public easements fall under the management

authority of the NPS is made on a case‐by‐case basis.  Issues associated with 17(b) public easements include members of

the public leaving the easement to trespass on Native lands and illegal OHV use on 17(b) public easements not

designated for OHV use.

Because of the local nature of case‐by‐case determination of RS2477 rights‐of‐way and 17(b) easements, this AKR LRTP

will not address these access issues directly.

4.3.3. RS 2477 Right‐of‐way  

The State of Alaska claims a number of roads, trails and pathways across federal lands under Revised Statute 2477,

which comes from a section in the Mining Act of 1866. This section refers to the granting of public right‐of‐way access

across unreserved Federal land as land is transferred to State or private ownership. The RS 2477 states: “The right of

Appendix Page 212
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 35 of 59

way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.” The historical

meaning of ”highways” referred to foot trails, pack trails, sled dog trails, crudely built wagon roads, and other

transportation corridors.

Congress repealed the law in 1976; however, in Alaska, the opportunity to establish new RS 2477 rights‐of‐way generally

ended December 14, 1968, with the Federal government issuing Public Land Order 4582the “land freeze” in

preparation of the settlement of Alaska Native land claims. Although no new rights‐of‐way could be established after

Federal land was reserved or appropriated, these actions did not extinguish pre‐existing rights.  

The validity of RS 2477 rights‐of‐way is determined on a case by case basis.

4.4. Access Conclusions and Recommendations

Data gaps and limitations are summarized in Section 7. The following are recommended actions so that identified needs

and concerns can be addressed. These recommended actions are not intended to be a part of an all‐inclusive list, but

rather a starting point for further discussion.

1. Access management for ATVs/OHVs is an ongoing issue and stretches across multiple park units and cluster

groups.

2. Intense congestion occurs during select times, mostly occurring in park units that see a high number of cruise

ship industry visitors. (Cruise Ship Parks and some Road Parks)

 Action: Continue to make improvements to improve the infrastructure and make conditions safer.

Appendix Page 213
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 36 of 59

5. Safety 

5.1. Introduction  

The safety objective entails “providing safe access to and within Park lands and ensuring that transportation

infrastructure and operations are safe within Alaska parks.” Project staff examined crash and safety data to gain a

better understanding of what relevant safety concerns exist in relation to accessing and traveling within AKR park units.

Project staff collected and reviewed relevant NPS crash or fatality data as well as ancillary safety data from other state

and Federal agencies. This section contains a summary of this data as well as recommendations on crash reporting

protocol that could serve to provide more meaningful safety data for future analyses.

5.2. Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview

The following three sources of information were reviewed to assess the existing conditions and needs related to safety

at the cluster group level. These sources include:

 NPS PMIS online database  

 Unit‐level surveys conducted specifically for this LRTP effort.  

 Other existing NPS planning and management documents.  

The results of looking at the PMIS safety‐related projects, conducting the park unit surveys, and reviewing other NPS

planning and management documents are summarized below and listed in Table 15. The safety topics listed below

contain those existing conditions and needs that were identified in more than one cluster group.  

Safety  

 Severe weather conditions or natural hazards can impact the transportation system. (Three cluster groups:

Remote South Parks, Cruise Ship Parks, and Road Parks)

 Trail improvements or restoration efforts are needed due to safety concerns. (All four cluster groups)

 Road and pedestrian improvements are needed due to inadequate or unsafe infrastructure. (Two cluster groups:

Remote South Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

 Boating safety concerns exist. (Two cluster groups: Remote South Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

 Need for rehabilitation or maintenance of airstrips. (Three cluster groups: Remote North Parks, Cruise Ship

Parks, and Road Parks)

 Pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion are safety issues. (Two cluster groups: Cruise Ship Parks and Road Parks)

Appendix Page 214
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 37 of 59

Table 15:  Summary of Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs

Identified Safety‐Related Issues Information Source  

PMIS   Unit Surveys   NPS Planning

Documents

Cluster

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad Parks

Safety

Insufficient infrastructure    X X    

Inconsistent safety data reporting X

Severe weather conditions or natural hazards and impacts   X X X X X X

Search and rescue/ coordination with other groups X

Road and airport safety concerns    X

Boating safety/ analyze safety of fleet vessel X    X X

Inadequate lighting in parking lot    X

Modal conflicts and capacity issues     X

Road safety improvements needed or proposed X X     X X

Inadequate information about road conditions     X

Winter trail safety X X     X

Facilitate safe bear viewing X      

Commercial operator training X      

Trail safety/ restoration improvements X X X      

Rehabilitate / maintain airstrip surface    X X X     X

Pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion    X X       X

Dock improvements    X      

More than 100 air taxi operators access park          X

5.2.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Safety‐Related Projects

A review of AKR projects in PMIS extracted on February 10, 2011 showed about 160 projects were related to the specific

mobility topics of access, safety, and visitor information. Of the three mobility categories, 94 projects were safety‐

related. Table 16 summarizes the AKR PMIS safety‐related projects and includes the funding status and project type by

cluster group.

Appendix Page 215
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 38 of 59

Table 16:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Safety‐Related Projects

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

3 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: none

 Funded: 2

Types of projects

Winter trail safety

Facility rehabilitation

11 projects

 Requested: 4

 Formulated: 1

 Funded: 6

Types of projects

Facilitate safe bear

viewing

Commercial operator

training

Road/trail safety

improvements

25 projects

 Requested: 6

 Formulated:203

 Funded: 9

Types of projects

Rehabilitate airstrip surface

Pedestrian/vehicle congestion

Trail safety improvements

Analyze safety of fleet vessel

Dock safety

55 projects

 Requested: 3

 Formulated:6

 Funded: 46

Types of projects

Pedestrian/vehicle traffic

safety

Trail safety improvements

Road safety improvements

Rehabilitate airstrip surface

5.2.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Safety

As part of this LRTP process, park unit‐level transportation surveys were conducted in person or via teleconference in

May and June 2010. Table 17 summarizes some of the key safety‐related issues discussed or describes existing

conditions as reported by local park unit‐level NPS personnel. A majority of the issues identified during the surveys were

related to safety, as compared to access or visitor information. This may be indicative of park units having firsthand “on

the ground” knowledge. This is not intended to be an exhaustive or all‐inclusive list of the existing conditions or issues.  

Remote North Parks  

The park unit surveys conducted for the Remote North Parks indicate there is some interagency coordination occurring

with regard to winter trail staking. Winter trail staking and marking was identified as a key safety issue due to the severe

winter weather conditions that often blow the stakes away. Other safety conditions and needs identified include safety

shelter cabins being in poor condition, inconsistent and oftentimes no safety data being reported, and the need for basic

runway maintenance.  

Remote South Parks  

A variety of road and airport safety concerns were voiced, some of which include motor vehicle crashes due to soft road

shoulders and a fatal of aviation crash occurring in 2010. Natural hazards, such as volcanoes, bad weather, and severe

snowstorms were reported as having impacts to aviation. Aviation safety is a key issue for these remote parks,

particularly because the NPS does not control aviation into the park.  

Appendix Page 216
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 39 of 59

Cruise Ship Parks

Vessel groundings occur every other year in Glacier Bay, possibly due to outdated charts and in spite of efforts to

educate. Sitka reported inadequate lighting in its parking lot. Modal conflicts and capacity issues related to cruise ship

visitation were also reported.  

Road Parks

A number of safety‐related issues were identified. Road and pedestrian infrastructure improvements were cited as being

needed.  

Table 17:  Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys  

Remote North Parks Remote South

Parks

Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

Interagency coordination: Interagency

coordination is occurring (Bering Land

Bridge)

 Shishmaref relocation with DOT&PF;

winter trail staking with Kawerak

(nonprofit)

Insufficient infrastructure (winter trail

markings, shelter cabins)

Lack of basic runway maintenance

Inconsistent safety data reporting

among units  

 Some units lack crash or fatality data

unless learned by word of mouth.

Other units document incidents in a

yearly report.

Severe weather conditions and impacts

 Thawing permafrost results in frost

heaves on airstrips.

 Winter trail markings are blown over

by heavy winds.

Search and Rescue coordination: NPS

assists with approximately 12 search

and rescue operations along winter

trails yearly (Western Arctic National

Parklands management unit)

Road and

airport safety

concerns

(Katmai and

Lake Clark)

Boating safety: Vessel

groundings occur every

other year in Glacier

Bay, in spite of NPS

efforts to educate.

Charts are out of date.  

Inadequate lighting in

parking lot (Sitka)

Modal conflicts and

capacity issues

(Klondike Gold Rush)

Inadequate infrastructure/ road

safety improvements needed:

There is a lack of shoulder for

bicycles and pedestrians in

roadways (Kenai Fjords).

Natural hazards: Natural hazards

generate safety concerns, such

as ice on planes and wilderness

smoke that compromises

visibility for aviation and boating

(Yukon‐Charley).

Road safety: The road design is

dangerous (McCarthy Road).

Inadequate information about

road conditions (Wrangell‐St.

Elias)

Road safety: Park road

conditions are variable, including

soft shoulders, soft road areas,

and narrow sections (Denali).

Appendix Page 217
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 40 of 59

5.2.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Safety

A number of NPS planning and management documents were reviewed to identify trends and existing conditions and

needs including park unit general management plans (GMPs), foundation statements, and park asset management plans

(PAMPs). The identified safety conditions and needs are summarized in Table 18.  

Table 18:  Identified Safety‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from NPS Planning and Management Documents  

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

Severe weather conditions can

occur year‐round, causing delays

in transportation.

Airstrip maintenance: The Bering

Land Bridge GMP calls for landing

strip maintenance at Serpentine

Hot Springs in Bering Land Bridge.

Winter trail marking: The Kobuk

Valley GMP cites the State of

Alaska as funding the marking of

winter trails throughout

Northwest Alaska.

Boat safety: Public

safety is a growing

safety concern in

Alagnak with potential

collisions associated

with high‐speed

motorboats.

Frequent and severe

weather conditions

affect access, resulting

in closed runways.

Pedestrian congestion:

Short‐condensed park

visits by large numbers

of cruise ship

passengers cause high

congestion at times,

presenting challenges

to park staff.

Proposed road design: To

address road safety concerns,

a previous DOT&PF study

(Interior Region

Transportation Study)

recommended McCarthy Road

to be widened, though the

NPS recommended that

DOT&PF maintain the road in

essentially its current

condition with improvements

for public safety as needed.

   

5.3. Safety Data Overview

Safety data was obtained for both NPS‐owned and ‐managed transportation assets and systems and also those assets

and systems not under NPS’ management or jurisdiction, such as State‐owned facilities or systems. Project staff

collected and reviewed the following available safety‐related data:  

 NPS’ Service‐wide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS): NPS traffic incidents reported at the park unit level  

 NPS’ Safety Management Information System (SMIS): NPS staff incidents involving government‐owned vehicles

and other vehicles reported at the park unit level

 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) statewide roadway accident records: To

identify fatalities occurring near or within park units

 National Transportation Safety Board aviation accident database: To identify incidences (aviation crashes and

fatalities) occurring near or within park units

 U.S. Coast Guard Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) system: To identify incidences (reported recreational

boating incidents and fatalities) occurring near or within park units

Appendix Page 218
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 41 of 59

5.3.1. NPS Accident Data

Vehicular travel within Alaska’s park units is extremely limited due to the small number of constructed roadways within

the parks themselves. The NPS provided the project team a spreadsheet containing reported vehicular crashes in

Alaska’s park units between 1990 and 2006. The crash information is derived from STARS, which contains traffic accident

data at the park unit level. It is likely a large number of accidents may not be reported in the STARS, however, so the

data may not be complete.11

The most noteworthy road within STARS is the Denali Park Road, in terms of visitor use, significance within the park

systems, and number of accidents recorded. Figure 4 shows approximately 95% of all vehicular accidents recorded from

1990 to 2006 in Alaska have occurred in Denali. The park unit with the next most reported number of vehicular

accidents is Katmai, with eight incidents occurring between 1992 and 1994. These eight incidents occurred on either the

roadway or parking lots. No other vehicular accidents were reported after 1994 (to 2006), which represents either the

safety record improved or data was not reported.

Figure 4:  Number of Vehicular Accidents by Park Unit (1990‐2006)

Of the 216 accidents occurring in Denali, 58% of them occurred on the Denali Park Road. Figure 5 shows the primary

locations of these accidents in Denali. The George Parks Highway, which travels through only a small portion in the

northeast corner of the park boundary, is included in the data set. Insufficient information exists to confirm this,

however. For instance, within STARS, the Denali Park Road is identified inconsistently. For this particular road, the road

name attribute within STARS is denoted by three different names:  Denali Park Road, McKinley Park Road, or Park Road.

In this instance, all values for the three ”park road” locations were totaled and presented in Figure 5 as Denali Park

Road. It is important to keep in mind there may be other potential reporting discrepancies with the STARS data.  

 

11 Source: National Park Service. December 2005. Inside Transportation News E‐Newsletter. Accessed on March 30, 2010:

http://www.nps.gov/transportation/tmp/documents/InsideTransprtnNews_Dec0105_final.pdf

Denali, 216

Katmai, 8

Sitka,1 Glacier Bay, 2

Wrangell‐St.

Elias,1

Denali

Katmai

Glacier Bay

Sitka

Wrangell‐St. Elias

Source: 

STARS 1990-2006

Total Accidents: 228

Appendix Page 219
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 42 of 59

Figure 5:  Location of Accidents within Denali National Park and Preserve (1990‐2006)

The AKR also maintains a safety database, SMIS. The SMIS catalogs incidents occurred by NPS staff involving

government‐owned vehicles and other vehicles (rentals, snow machines), as reported by individual park units. Case

reports provided by NPS dating back to 2000 show a very small number of reported incidents. Of the 19 case reports

available, 12 were confirmed as having occurred within a park. Of these 12, seven of them (almost 40%) occurred in

Denali. The other reported cases either occurred outside of a park boundary or the location was uncertain based on the

information provided. All incidents were described as random injuries occurring while employees were at work. No

trends could be identified.

5.3.2. Alaska DOT&PF Statewide Roadway Fatality Data

DOT&PF provided roadway fatality data for the major highways in Alaska from 2007 through 2010. This information is

maintained in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a national database that contains information on all known

motor vehicle traffic crashes in which there was at least one fatality. During this time frame, there were 132 fatalities.

The Seward Highway, used to access Kenai Fjords, had the highest number with 32 fatalities. The Parks Highway, used to

access Denali, had the second highest number with 31 fatalities.   Figure 6 depicts the state roadways with the

greatest number of fatalities s between 2007 and 2010.

Denali Park Road

58%

George Parks

Highway

19%

Denali Park

Hotel

6%

Visitor Center

Parking

4%

Riley Creek Area

4%

Visitor Center RV

Parking

2%

Teklanika

Campground

Loop

2%

Route 10

2%

Savage Rock

Parking

1%

(Near) McKinley

Park

1%

Headquarters

Area

1%

Source: STARS 1990-2006

Appendix Page 220
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 43 of 59

Figure 6:  Major Highway Fatalities in Alaska (2007‐2010)

5.3.3. National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Data  

With only one‐fourth park units in Alaska directly accessible by roadway, aviation plays an integral part in accessing

Alaska’s park units. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) aviation accident database contains the most

comprehensive source of data for civil aviation crashes and fatalities. The NTSB provided a spreadsheet of all aviation

accidents occurring in Alaska from 2000 to 2009. Of the 1,162 accidents, roughly 88%, or 1,027, of the reported

accidents have available latitude/longitude coordinates, which makes it capable of being brought into GIS. Figure 7 and

Figure 8 show the map‐able aviation accidents (fatal and non‐fatal) in relation to the Alaska’s park units. Spatial analysis

of the aviation accident data shows a concentration of accidents around the most populated areas of the state, which

includes Anchorage, north of Anchorage in the Matanuska‐Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks. In relation to the park units,

less than 7% (67 accidents) of the 1,027 accidents that were mapped occurred within a national park.  

0 10 20 30 40

DALTON HIGHWAY

STEESE HIGHWAY

RICHARDSON HIGHWAY

GLENN HIGHWAY

PARKS HIGHWAY

SEWARD HIGHWAY

Source: AK DOT&PF 2011

Kenai Fjords

Used to Access:

Denali

Wrangell‐St. Elias

Wrangell‐St. Elias

Yukon‐Charley

Gates of the Arctic

NUMBER OF FATALITIES

Appendix Page 221
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 44 of 59

Figure 7:  Aviation Crashes in Alaska (2000‐2009)

Figure 8:  Aviation Crashes within Alaska Region Park Units (2000‐2009)

Appendix Page 222
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 45 of 59

5.3.4. U.S. Coast Guard Boating Accident Data  

Every year, the U.S. Coast Guard compiles statistics on reported recreational boating accidents and fatalities. These

numbers come from boating accident reports that are filed by the owners or operators involved in the boating accidents

and the investigative reports that are filed by local authorities. The information is maintained in the Boating Accident

Report Database (BARD) maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of

Boating Safety submits accident report data to the U.S. Coast Guard for inclusion in their annual statistics publication.  

The U.S. Coast Guard provided to the project team recreational (non‐commercial) boating accident and fatality data for

2003 through 2009. Precise locations of the incidents are not reported, so it is difficult to ascertain whether incidents

occurred on waterways within a park unit boundary. Of the approximately more than 500 separate reported incidents in

Alaska occurring between 2003 and 2009 (that contained longitude/latitude information that could be used to

determine the general location of the incident), only about a dozen occurred within a NPS park unit.  The Cruise Ship

Parks and Road Parks cluster groups had the most recorded incidents of those that could be geo‐referenced. The

accuracy and/or relevancy of this data are uncertain and therefore not included at the park unit level. The types of

incidents seemed to be a mix of user error, equipment failure, or weather‐related.  

5.4. Safety Conclusions and Recommendations

Data gaps and limitations are summarized in Section 7. The following are recommended actions so that identified needs

and concerns can be addressed. These recommended actions are not intended to be a part of an all‐inclusive list, but

rather a starting point for further discussion.

1. Trail improvements or restoration efforts are identified needs due to safety concerns. (Three of the four cluster

groups, excluding Remote North Parks)

2. There is a need for basic runway maintenance and airstrip rehabilitation. (Three of the four cluster groups,

excluding Remote South Parks)

3. There are modal conflicts and capacity issues related to cruise ship visitation. (Two cluster groups: Remote South

Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fatal

Non‐Fatal

Source: National Transportation Safety Board2010

Appendix Page 223
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 46 of 59

 Action: Continue to make road and pedestrian improvements to improve the infrastructure and make

conditions safer.

4. Intense congestion occurs during select times at park units that see a high number of cruise industry visitors.

(Two cluster groups: Cruise Ship Parks and Road Parks)

 Action: Continue to make improvements related to pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion.  

5. Boating safety concerns exist. (Two cluster groups: Remote South Parks and Cruise Ship Parks)

6. Safe winter trail travel is an identified issue and ongoing concern in the Remote North Parks. Winter trail staking

and marking was identified as a key safety issue, especially since the stakes and markings are often blown over

by heavy winds. The park unit surveys conducted for the Remote North Parks indicate there is some interagency

coordination occurring with regard to winter trail staking.

 Action:  Continue to seek and encourage interagency coordination with winter trail staking and

marking. Identify, develop and leverage partnerships and funding sources to accomplish this work, such

as Bureau of Indian Affairs funds, funds from the Borough, village non‐profits, or Northern Region

DOT&PF.

7. Other identified safety issues include the safety shelter cabins along these winter trail routes as being in poor

condition.

Appendix Page 224
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 47 of 59

6. Visitor Information 

6.1. Introduction

Access to and within the NPS park units can be a defining experience for

NPS visitors. This is particularly the case for parks in Alaska, where the

journey can be as exciting and memorable as the destination.

Visitors to most of Alaska’s national parks generally are not your

average tourist. For more than half of the park units in Alaska, park

visitors need to be skilled with backcountry experience or knowledge to

survive harsh climate or conditions. At these parks, prior planning is

critical, as a first‐time park visitor must plan transportation logistics

prior to arrival. Even for the road‐accessible parks or parks frequented

by a high number of cruise ship passengers, information about available

modes and other key services is critical for the visitor.

With the dawning of social media in the last decade and the age of the

internet in the last 20 years, the methods to disseminate visitor and

traveler information have changed considerably. While hard‐copy

brochures are still mailed to prospective visitors by State of Alaska

tourism groups, potential Alaska visitors can find an array of materials

online.  

This section highlights some of the key visitor information sources that have traditionally been used in the past by AKR

park visitors. This section also describes other sources of visitor information, including the internet and other social

media, and non‐NPS sources such as NPS concessionaires and other agencies.  

6.2. Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs Overview

The following three sources of information were reviewed to assess the existing conditions and needs related to visitor

information at the cluster group level. These sources include:

 NPS PMIS online database  

 Unit‐level surveys conducted specifically for this LRTP effort.  

 Other existing NPS planning and management documents.  

The results of looking at the PMIS mobility‐related projects, conducting the park unit surveys, and reviewing other NPS

planning and management documents are summarized below and listed in Table 19. The visitor information topics listed

below contain those existing conditions and needs that were identified in more than one cluster group.  

National Park Service Brochures

Appendix Page 225
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 48 of 59

Visitor Information  

 Concessionaires or air taxis do most of the advertising and marketing. (Three of the four cluster groups, Remote

South Parks, Cruise Ship Parks, and Road Parks)

 Interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks are needed. (Two cluster groups: Remote North Parks and Road Parks)

Table 19:  Summary of Identified Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs

Issue Source  

PMIS   Unit Surveys   NPS Planning

Documents

Cluster

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad ParksRemote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship ParksRoad Parks

Visitor Information

Visitor information materials are outdated X

Non‐NPS entities (air taxis or concessionaires) do the

marketing/ advertising

X X X

Lack of visitor information    X

Provide interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks X X

Repair /replace information signs X

Implement shuttle system and associated infrastructure X

New visitor information materials proposed    X

6.2.1. NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) Visitor Information‐Related

Projects

A review of AKR projects in PMIS extracted on February 10, 2011 showed about 160 projects were related to the specific

mobility topics of access, safety, and visitor information. Of the three mobility categories, 11 projects were related to

visitor information. Table 20 summarizes these AKR PMIS projects and includes the funding status and project type by

cluster group.

Appendix Page 226
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 49 of 59

Table 20:  NPS Project Management Information Systems (PMIS) Visitor Information‐Related Projects

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

2 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: 1

 Funded: none

Types of projects

Install roadside kiosks  

Dalton Highway audio tour

No projects No projects 9 projects

 Requested: 1

 Formulated: 0

 Funded: 8

Types of projects

Install roadside kiosks (McCarthy Road)

Repair/replace information signs

Implement shuttle system and associated

infrastructure

6.2.2. Park Unit Survey Results Regarding Visitor Information  

As part of this LRTP process, park unit‐level transportation surveys were conducted in person or via teleconference in

May and June 2010. Table 21 summarizes some of the key visitor information‐related issues discussed or describes

existing conditions as reported by local park unit‐level NPS personnel. Survey results by cluster group are summarized

below. A majority of the issues identified during the surveys were related to safety, as compared to access or visitor

information. This may be indicative of park units having firsthand “on the ground” knowledge. This is not intended to be

an exhaustive or all‐inclusive list of the existing conditions or issues.  

Table 21:  Identified Visitor Information‐Related Existing Conditions and Needs from 2010 Unit Surveys  

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

Visitor information

materials are outdated

(Bering Land Bridge)

Airtaxis do marketing/

advertising (Lake Clark

General Management

Plan cites more than 100

air taxis)  

Concessionaire does the

marketing/advertising (Aramark for

Glacier Bay)  

Lack of visitor information: There is

little to no public outreach.

Wayfinding at the dock and at the

ferry terminal is inadequate (Sitka).

Concessionaire and the

Alaska Railroad do their

own

advertising/marketing

6.2.3. Other NPS Planning and Management Documents Discussing Mobility

A number of NPS planning and management documents were reviewed to identify trends and existing conditions and

needs including park unit general management plans (GMPs), foundation statements, and park asset management plans

(PAMPs). Visitor information issues were not immediately identifiable in the documentation for the following three

cluster groups: Remote North Parks, Cruise Ship Parks, and Road Parks. For the Remote South Parks, the Katmai GMP

cited needed upgrades and improvements, which included interpretive exhibits.

Appendix Page 227
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 50 of 59

6.3. Visitor Information Overview

For visitor information, the team considered how visitor information gets distributed for the AKR park units. Generally,

there is a not a region‐wide effort. Park visitors who check in with the individual park visitor information centers usually

obtain a park map that describes facilities and services the visitor should know about during their visit. However, a lot of

planning usually occurs prior to a visitor arriving at a park in Alaska. The team looked at a variety of these types of

information sources, including NPS materials such as previous visitor surveys and websites and non‐NPS materials such

as other governmental entity websites. The team also considered some of the other visitor information distribution

methods used by other NPS regions.

6.4. Methods to Disseminate Information to the NPS Traveler  

6.4.1. NPS Visitor Survey‐Identified Information Sources

In conjunction with the University of Idaho, the NPS has been conducting visitor

surveys at many of its park units nationwide since 1988. Visitor survey results are

intended to provide NPS managers with visitor information that can be used to

improve services, protect resources, and manage parks more efficiently. Since

the program began, the Visitor Services Project has conducted surveys in more

than 178 NPS park units.12 To date, visitor surveys have been conducted in seven

park units in Alaska: three Road Parks (Denali, Kenai Fjords, and Wrangell St.

Elias), three Cruise Ship Parks (Glacier Bay, Sitka, and Klondike Gold Rush), and

one Remote South Park (Katmai). Most of these surveys occurred in the 1990s,

except for visitor surveys conducted in Katmai and Denali in 2006.  

Over the years, the visitor surveys have contained questions regarding how visitors obtain park information prior to

their park visit. Table 22 and  

Figure 9 summarize six of these surveys, showing how visitor groups most often obtained information about the park

they were visiting prior to their visit. Travel guides/ tour books and word of mouth historically have been the most

common sources of information. The internet, including NPS web pages, has become an increasingly popular source for

information. However, prior to 1997, the Visitor Park Surveys did not contain “source of information” questions that

included answer options for internet/websites. Therefore, older surveys do not reflect internet use as an information

source. See Section 6.6 for suggested recommendations and actions related to the need for improving the visitor

surveys.

Surveyed visitors for Wrangell‐St. Elias and Kenai Fjords, both Roads Parks, cited the Alaska Milepost guidebook as one

of the top sources for information. This may be indicative of independent travelers visiting these Road Parks park units

and being proactive about the need to obtain information. Alternatively, cruise ship passengers would likely not be using

the Alaska Milepost as an information source. Interestingly, more than half of the surveyed visitors in 1998 to the

 

12 NPS Visitor Services Project Web page: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.htm. Accessed February 2, 2010.

Kennecott Mine, Wrangell‐St. Elias

Appendix Page 228
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 51 of 59

Klondike Gold Rush reported receiving no information about the park prior to their visit. More than likely, a significant

number of those surveyed visitors were cruise ship passengers.

Appendix Page 229
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 52 of 59

Table 22:  Information Sources AKR Visitors Used Prior to their Park Visit, as Reported in NPS Visitor Surveys  

Park Unit  

(Survey Year)  

Cluster Group

Number

of visitor

groups

surveyed

Top visitor‐identified

information source

Second most visitor‐

identified information

source

Third most visitor‐

identified information

source

Katmai (2006)

Remote South Park

425 Travel guides/ tour books Friends/ relatives/ word

of mouth

Park website

Denali (2006)  

Road Park

758 Travel guides/ tour books Friends/ relatives/ word

of mouth

Package tours

Kenai Fjords (1999)

Road Park

318 Travel guides/ tour books Friends/ relatives/ word

of mouth

Alaska Milepost

Glacier Bay (1999)

Cruise Ship Park

532 Travel guides/ tour books Friends/ relatives/ word

of mouth

Park website

Klondike Gold

Rush (1998)  

Cruise Ship Park

521 No information Travel guides/ tour books Maps/ brochures

Wrangell‐St. Elias

(1995) Road Park

437 Alaska Milepost Friends/ relatives/ word

of mouth

Travel guides/ tour books

Appendix Page 230
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 53 of 59

Figure 9:  Information Sources that Park Visitors Used Prior to their Park Visit, by Percentage  

6.4.2. Technology: Websites, Social Media, and Smartphones

Current information technologies make it possible to access information at previously unprecedented levels.

Information systems such as the NPS website, social media, and downloadable phone applications are used to promote

access to and knowledge of transportation services.  

The nps.gov website contains a plethora of information, including maps, cultural and historical stories, fees, and

operating hours and seasons. In terms of mobility, NPS websites offer information on directions, “things to know before

you come,” ways to get around, and lists of transportation and guide services. NPS web pages also incorporate

multimedia features such as cultural videos (e.g., video on an archaeological dig in Gates of the Arctic) or audio tours

(e.g., the Nabesna Road audio tour in Wrangell‐St. Elias).  

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% of Visitors Using

Information Source

Visitor‐identified Information Sources

Denali (2006)

Kenai Fjords (1999)

Wrangell St. Elias (1995)

Katmai (2006)

Glacier Bay (1999)

Klondike Gold Rush (1998)

Sources:  Various University of Idaho/NPS

Visitor Services Project surveys

Appendix Page 231
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 54 of 59

In addition to websites, the NPS is also disseminating information through social mediums such as Facebook, Flickr, and

Twitter. In Alaska, ranger programs are being delivered through Facebook (Bering Land Bridge). Official park visitor

guides (Glacier Bay) are also being made available through Facebook. For Denali, rangers are posting blogs about their

dogsled patrols. With only one‐fourth of the AKR park units on the formal road system, technology provides a way to

share the park visitor experience with those who do not have the opportunity to visit the parks in person. For Kobuk, the

NPS created a Flickr webpage as a way to extend the “virtual park boundary,” allowing park visitors to post photos, video

clips, and journal entries to share with others. Park units use Twitter to send park updates such as the bear viewing at

Brooks Camp (Katmai) or events at Bering Land Bridge.  

NPS Websites, Multimedia and Social Media

All AKR park unit websites contain a “Plan Your Visit” webpage. This is a likely place to begin for a potential park visitor

to obtain information. Advanced planning is critical for many of the national parks in Alaska. Many of the park unit

websites emphasize this.

Remote North Parks  

Most of the Remote North Parks’ web pages imply a “do it yourself” (DIY) sufficiency as a necessary skill for the visitor to

have at these isolated parks. Most of these park units’ websites list licensed air transporters or air taxis and recommend

that visitors contact these service providers prior to arrival to facilitate trip planning. Four of the five Remote North

Parks list some type of social media for obtaining information or to "visit the park" virtually. The other remaining park,

Gates of the Arctic, contains “multimedia presentations” on its webpage.

Visitor Centers to Handheld Devices: The Changing Nature of Technology 

In April 2011, the NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis spoke to a group of university students about the changing 

role of the NPS visitor center, alluding to the changing nature of how visitor information is being distributed. 

“We have long believed that the visitor center was the gateway to the park; the first stop to learn all that the 

park had to offer—where to go and what to see.” But maybe that’s not necessarily the case today. 

“They download everything they need to iPhones, iPads, Droid, devices that also tell them where they 

are and where they want to be, and allow them to share the experience in real time with friends and 

family anywhere on the planet.” 

“Today’s visitors are more technologically attuned than ever before. Many people—and not just those under 30 

—plan their visits online, using the National Park Service’s website and other sources to find interactive maps, 

watch videos of the trails they will hike, listen to podcasts about the wildlife they will encounter, and study 

online exhibits on the history of the place. 

Source: NPS Digest. April 27, 2011. Conservation, Design and the 21st Century National Parks: NPS Director Talks with UVA Architecture 

Students. http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/

Appendix Page 232
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 55 of 59

Remote South Parks  

All of the websites for the Remote South Parks list transportation or guiding services that are authorized to conduct

business within the parks. The Remote South Parks websites also allude to the necessity of self‐sufficiency for the visitor.

For Katmai, links are given for the lodging concessionaire.

Cruise Ship Parks

In comparison to the remote north and south parks, the Cruise Ship Parks web pages tend to focus on things to do at the

park rather than how to get there. Informational leaflets, hiking trail brochures, and guides for the visitor center and

Russian Bishop’s House (Sitka) are available on these websites. Cruise Ship Parks also utilize social media like Facebook.

Road Parks

Visitor information available on the Road Parks web pages tends to be a bit more diverse than within the other cluster

groups. While Kenai Fjords is on the road system, a significant amount of people visit the park by boat tours, of which

some of the larger tours provide Park Ranger narration. In 2011, the NPS website for Denali launched a new page of

virtual tours, guides, and resources to help visitors plan and enhance their experiences in the park. The new web page

has three new eFeatures called ePlanner, eGuide, and eResource. The ePlanner is intended to help the visitor determine

which type of bus they would want to take to go into the park depending upon their desired visitor experience. The

eGuide provides visitors with information about what to expect on ranger‐guided hiking trips. The eResource displays

the results of a 2006–2009 noise inventory study in the park. These are newer features on the park websites.

NPS Concessionaires and Commercial Use Authorizations  

As of the end of 2010, the NPS Office of Concession Operations reported there were approximately 360 commercial use

authorizations (CUA) providing a wide range of commercial services for visitors to the NPS park units in Alaska. Some of

the services these groups provide include air taxi, big game transport, backpacking and kayaking guiding, hunting and

sportfishing guiding, and boat charters. These CUAs provide a great deal of visitor information. These operators are

listed on the NPS AKR web pages.

Smartphones 

Downloadable applications for smartphones have started to become available at NPS locations. A recent 

example in the Lower 48 includes an available app for a Civil War battlefields tour entitled “Battle App.” Civil 

War Trust, a non-profit organization devoted to preserving Civil War battlefields, designed the app. In addition 

to showing the location of the historic sites, each historic location is explained with text or in some cases by a 

park ranger via a short video presentation. The tour takes visitors to four NPS-protected sites as well as other 

lesser-known battlefield locations. Source www.civilwar.org/. Accessed May 16, 2011. 

Appendix Page 233
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 56 of 59

Concessionaires play a key role in supporting the visitor experience by providing park visitors with transportation,

lodging, food services, shops, and other facilities and services. The NPS works closely with concessionaires.

Concessionaires are vital sources of information for park visitors and

concessionaire employees can provide a wealth of information and

guidance to visitors at the parks  

Two different concessionaires operate both buses and lodging services

in AKR parks: in Katmai and Denali. The NPS AKR park web pages

provide links to both of these concessionaire websites. Katmailand

also provides bus service along the 23‐mile road between Brooks

Camp and the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes. In Denali,

Doyon/ARAMARK Joint Venture provides bus tours, park shuttles,

food services, campground, and retail outlets within Denali.  

6.4.3. Traveler Information System  

For a number of reasons, including visitor congestion and strains on existing park transportation systems, the NPS

continues to explore new ways to provide access and information to park visitors.  

According to the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, traveler information systems (TIS) or intelligent

transportation systems (ITS) are tools that provide real‐time transit and traffic information (e.g., when the next bus will

arrive, levels of road congestion, travel time between two points, etc.). These appear to be valuable tools, though may

not necessarily be entirely applicable to parks in Alaska. These issues tend to be congestion‐related, which is not an

identified region‐wide concern in Alaska, except for intense periods when cruise ship passengers are embarking or

disembarking from one mode of transportation to another (e.g., between rail and bus in Denali or cruise ship to foot or

bus in ports of call like Skagway at Klondike Gold Rush).

The Volpe Center works with the NPS to help design systems so visitors are informed and have enjoyable visits. In

Massachusetts, Volpe partnered with the NPS to develop physical and electronic ways to help visitors plan trips to 18

NPS park units that document a range of significant periods and events in the nation’s history.13 The system will show

visitors how to use public transit to navigate among the various park sites, most of which have been integrated into the

local transit system's trip planner. The web‐based TIS goes beyond “how to get there” and helps users plan their visits

based on their interest: in this case, a historical or cultural context. This type of traveler information system could be

implemented in Alaska, and could track events such as Alaska’s Gold Rush era or other historic events such as the

Iditarod.

These forms of electronic information are applied to transportation operations that can result in improved

transportation efficiency and safety.

 

13 Federal Transit Administration, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems

Center webpage: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/highlts/03/septoct/d_focus.html. Accessed on February 28, 2011.

Concessionaire shuttle bus, Denali  

Appendix Page 234
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 57 of 59

6.5. Other State and Federal Agency Methods to Disseminate Information to the

Traveler  

6.5.1. Alaska Public Lands Information

Centers

The Alaska Public Lands Information Centers are a

system of four information and education centers in

Alaska that “help provide visitors and residents with

meaningful, safe, enjoyable experiences on

public lands and encourage them to sustain

the natural and cultural resources of

Alaska.” The Centers were established in

1980 by ANILCA and represent nine different

State and Federal land management agencies.

The agencies serviced by these centers include

the NPS, USFS, USFWS, U.S. Geological Survey,

Alaska Division of Tourism, Alaska Department

of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish

and Game, and the Bureau of Land Management.

The NPS manages the centers in Anchorage and

Fairbanks, while the USFS manages the center in

Ketchikan and the USFWS oversees the center in

Tok.  

These interagency centers allow visitors to stop by or write to a single location for the information they might need to

plan their trip to public lands in Alaska. The Anchorage center is open year‐round and provides information to Alaska

residents and visitors. Exhibits, maps, brochures, recreation passes, live web cams, and a daily series of Alaska‐specific

movies are available to visitors. During the school year, the Anchorage center hosts the NPS Urban Education Program.

6.5.2. Alaska Travel Industry Association Visitor Information Content and Conduits  

Marketing efforts to lure potential visitors to Alaska and its parklands can be one of the first ways Alaska’s park visitors

obtain information for their travels.  

Appendix Page 235
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 58 of 59

According to the 2010 Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) Year End Report14, the number of potential Alaska

tourist leads generated via online media jumped from 16% to 36% between 2009 and 2010. This indicates a growing

number of people going online to seek out travel information on Alaska. According to ATIA, a primary focus for the State

of Alaska Division of Tourism and ATIA marketing efforts was to construct an entirely new website to replace an aging

TravelAlaska.com. Enhancements to the website will continue through the 2011 fiscal year.  

ATIA establishes goals and objectives each year and tracks a number of measures. Relevant to the NPS in Alaska include

the following, as cited in ATIA’S 2010 year‐end report:  

 Alaska was also a co‐sponsor with the National Parks Cooperative during the U.S. Travel Association’s

International POW WOW. A lunch presentation to an audience of approximately 5,000 delegates consisting of

international tour operators, media, and U.S. suppliers featured clips of Alaska’s National Parks as seen in the

Ken Burns documentary, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea.

 As part of one of its strategies to provide detailed travel planning and booking information to high potential

prospects, ATIA Included information on Alaska’s Scenic Byways and Alaska’s State and National Parklands in the

State Vacation Planner.

 Several articles on Alaska’s national parklands were published as a result of ATIA media outreach and assistance:

o A 9‐page story on Alaska appeared in the April 2010 Adventure Issue of Outside magazine. The story

focused on Alaska’s National Parks, claiming Alaska is “the last real place to find epic, crowd‐free

adventure on American soil.”

o Sunset magazine highlighted Alaska in the May issue in an article called “Procrastinator’s Guide to

Summer” highlighting Denali National Park.

o ATIA co‐sponsored a luncheon on May 17, 2010 held n conjunction with the National Park Service and

Amtrak. Approximately 5,000 delegates consisting of international tour operators, media and U.S.

suppliers were in attendance. The presentation featured clips of Alaska’s National Parks as seen in the

Ken Burns documentary, The National Parks: America’s Best Idea. Alaska National Park collateral

material was distributed in all the tour operator delegate bags, at the ATIA booth, and at the National

Parks booth on the trade show floor.

 

14 Alaska Travel Industry Association. 2010 Alaska Travel Industry Association Year End Report. Accessed at:

www.alaskatia.org/~/media/ATIA/PDFs/Research%20and%20Reports/General%20Reports/FY10_Year_End_Report.ashx.

Appendix Page 236
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 59 of 59

6.5.3. 511 in Alaska  

In 2010, the State of Alaska launched their New Generation 511, an online

system that includes a map‐centric condition reporting system for locating

road incidents, planned events, and weather conditions. While most of the

NPS park units are not on the road system, for those who are planning to

travel to the road‐accessible park units, 511 can be a useful tool. Alaska’s

511 provides National Weather Service forecasts, road‐weather conditions.

For the 511 phone service, callers can access information by referencing

major road segments by name between cities and landmarks. In Alaska,

because of the climate and very few non‐winter months, road construction

is commonly encountered in the summer. Road construction closures and

updates provide valuable information for travelers. One idea that has been

discussed entails creating a similar webpage for federal public lands.  

6.5.4. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Webcam

Aviation in Alaska is a critical component of the transportation system. According to the FAA registry queried on May 5,

2011, the number of registered pilots in Alaska is 11,118. Small bush planes are the most common mode used to access

the remote AKR park units.  As of March 2011, FAA provides webcams at 150 different locations throughout the state.

These webcams are a useful tool for remote travelers. The cameras are located to view sky conditions around airports,

air routes, and mountain passes.  Camera images are downloaded and updated every 10 minutes and are disseminated

to the public through FAA’s Aviation Camera website at: http://akweathercams.faa.gov/.

While your average NPS visitor may not use FAA’s website, NPS commercial use authorization permit holders,

particularly those who are pilots, may access the website to plan their flight. These cameras provide important weather

information to help pilots determine whether it is safe to fly.  

6.6. Visitor Information Conclusions and Recommendations

Data gaps and limitations are summarized in Section 7. The following are recommended actions so that identified needs

and concerns can be addressed. These recommended actions are not intended to be a part of an all‐inclusive list, but

rather a starting point for further discussion.

In many AKR park units, crossing over several cluster groups, concessionaires, air taxis, and other commercial are the

main marketers of the park.

 Action:  Investigate other NPS regions to see what kinds of visitor information services the NPS is

providing where there are concessionaires and commercial use operators. How is visitor information

materials and outreach handled in those cases?

1. Interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks are needed. (Two cluster groups: Remote North Parks and Road Parks)

Appendix Page 237
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 60 of 59

 Action:  Obtain funding and install kiosks and/or interpretive exhibits in locations that have been

identified as needing these (e.g., along the Dalton Highway in Gates of the Arctic).

2. Some visitor information materials are outdated.

 Action:  Identify what materials are outdated. Obtain funding to replace old materials.

 Action:  Use resources in the community and other interested stakeholders who are outside the park

boundaries (e.g., gateway communities) but who still have and interest in providing quality visitor

experiences.  

3. Integrated traveler information systems are being used by the NPS in the Lower 48.

 Action:  Investigate and consider if the AKR should use this type of modernized technology.

4. Traveler information systems or intelligent transportation systems can improve the visitor experience by

informing visitors how to navigate the transportation system.

 Action: Consider how traveler information systems or intelligent transportation systems could be

incorporated in Alaska (advanced communication technologies in transportation infrastructure to

improve safety and provide dynamic, real‐time information that allows people to make informed

decisions). In heavily‐congested AKR parks, direct visitors to less crowded areas or parks.

5. Where there is overlap in visitor information with other Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), there may

be opportunity to optimize efforts, reduce redundancies, and build partnerships, like the creation of the Alaska

Public Lands Centers.

 Action:  Collaborate with other AK FLMAs to improve channels and methods of communication for the

traveling visitor to public lands.

6. The NPS visitor surveys are intended to provide qualitative information on park visitor experiences and

satisfaction. The visitor surveys are useful primarily for assessing qualitative information on general Alaska park

visitor perceptions. An Alaska caveat for these surveys is that they are particularly applicable for road‐accessible

park units in the Lower 48 states where traditional park entrance stations provide extensive and reliable visitor

counts. Surveys conducted in Alaska may not accurately reflect actual visitation and visitor experience because

of the nature of Alaska’s park units and the multiple locations and modes of access used by visitors. For instance,

in Denali, the location of where the surveys occur is critical. In one location, you might capture the independent

travelers who came by private vehicle and probably researched information prior to their visit. On the other

hand, if surveys are conducted in locations where the majority of those surveyed are cruise ship industry

visitors, they may have very different answers to the survey.

 Action:  Consider how to revise and tailor the NPS visitor surveys to accurately reflect AKR park

visitation.

7. AKR park units already utilize a number of online technologies to disseminate information.

Appendix Page 238
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 61 of 59

 Action:  Look at how other park units are using technology to disseminate information and determine if

similar methods could be applied in Alaska (e.g., smartphones).  

Appendix Page 239
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 62 of 59

7. General Conclusions 

Mobility is one of several goals developed for the NPS AKR LRTP effort. The core team defined the mobility goal as

providing safe, efficient, affordable, and Park‐appropriate access to and through Park lands. This report is a summary

of the existing relevant data that was obtained to support the mobility goal in terms of access, safety, and visitor

information. Data, where possible, was obtained to provide a baseline condition and to identify possible mobility trends.

This report presents to the reader the unique transportation challenges and multi‐modal travel necessary for accessing

many of Alaska’s national parks. The park units in Alaska were arranged into four cluster groups based on their

geographic location and related multi‐modal needs.

Data gaps and limitations are summarized in the following section. See the respective sections for recommended actions

related specifically to access, safety and visitor information. These recommended actions are not intended to be a part

of an all‐inclusive list, but rather a starting point for further discussion.

7.1. Data Gaps and Limitations

The amount of data collected and reported by each park unit differs greatly. As one of the top‐most visited as well as

top‐funded park units in Alaska, Denali has considerably more data available compared to other AKR park units.

Several safety data sets were reviewed to establish an existing conditions baseline. Limited, relevant safety data are

available for the entire AKR, making trends difficult to identify. The team reviewed information from two NPS‐managed

databases containing safety‐related information: STARS and SMIS. For reasons given earlier, STARS data are not reliable

as information is inconsistently reported. No trends could be identified in the SMIS‐reported incidents either.

Individual park unit surveys identified that some park units are not reporting safety data, which means either there are

none to report or staff is not reporting safety data, or staff does not become aware of safety incidences on park lands.

This is especially the case for safety data related to travel on trails, particularly during the winter.

 Action:  Improve NPS reporting process for existing NPS databases (STARS and SMIS).

 Action:  Encourage or require staff to report all safety incidents or concerns.

 Action:  Identify ideas and strategies for improved, consistent data collection of vehicular accidents and

other relevant safety accident data. One strategy could require the safety officers in each park unit to do

the safety reporting into a database.

 Action:  Establish a safety advisory working group.

A number of non‐NPS agency datasets were reviewed, including roadway fatality data, aviation accident data, and

boating accident data. These non‐NPS data sets contain little to no information on incidents occurring within a park

boundary. No trends related to safety to and within the park units could be gleaned from these other databases. These

non‐NPS managed accident databases either appear to be incomplete or lack trends related to safety in or near park

units.  

Appendix Page 240
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

MOBILITY DRAFT PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL REPORT 

MAY 2011

Page 63 of 59

 Action:  Identify other relevant existing safety databases.

 Action:  Identify issues and strategies for improved (safety) database collaborations between the NPS

and other agencies.

Anecdotal safety information appeared to shed greater light on park unit and cluster group safety issues. Anecdotal

safety information came from AKR park unit surveys specifically conducted for this LRTP effort. Often, the conditions and

needs identified during the park unit surveys matched the conditions and needs identified in other NPS planning

documentation or listed within PMIS.

 Action:  During future planning efforts, continue conducting park unit surveys to obtain anecdotal

information about existing conditions and needs.

Having accurate visitation data results in being able to conduct a more accurate assessment of visitor transportation

information services and needs. The NPS visitor surveys generally do not include transportation information. Three tiers

of visitor information should be analyzed: visitor information related to the pre‐visit, during the park visit, and the post‐

visit.

 Action:  Develop transportation‐specific questions for inclusion in future NPS park visitor surveys.

Appendix Page 241
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix C

Visitor/User Experience Technical Report

Appendix Page 243
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank


































Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix D

Resource Protection Technical Report

Appendix Page 279
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Alaska Region

Long Range Transportation Plan

Resource Preservation TECHNICAL REPORT

Draft  

May 2011

 

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Appendix Page 281
84 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Page 1 of 6

1. Resource Protection Technical Report Overview 

The National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Region (AKR) is developing a long range transportation plan (LRTP) to

guide future transportation program development and implementation. The LRTP will also bring the NPS into

compliance with Federal legislation requiring Federal Land Management Agencies to conduct long range

transportation planning in a manner consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation planning practices for

State and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The AKR LRTP will provide NPS decision‐makers with

information and data necessary for informing future planning and operational decisions.  

Early in the LRTP process, the core team developed a list of goals, objectives, and strategies and obtained

supporting data. Goals were generally related to one of five categories: system preservation, visitor experience,

mobility, resource preservation, and climate change.

The purpose of this technical report is to present the climate change goal and supporting information. The core

team developed the following goal for climate change:

Protect parks’ natural, cultural, and subsistence resources

This technical report details the available data for transportation impacts to natural, cultural and subsistence

resources.

1.1  Resource Protection and NPS

Resource protection is key to the mission of the National Park

Service.  Alaska hosts 15 national parks, preserves,

monuments and national historical parks.  Additionally, the

National Park Service plays varying roles in the administration

of 13 national wild rivers, two affiliated areas and a national

heritage area.  The Alaska Region seeks to protect natural,

historic, and subsistence resources through careful

transportation planning.

 

NPS Mission:

"...to promote and regulate the use of

the...national parks...which purpose is to

conserve the scenery and the natural and

historic objects and the wild life therein

and to provide for the enjoyment of the

same in such manner and by such means as

will leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations."

Appendix Page 283
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOURCE PROTECTION DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT

2 | Page

The AKR LRTP draft goal for Resource Preservation is

To protect parks’ natural, cultural, and subsistence resources

The AKR LRTP draft objectives are

 Protect Wildlife at an Ecosystem Scale: Coordinate with neighboring land and 

transportation managers to ensure that transportation system impacts on wildlife are 

understood and mitigated across borders 

 Physical Environment: Protect the physical environment from adverse effects of the 

transportation system 

 Cultural Resources: Mitigate negative impacts and provide appropriate access to 

cultural resources 

 Subsistence Resources: Consider impacts to and access to subsistence resources in 

transportation planning and policy development 

1.2  Data Sources

Because transportation impacts on NPS

resources has traditionally been examined on

a unit rather than a regional scale, unit‐level

data sources serve as the basis for this paper,

such as Project Management Information

System (PMIS)data, NPS planning documents

such as GMPs, and unit‐level surveys.   

While individual NPS units study and plan for

transportation impacts to park resources, this

paper seeks to identify needs that can be

addressed on a regional level.  An update to

the Resource Preservation Technical Paper will

be conducted prior to the first update to the

Alaska NPS LRTP.

Figure 1. A bus on the Denali Park encounters brown

bears   

Appendix Page 284
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOURCE PROTECTION DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT

3 | Page

Serpentine Hot Springs, the most 

visited area in Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve, is accessed only 

by fixed-wing aircraft in the summer 

and by snowmachine in the winter. 

The recent Serpentine Hot Springs 

Transportation Access Report relied 

heavily on the knowledge of village 

residents to explore means of 

providing safe travel to the area while 

preserving the natural and cultural 

resources found here. 

2. Resource Protection Issues and Needs Identification by Cluster 

Each park unit in Alaska

faces varying resource

preservation‐related

challenges.  In order to

streamline the

transportation planning

analyses, the park units

were grouped into four

“clusters,” depending

upon their location in

Alaska and unique multi‐

modal needs.

Remote North Parks

Character:

The Remote North parks are large areas with very few assets

within the borders.  Although these parks are some of the

least visited in the NPS system, surrounding remote

communities rely on the parks for subsistence hunting and

gathering, and for essential habitat for subsistence resources.  

In addition to the natural and subsistence resources, these

parks contain archeological and cultural resources within their

borders.

Appendix Page 285
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOURCE PROTECTION DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT

4 | Page

Issues and Needs:

Due to the lack of infrastructure and heavy use, few resource impacts were identified in unit‐level

surveys for this cluster.

 Tundra is damaged by illegal ORV use and by snowmachine use on insufficient snowpack

 Soundscape disturbances from overflights and snowmachines may impact caribou

migration, making subsistence hunting inaccessible

 Road impacts: dust from the mine road enters lichen which is then eaten by caribou and

may impact fish habitat, the mine road and Dalton Highway fragment habitat for several

species, including caribou

GMPs for the Remote North Parks addressed transportation and Resource Preservation by stating that

permitted modes of travel and access to inholdings in these parks are subject to reasonable regulation

based on impacts to resources.  In particular, the use of ORVs for access to inholdings is will be made by

the superintendent on a case‐by‐case basis that considers the potential for resource damage.

One unit, GAAR, has requested funding for a soundscape study investigating the effects of aircraft and

boat corridors on moose.

Remote South Parks

Character:  

Remote South Parks contain significant geographic landscapes, natural and subsistence resources, and

archeological resources within their borders.  These parks are more visited than the remote north parks,

and have more assets within their borders, including roads and marine facilities.

Issues and Needs:

Unit surveys indicate a concern about natural and subsistence resource disturbance along

transportation corridors.

 High‐speed river boats cause bank erosion

 Some subsistence users must travel further to reach resources, using airplane or increased

boat distances.  Some users cannot afford the cost of increased travel, and cannot

participate in subsistence activities.

Appendix Page 286
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOURCE PROTECTION DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT

5 | Page

Addressing transportation needs and 

accommodations for visitor access are 

entirely contingent upon the NPS first 

managing the extraordinary natural 

and cultural resources found in 

Alaska. 

As in the case of Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve, visitation by about 

400,000 people per year is primarily 

by cruise ships and smaller tour or 

charter boats. Measures to address 

vessel traffic in Glacier Bay were 

initiated in 1979 to protect endangered 

humpback whales. The vessel quota 

system and associated vessel 

operating conditions have been 

amended several times since then to 

properly balance resources and visitor 

experience. 

The Remote South Park GMPs also state that permitted modes of travel and access are subject to

reasonable regulation based on impacts to regulation.  Designation of ORV routes is an issue in KATM

and LACL.

A 2008 study of the Alagnak Wild River  describes the resource impacts of increased boat traffic on fish,

bank erosion, proximity of moose and other animals to the river and crowding of Native users to the

extent that they no longer participate in subsistence hunting and gathering.

Cruise Ship Parks

Character:

Cruise ship parks receive the most visitation of the cluster areas.  

The vast majority of visitors travel to or in the park by cruise

ship.

Issues and Needs:

Cruise ship park concerns raised in unit‐level surveys centered

on impacts of the cruise ships on natural resources.

 Water and air quality impacts from cruise ships and

small boats is a concern

 Occurrence of petroleum and other transportation

related contaminants in Intertidal Communities and

marine environment

 Marine and land soundscape issues impact bears,

whales, and other marine mammals. Vessel

disturbance of Kittlitz’s Murrelets is a major concern

 Introduction of exotic/invasive species by cruise

ships

 Discharge from Cruise Ships may impact glaciers,

which are considered sacred by some Native

Alaskans

Both marine and above‐water soundscape are reflected as concerns in Cruise Ship planning documents.  

KLGO cites damage from motorized recreational vehicle to historical building ruins and pier remains as a

concern.   

Appendix Page 287
 ALASKA Draft LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RESOURCE PROTECTION DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT

6 | Page

Road Parks

Character:

Road parks contain the most transportation assets and receive the second highest visitation of the

cluster levels.  Because transportation to the road parks is literally on the ground, this cluster has the

most potential for impacting land resources.

Issues and Needs:

Unit‐level surveys indicate that road park transportation systems impact geologic, natural, subsistence

and cultural resources.

 Air and Water Quality concerns due to road and

ORV trail runoff and dust

 Infrastructure impacts on permafrost, gumbo soil

types, etc.

 Boats can increase erosion (wake) and disturb

salmon rearing

 Roads bisects fish and wildlife habitat and hinders

sheep migration

 Soundscape impact of planes on wildlife is largely

unknown  

 In WRST, habitat fragmentation by road and ORV

trail is poorly understood

 Airstrips are built on Cultural Resources

DENA has nearly completed a comprehensive Vehicle Management Plan that takes an in depth look at

the road corridor impacts on wildlife.  Planning documents for WRST indicate that OHV planning is

needed to address severe impacts to the landscape.   

General Conclusions 

In order to understand and address transportation impacts on park resources on a regional scale, a

regional interdepartmental approach is needed.  Transportation asset and program managers need to

work with the Alaska Region’s Cultural Resources Team, the Natural Resource Science Team, and the

Subsistence Team to further identify needs of regional significance and integrate transportation

planning with other planning and research efforts.

Appendix Page 288
Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix E

Climate Change Technical Report

Appendix Page 289
This page intentionally left blank

Appendix Page 290

















This page intentionally left blank

Appendix Page 308
Drop-Down Plan to the 

Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

Appendix F

Financial Analysis Technical Report

Appendix Page 309
This page intentionally left blank

Appendix Page 310
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page i 

Table of Contents

1. Purpose of the Financial Analysis.......................................................................................................... 1

2. Existing AKR Transportation Funding and Revenue .............................................................................. 1

2.1. Data Sources and Quality .............................................................................................................. 1

2.2. Alaska Region Project Funding History ......................................................................................... 1

2.3. Revised Funding History for the Alaska Region ............................................................................ 2

2.4. FHWA Federal Lands Highway Program Funding History ............................................................. 5

2.5. Additional Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 6

2.6. Funding History from PMIS Database by Park Cluster .................................................................. 7

3. Future AKR Transportation Funding ...................................................................................................10

3.1. Transportation funding over the next 5 years ............................................................................11

4. Future Transportation Needs ..............................................................................................................12

4.1. Requested Transportation Project Funding through 2050 .........................................................12

4.2. Formulated Transportation Projects by Park Cluster, 2011-2015 ..............................................12

4.3. Formulated Transportation Projects by Region, 2011-2015.......................................................14

Tables 

Table 1. Five year PMIS funding history by funding source and dollar amounts (excluding FLHP 

funds and fleet-related projects) ................................................................................................... 4

Table 2. FLHP Funding History, FY 2006 through 2010 ................................................................................. 5

Table 3. FLHP Funding History, FY 2006 through 2010 ................................................................................. 7

Table 4. Cluster groupings of Alaska Region park units ................................................................................ 8

Table 5. Five-year funding history of transportation projects by park cluster, 2006-2010 .......................... 8

Table 6. Five-year funding history of transportation asset-specific projects by park cluster, 2006-

2010 ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Table 7. Five-year funding history of ”other” projects by park cluster, 2006-2010 ..................................... 9

Table 8. Future funding requirements for the Remote North Parks, 2011-2015 ....................................... 13

Table 9. Future funding requirements for the Remote South Parks, 2011-2015 ....................................... 13

Table 10. Future funding requirements for the Cruise Ship Parks, 2011-2015 .......................................... 13

Table 11. Future funding requirements for the Road Parks, 2011-2015 .................................................... 14

Table 12. Future funding requirements for the Alaska Region, 2011-2015 ............................................... 15

Appendix Page 311
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page ii

Figures 

Figure 1: Alaska Region funding history in PMIS for transportation projects, 2006-2010 (includes 

fleet-related projects) ................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Federal Lands Highways Program Funding by Category and Year ................................................. 6

Figure 3: Park cluster groups ........................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Annual average transportation project funding by park cluster, 2006-2010 ................................ 9

Figure 5: Remote North Parks funding history ........................................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Remote South Parks funding history ........................................................................................... 10

Figure 7: Cruise Ship Parks funding history ................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8: Road Parks funding history .......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 9: Five-year funding history (2006-2010) and projection (2011-2015) for transportation 

projects ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 10: Requested funding within PMIS by park cluster ........................................................................ 12

Appendices

Appendix A: Comprehensive five year funding history of transportation-related projects by funding 

source and dollar amounts ($) within PMIS (includes fleet-related projects) ........................... 16 

Appendix B: Five-year funding projection for transportation-related projects by funding source ............ 17 

Appendix Page 312
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 1 

1. Purpose of the Financial Analysis 

The purpose of this financial analysis is to examine and quantify capital project financial history for 

transportation facilities and services in the Alaska Region (AKR) of the National Park Service (NPS). The 

analysis is an exploration of data sources and methodologies, and as such will evolve with the data from 

additional sources. Using the NPS Project Management Information System (PMIS) and other sources, 

this analysis selected transportation projects and their funding sources that were developed during the 

five-year period 2006-2010. 

This technical report includes projections of likely funding totals and programs available to fund 

transportation projects. The analysis develops a preliminary forecast of capital improvement project 

funding sources and amounts for the period 2011-2015. 

Finally, this technical report examines future transportation funding requirements by identifying 

unfunded projects within the PMIS database. 

This financial analysis is an element of the first long range transportation plan prepared by the National 

Park Service for the Alaska Region. 

2. Existing AKR Transportation Funding and Revenue 

NPS financial and project data systems were used to prepare an overview of existing capital and 

operating funding from a number of sources: 

NPS Sources: Entrance-user fees; concession revenue, National Park Pass, Park Base; 

Federal Lands Highway Program (Parks Roads and Parkway Program, Public Lands Highway 

Program); 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program; 

Federal funding via the Alaska DOT&PF: Federal Surface Transportation Program, Transportation 

Enhancements, etc. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and the 

Recreational Trails Program. 

2.1. Data Sources and Quality 

The primary data sources used for this technical report were the NPS Project Management Information 

System (PMIS) and Park Transportation Allocation and Tracking System (PTATS). The PMIS database 

report was produced December 2010. The comprehensive PMIS database was sorted to contain only 

transportation-related projects for the analyses. Exploration of data quality is ongoing. 

2.2. Alaska Region Project Funding History 

A recent funding history of transportation projects for the National Parks Alaska Region was examined in 

order to document past funding trends based on the past five years, 2006 - 2010. Funded projects and 

expenditure totals were obtained from PMIS for general transportation projects and from PTATS for 

projects funded through the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP). The comprehensive list of park 

Appendix Page 313
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 2 

projects within PMIS was sorted by project type and transportation projects were selected from that 

database. 

Funding sources and total amounts available to each park unit and the region as a whole are variable 

from year to year. The park-specific financial requirements for transportation projects vary greatly 

within the Alaska Region as do the funding amounts awarded to each park. Moreover, some funding 

sources available during the past five years, such as the Recreation Fee 20% and the Recreational Demo 

Fee 20%, are not expected to be available in future years. 

Appendix A displays a five-year history of all funding sources recorded in PMIS that have funded capital, 

planning, environmental and other transportation projects within the Alaska Region. Figure 1 displays 

the total funding shown specifically from PMIS for the five-year period (additional funding sources and 

amounts will be described in subsequent sections). The year 2006 included a one-time line item 

construction project for $12.7 million (construction of the Northwest Alaska Heritage Center and 

Administrative Quarters in Kotzebue), which constituted well over half of the transportation funding for 

that year. If that amount is removed from 2006, it can be seen that funding for transportation in the 

Alaska region reported in PMIS is more consistent than Figure 1 suggests, at about $7 to $10 million per 

year. 

Figure 1: Alaska Region funding history in PMIS for transportation projects, 2006-2010 

 (includes fleet-related projects)

2.3. Revised Funding History for the Alaska Region 

Fleet vehicles are presently accounted for inconsistently in PMIS and although included in Appendix A 

and Figure 1, were excluded from further analysis. This category of projects includes vehicles, boats, 

vehicle maintenance, fueling, storage and similar capital projects. It is expected that vehicles and 

related facilities will be included fully in PMIS in the future and will be included in an update of this 

analysis at that time. It is important to note that the removal of fleet from the analysis is consistent with 

the asset management and funding histories presented in the System Optimization Technical Report. 

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Appendix Page 314
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 3 

In addition, reporting of Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP) funding in PMIS is not consistent with 

the data found in the Park Transportation Allocation and Tracking System (PTATS). PMIS accounts for 

approximately $10.5 million of FLHP funding over the period of 2006 through 2010, whereas PTATS 

accounts for approximately $36 million of funding over the same time period. The PTATS information 

reported in Section 2.4 provides more thorough accounting of FHLP funding and is used in this analysis 

in lieu of the PMIS totals. 

Table 1 shows the updated five-year funding history from PMIS with all fleet-related projects and FLHP 

projects removed. Please note that a number of the funding sources removed were entirely comprised 

of fleet-related project funding. 

Appendix Page 315
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 4 

Table 1. Five year PMIS funding history by funding source and dollar amounts 

(excluding FLHP funds and fleet-related projects) 

Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

2009 Economic Recovery -

Deferred Maintenance 485,730 $485,730

2009 Economic Recovery - Trails 224,975 $224,975

Challenge Cost Share - Region 25,000 30,000 23,974 $78,974

Concessions Franchise Fee 20% 600,000 $600,000

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 908,367 974,890 1,389,604 639,289 1,592,715 $5,504,865

Emergency Storm and Flood 

Damage 1,235,100 $1,235,100

Environmental Quality Division -

Environmental Impact Analysis 140,000 240,000 341,200 100,000 $821,200

Line Item Construction 12,672,000 111,579 0 $12,783,579

Natural Resource Protection 

Projects 37,125 11,880 $49,005

Non-NPS Fund Sources 3,026,650 $3,026,650

NRPP - Natural Resource 

Management 88,110 66,330 $154,440

NRPP - Regional Program Block 

Allocations 18,871 $18,871

ONPS - Operations of the National 

Park System 2,477 10,000 $12,477

Park Partnership Program 32,000 $32,000

Recreation Fee 20% 152,500 95,717 363,256 297,020 $908,493

Recreation Fee Park Revenue 145,600 292,221 1,747,338 1,991,260 $4,176,419

Recreational Fee Demonstration, 

20% 329,700 125,000 70,000 $524,700

Recreational Fee Demonstration, 

80% 175,750 200,432 208,000 $584,182

Regional Natural Resources 69,900 23,831 $93,731

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 1,196,335 923,758 713,322 1,251,605 1,210,353 $5,295,373

Repair / Rehabilitation 1,136,535 907147 244,200 96,968 214,655 $2,599,505

Transportation Planning for GMPs 

and LRTPs 134,908 $134,908

Volunteers in Parks 6,500 7,500 7,500 7,920 $29,420

Youth Conservation Corps 11,853 9,600 9,600 $31,053

Youth Partnership Program 37,000 $37,000

Grand Total $16,580,164 $8,422,656 $3,445,313 $5,313,782 $5,680,735 $39,442,650

Appendix Page 316
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 5 

2.4. FHWA Federal Lands Highway Program Funding History 

The Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRP) of the FLHP is a primary funding source provided by 

through the current surface transportation program, SAFETEA-LU, for the road network serving the 

National Park System. Park roads and parkways are public roads that provide access within a National 

Park unit. The PRP projects are grouped into three categories. Category I includes 3R (rehabilitation) and 

4R (reconstruction) for road, bridge and safety projects. Category II includes completion of 

congressionally mandated projects, and Category III consists of Alternative Transportation Program 

projects. The Alaska Region had no projects funded by Category II funds during the five-year period 

examined. 

The PRP program is jointly administered by the NPS and FHWA. PRP program funds are distributed on a 

regional basis within the NPS in accordance with the 1983 FHWA/NPS interagency agreement and the 

FLHP PRP Revised Funding Allocation and Project Prioritization Criteria document. The NPS identifies 

program and project priorities and is responsible for planning, and environmental and resource 

protection. The FHWA provides planning, engineering and technical support for the NPS. 

1

 

Table 2 summarizes the NPS PTATS reporting system for the Alaska Region for FLHP projects funded in 

FY 2006 through 2010. The majority of Category I funding applies to Denali National Park (within the 

Road Parks cluster) for road construction and maintenance projects. Other roadway projects are eligible 

for FLHP funding, such as planning or environmental projects. Funding allocated to those types of 

projects is approximated under the design, planning, compliance, and administration row in Table 2. 

Figure 2 shows the FLHP funding history in graphical form.

Table 2. FLHP Funding History, FY 2006 through 2010

Funding Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL

FLHP Category I-3R 

(construction projects) $365,426 $6,146,481 $11,152,732 $2,577,255 $3,182,056 $23,423,950 

FLHP Category I-4R 

(construction projects) $0 ($5,135) $0 $0 $2,000,000 $1,994,865 

FLHP Category III (construction 

projects) $696,900 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $4,196,900 

Design, Planning, Compliance 

and Administration*

$1,048,829 $1,384,358 $1,490,500 $1,104,179 $1,349,779 $6,377,645 

Total $2,113,161 $7,527,711 $12,645,240 $7,183,443 $6,533,845 $35,993,360 

*represents approximate amount reported in PTATS for all FHLP funding

 

1

 FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Highway. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Funding Sources. 

http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/tip-fs.aspx. Accessed April 2011.

Appendix Page 317
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 6 

Figure 2: Federal Lands Highways Program Funding by Category and Year

2.5. Additional Funding Sources 

In addition to the data reported in PMIS and PTATS, two other funding sources were identified 

as having funded transportation projects within the past five years. Table 3 lists the five-year 

funding history for the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATTPL) Program 

and the National Scenic Byways Program. 

The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATTPL) Program, established in 2005, 

funds capital and planning projects for alternative transportation systems in National Parks and 

other public lands. ATTPL is a competitive grant program jointly administered by the 

Department of Interior and the Federal Transit Administration. Examples of past NPS AK Region 

transportation projects funded by ATTPL over the past five years have included construction of 

the Gustavus Dock and funding for hybrid buses in Denali.2

 

The National Scenic Byways Program is also a competitive grant program that is administered 

by FHWA which funds projects such as creating statewide byway programs, corridor 

management planning, promoting byways, scenic easements, etc. Through participation with 

the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the NPS has received funds for 

projects relating to the Parks and Seward Highways. 

Projecting future funding levels is difficult because both of these funds are competitively 

awarded and variable from year to year; however, because they have consistently been 

available it is reasonable to assume that they’ll continue at similar levels.

 

2

 FTA. Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financity_6101.html. 

Accessed July 7, 2011. 

$0 

$2,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$12,000,000 

$14,000,000 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Annual FLHP 

Funding (construction 

and other costs

FLHP Category I-3R 

(construction projects)

FLHP Category I-4R 

(construction projects)

FLHP Category III 

(construction projects)

Appendix Page 318
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 7 

Table 3. FLHP Funding History, FY 2006 through 2010

Additional Funding Categories 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL

Alternative Transportation in 

Parks and Public Lands (ATTPL) 

Program*

$1,200,000 $3,000,000** $0 $515,000 $571,000 $5,286,000 

National Scenic Byways 

Program $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000 

* Includes funding through Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program

** Amount represents funding for the Gustavus Dock replacement which is a project (and similar $ amount) that also is 

documented under FHLP Category III funds. As to not double count this funding amount, the $3M for 2007 under ATTPL funds was 

removed from the funding projection found in Appendix B.

2.6. Funding History from PMIS Database by Park Cluster 

The comprehensive five-year funding history in PMIS for transportation projects shown in Table 2 ( 

which excludes fleet and FLHP projects) was broken out by park clusters to obtain a perspective on 

funding at a regional level. The park clusters are illustrated in Figure 4, and are summarized in Table 4. 

Figure 3: Park cluster groups 

Appendix Page 319
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 8 

Table 4. Cluster groupings of Alaska Region park units

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Cruise Ship Parks Road Parks

Bering Land Bridge NP Alagnak Wild River Glacier Bay NP&P Denali NP&P

Cape Krusenstern NM Aniakchak NM&P Klondike NHP Kenai Fjords NP

Gates of the Arctic 

NP&P

Katmai NP&P Sitka NHP Wrangell-St. Elias 

NP&P

Kobuk Valley NP Lake Clark NP&P Yukon Charlie NP

Noatak NP

The funding history of transportation projects by cluster for the past five years is shown below in Table 

5. Annual average funding by cluster is shown in Figure 4. The Road Parks capture the majority of 

transportation funds available to the Region. This is due to fact that the Road Parks possess more 

transportation assets than the other three park clusters combined, as well as the construction and 

maintenance expenses required of the Park Road within Denali National Park. Large one-time 

construction projects having occurred in the Cruise Ship Parks (Gustavus dock, 2007) and the Remote 

North Parks (Northwest Alaska Heritage Center in Kotzebue, 2006) during the past five years tend to 

suggest higher than average annual funding amounts available for these two clusters. 

Table 5. Five-year funding history of transportation projects by park cluster, 2006-2010

Park Cluster 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Remote North Parks 12,806,057 - - - 158,882 $12,964,939

Remote South Parks 220,260 310,700 215,144 212,330 161,251 $1,119,685

Cruise Ship Parks 585,417 3,780,388 580,208 1,465,869 1,074,092 $7,485,974

Road Parks 2,968,430 4,331,568 2,649,961 3,635,583 4,286,510 $17,872,052

Grand Total $16,580,164 $8,422,656 $3,445,313 $5,313,782 $5,680,735 $39,442,650

Each cluster’s five-year transportation project history was subdivided into two categories: projects 

specifically relating to a transportation asset and “other” projects (i.e., non asset-specific projects such 

as planning, environmental, etc.). The funding history of projects relating to each cluster’s 

transportation asset portfolio is captured and analyzed in the park cluster transportation asset 

management plans within the System Optimization Technical Report. This project history was used as 

the basis for estimating future project budget levels for each cluster as described in the System 

Optimization Technical Report. The five-year history of funding for transportation asset-specific projects 

by park cluster is presented in Table 6. 

Appendix Page 320
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 9 

Figure 4: Annual average transportation project funding by park cluster, 2006-2010

Table 6. Five-year funding history of transportation asset-specific projects by park cluster, 2006-2010

Park Cluster 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Remote North Parks 12,806,057 - - - - $12,806,057

Remote South Parks 176,760 262,760 187,506 95,450 112,331 $834,807

Cruise Ship Parks 405,840 3,596,830 304,839 1,100,353 710,997 $6,118,859

Road Parks 1,974,738 3,500,534 1,503,937 2,651,147 3,214,179 $12,844,535

Grand Total $15,363,395 $7,360,124 $1,996,282 $3,846,950 $4,037,507 $32,604,258

Additional funding for transportation projects includes projects related to planning, environmental 

studies, visitor experience, etc, as well as transportation projects that are not specifically related to an 

identified transportation asset (see System Optimization Technical Report). The funds directed towards 

these other projects are summarized in Table 7 by park cluster. 

Table 7. Five-year funding history of ”other” projects by park cluster, 2006-2010

Park Cluster 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Remote North Parks 158,882 $158,882

Remote South Parks 43,500 47,940 27,638 116,880 48,920 $284,878

Cruise Ship Parks 179,577 183,558 275,369 365,516 363,095 $1,367,115

Road Parks 993,692 831,034 1,146,024 984,436 1,072,331 $5,027,517

Grand Total $1,216,769 $1,062,532 $1,449,031 $1,466,832 $1,643,228 $6,838,392

$2,593,000, 

33%

$224,000, 3

%

$1,497,000, 

19%

$3,574,000, 

45%

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship Parks

Road Parks

Appendix Page 321
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 10

The information presented in Tables 6 and 7 are displayed graphically in Figures 5 through 8 

below. Each park cluster’s funding history directed towards transportation assets and other 

projects is shown in the graphs for the past five years. For the most part, each park cluster 

directs the majority of transportation funding on an annual basis towards its assets. The assetspecific funds are almost exclusively related to repairs, rehabilitation, and maintenance of 

transportation assets. 

Figure 5: Remote North Parks funding history 

Figure 7: Cruise Ship Parks funding history

Figure 6: Remote South Parks funding history

Figure 8: Road Parks funding history 

3. Future AKR Transportation Funding 

The funding history presented in Section 2 was used as the basis for developing a short-term projection 

of transportation funding for the NPS AK Region. The funding projection attempts to capture future 

funding reasonably expected to be available for transportation uses over the next 5 years. The 

projection is based on historical funding levels as well as discussions with NPS transportation staff on the 

viability of each funding source. 

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000 Other 

Funding

Assetspecific 

Funding

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Other 

Funding

Assetspecific 

Funding

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Other 

Funding

Assetspecific 

Funding

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Other 

Funding

Assetspecific 

Funding

Appendix Page 322
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 11

3.1. Transportation funding over the next 5 years 

Transportation funding sources listed in tables 1 through 3 were aggregated to provide a comprehensive 

five-year funding history from which to project future funding levels. Appendix B contains the table 

listing the five-year funding projection for transportation-related projects by funding source. 

Additionally, it provides a brief description on the future prospects of each fund based on input from 

NPS transportation planning staff. 

Many of the funds listed in Table 1 that has historically been available—either as one-time funds or 

intermittently—are not projected for future years. Many of the funds that are projected take an average 

based on the past five years. One fund, Regular Cyclic Maintenance, is projected using a trend line; this 

fund was determined to be the most consistent from year to year and warrant such a projection. Figure 

5 shows the past five years of funding and a projection of funding for the next five years.

Figure 9: Five-year funding history (2006-2010) and projection (2011-2015) for transportation projects

Available annual transportation funding over the next five years is estimated at approximately $12.5M 

in 2011 with a slight upward trend to $13M in 2015. This is a reasonable and perhaps conservative 

estimate based on past trends. There is an inherent difficulty and uncertainty in projecting funding that 

is evidenced by the variance in past funding. This projection is intended to provide an approximate 

figure with which to program future transportation projects. As there have been in the past, there may 

likely again be the intermittent, one-time funds available to direct towards transportation projects. 

Examples of these may include ERFO funds (Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads), additional 

stimulus dollars, or grant funding. 

2006

2007

2008

2009 2010

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

2006-2010 Funding 

(Actual)

2011-2015 Funding 

(Projected)

Appendix Page 323
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 12

4. Future Transportation Needs 

4.1. Requested Transportation Project Funding through 2050 

The PMIS database is used as a tool to manage each park unit’s specific project requests and align 

funding sources, if available, with each project request. Future transportation project requests (all 

requested projects, excluding fleet-related projects) entered in the PMIS database were examined to 

gain a perspective on each park cluster’s future transportation needs. The requested projects extend out 

to 2050 and are shown in Figure 10 by park cluster. Rather than a lack of need, the dearth of requested 

funding for the years 2016-2019 is likely due to the fact that projects for these years have not been 

entered into the PMIS system. 

Figure 10: Requested funding within PMIS by park cluster

4.2. Formulated Transportation Projects by Park Cluster, 2011-2015

A more refined examination of each park clusters’ financial requirements for future transportation 

projects was conducted by analyzing the formulated projects within PMIS. Organized by park cluster, 

requested funding amounts by formulated funding source for the next five years are listed in Tables 8 

through 11. There is significant variance between park clusters on the amount of requested funds for 

transportation projects and the funding sources that will fund them. 

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2050 Year 

NA

Remote North Parks

Remote South Parks

Cruise Ship Parks

Road Parks

Appendix Page 324
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 13

Table 8. Future funding requirements for the Remote North Parks, 2011-2015

Formulated Funding Source

Formulated FY

Total

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Recreation Fee Regional 20% 0 21,600 15,000 0 0 $36,600

Total $0 $21,600 $15,000 $0 $0 $36,600

Table 9. Future funding requirements for the Remote South Parks, 2011-2015

Formulated Funding Source

Formulated FY

Total

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 111,500 60,000 0 0 0 $171,500

Line Item Construction 1,418,729 0 0 0 0 $1,418,729

Recreation Fee Regional 20% 32,950 0 8,840 0 0 $41,790

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 56,996 69,549 34,334 0 0 $160,878

Total $1,620,175 $129,549 $43,174 $0 $0 $1,792,897

Table 10. Future funding requirements for the Cruise Ship Parks, 2011-2015

Formulated Funding Source

Formulated FY

Total

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 175,428 45,294 $220,722

FLHP Category I - 3R 24,249 $24,249

FLHP Category III - Alternative 

Transportation Program 608,697 398,202 50,000 300,000 $1,356,899

NRPP - Natural Resource 

Management 3,434 $3,434

Recreation Fee Park Revenue 17,013 $17,013

Recreation Fee Regional 20% 86,440 400,112 54,765 $541,317

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 295,027 100,148 159,176 $554,350

Repair / Rehabilitation 107,965 33,228 16,461 43,436 $201,089

Total $1,301,240 $976,984 $297,415 $43,436 $300,000 $2,919,074

Appendix Page 325
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 14

Table 11. Future funding requirements for the Road Parks, 2011-2015

Formulated Funding Source

Formulated FY

Total

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Climate Change Response 122,400 $122,400

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 662,459 1,406,734 841,236 469,392 $3,379,821

Environmental Management 

Program - Clean up of 

Contaminated Sites

66,900 $66,900

FLHP Category I - 3R 5,889,654 6,646,471 3,744,620 3,579,393 5,831,499 $25,691,636

FLHP Category I - 4R 796,404 3,917,622 $4,714,026

FLHP Category III - Alternative 

Transportation Program 675,481 497,300 659,467 100,000 $1,932,248

Line Item Construction 4,307,547 $4,307,547

Recreation Fee Park Revenue 869,321 446,160 2,619,834 931,740 730,722 $5,597,776

Recreation Fee Regional 20% 52,000 64,500 77,500 $194,000

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 567,905 245,624 226,779 $1,040,308

Repair / Rehabilitation 258,091 356,314 $614,405

USGS Water Quality Partnership 

Program 150,000 100,000 100,000 $350,000

Youth Conservation Corps 9,600 $9,600

Total $13,442,058 $9,596,088 $9,065,840 $8,898,147 $7,018,535 $48,020,668

4.3. Formulated Transportation Projects by Region, 2011-2015 

All formulated transportation project funding requests for the Alaska Region were aggregated and are 

listed by funding source in Table 12. The requested amounts for the Alaska Region range from $16.3M in 

2011 to $7.3M in 2015. It is important to note that this is a snapshot of the PMIS database as of 

December 2010 and the list of project requests and within the PMIS database is continuously changing. 

As described in Section 3.1, the projected annual funding for the region is estimated as being 

approximately $12.5M to $13M. Needed project funding for fiscal year 2011 is approximately $3.8M 

greater than what is projected to be available; however, requested amounts for 2012 through 2015 are 

well within the available funds projected. 

Appendix Page 326
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 15

Table 12. Future funding requirements for the Alaska Region, 2011-2015 

Formulated Funding Source

Formulated FY

Total

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Climate Change Response 122,400 $122,400

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 949,387 1,512,028 841,236 469,392 $3,772,043

Environmental Management 

Program - Clean up of 

Contaminated Sites

66,900 $66,900

FLHP Category I - 3R 5,913,903 6,646,471 3,744,620 3,579,393 5,831,499 $25,715,886

FLHP Category I - 4R 796,404 3,917,622 $4,714,026

FLHP Category III - Alternative 

Transportation Program 1,284,179 895,502 709,467 400,000 $3,289,147

Line Item Construction 5,726,276 $5,726,276

NRPP - Natural Resource 

Management 3,434 $3,434

Recreation Fee Park Revenue 869,321 446,160 2,636,847 931,740 730,722 $5,614,789

Recreation Fee Regional 20% 171,390 486,212 156,105 $813,707

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 919,927 415,321 420,289 $1,755,537

Repair / Rehabilitation 366,056 33,228 16,461 43,436 356,314 $815,494

USGS Water Quality 

Partnership Program 150,000 100,000 100,000 $350,000

Youth Conservation Corps 9,600 $9,600

Total $16,363,473 $10,724,220 $9,421,429 $8,941,583 $7,318,535 $52,769,240

Appendix Page 327
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 16

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Comprehensive five-year funding history of transportation-related projects by funding 

source and dollar amounts ($) within PMIS (includes fleet-related projects)

Funding Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

2009 Economic Recovery - Deferred Maintenance 691,730 $691,730

2009 Economic Recovery - Trails 224,975 $224,975

Challenge Cost Share - Region 25,000 30,000 23,974 $78,974

Concessions Franchise Fee 20% 600,000 $600,000

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% 908,367 974,890 1,389,604 639,289 1,592,715 $5,504,865

Emergency Storm and Flood Damage 1,235,100 $1,235,100

Environmental Management Program - Clean up of 

Contaminated Sites 41,085 17,672 18,551 47,326 61,300 $185,934

Environmental Management Program - Fuel Storage 

Management 173,745 11,880 $185,625

Environmental Quality Division - Environmental Impact 

Analysis 140,000 240,000 341,200 100,000 $821,200

Equipment Replacement 347,020 391,360 383,000 514,679 $1,636,059

Equipment Replacement - Construction Equipment 

/Vehicles/Other Equipment 383,920 $383,920

Federal Lands Highways Program 17,010 995,675 886,280 $1,898,965

FLHP Category I - 3R 668,021 440,000 3,955,451 695,209 $5,758,681

FLHP Category III - Alternative Transportation Program 1,200,000 654,000 164,675 476,472 323,000 $2,818,147

Line Item Construction 12,672,000 111,579 0 $12,783,579

Natural Resource Protection Projects 37,125 11,880 $49,005

Non-NPS Fund Sources 3,026,650 435,000 $3,461,650

NRPP - Natural Resource Management 88,110 66,330 $154,440

NRPP - Regional Program Block Allocations 18,871 $18,871

ONPS - Operations of the National Park System 2,477 10,000 $12,477

Park Partnership Program 32,000 $32,000

Recreation Fee 20% 152,500 95,717 363,256 297,020 $908,493

Recreation Fee Park Revenue 145,600 292,221 1,747,338 1,991,260 $4,176,419

Recreational Fee Demonstration, 20% 329,700 125,000 70,000 $524,700

Recreational Fee Demonstration, 80% 175,750 200,432 208,000 $584,182

Regional Natural Resources 69,900 23,831 $93,731

Regular Cyclic Maintenance 1,196,335 1,100,468 766,752 1,260,605 1,271,963 $5,596,123

Repair / Rehabilitation 1,136,535 919,647 244,200 96,968 214,655 $2,612,005

Transportation Planning for GMPs and LRTPs 134,908 $134,908

Volunteers in Parks 6,500 7,500 7,500 7,920 $29,420

Youth Conservation Corps 11,853 9,600 9,600 $31,053

Youth Partnership Program 37,000 $37,000

Grand Total $19,010,035 $10,107,458 $8,057,670 $7,431,255 $8,222,813 $53,264,231

Appendix Page 328
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 17

Appendix B: Five-year funding projection for transportation-related projects by funding source 

Funding Source 5-yr Total 

(2006-2011)

Funding Projection 

Notes*

Projected Funding

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2009 Economic Recovery -

Deferred Maintenance $485,730 One-time program; not to repeat

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2009 Economic Recovery -

Trails $224,975 One-time program; not to repeat

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Challenge Cost Share - Region $78,974 Irregular program; 

assume $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Concessions Franchise Fee 

20% $600,000 Retooled in past year; will not continue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Concessions Franchise Fee 

80% $5,504,865

Will continue based 

on concession fees; 

assume average

$1,100,000 $1,127,500 $1,155,688 $1,184,580 $1,214,194

Emergency Storm and Flood 

Damage $1,235,100

Event based, not a 

normal program; 

assume $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Environmental Management 

Program $185,934 Entirely PMIS-related; not considered $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Environmental Quality 

Division - Environmental 

Impact Analysis

$821,200 Will continue; 

assume average

$165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000

Line Item Construction $12,783,579 Assume little to no 

funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Natural Resource Protection 

Projects $49,005 Will continue $10,000 $10,250 $10,506 $10,769 $11,038

Non-NPS Fund Sources $3,026,650 Not typical; assume 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NRPP - Natural Resource 

Management $154,440

Will continue; started 

in ’09; assume 

average

$77,000 $78,925 $80,898 $82,921 $84,994

NRPP - Regional Program 

Block Allocations $18,871 Removed from analysis $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

ONPS - Operations of the 

National Park System $12,477 Removed from analysis $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Park Partnership Program $32,000

Partner dependent; 

assume average and 

some increase ($20-

25K annually)

$22,500 $23,063 $23,639 $24,230 $24,836

Recreation Fee 20% $908,493 Fund no longer 

available; assume $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recreation Fee Park Revenue $4,176,419 Retain at more recent 

levels $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $1,870,000

Recreational Fee 

Demonstration, 20% $524,700 Fund no longer available; assume $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recreational Fee 

Demonstration, 80% $584,182 Fund no longer available; assume $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Regional Natural Resources $93,731 Assume a smaller 

than average amount $17,500 $17,938 $18,386 $18,846 $19,317

Regular Cyclic Maintenance $5,295,373

Project future 

amounts based on 5-

yr history; trend line 

projection

$1,166,000 $1,201,000 $1,237,000 $1,273,000 $1,308,000

Repair / Rehabilitation $2,599,505

Substantial year-toyear variance; 

assume average

$520,000 $520,000 $520,000 $520,000 $520,000

Appendix Page 329
 ALASKA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DRAFT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT JULY 2011

Page 18

Funding Source 5-yr Total 

(2006-2011)

Funding Projection 

Notes*

Projected Funding

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Transportation Planning for 

GMPs and LRTPs $134,908 Likely to continue; assume $100K $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Volunteers in Parks $29,420 Assume trending 

slightly higher $8,000 $8,400 $8,820 $9,261 $9,724

Youth Conservation Corps $31,053

Assume will continue 

at about $10K 

annually

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Youth Partnership Program $37,000 Irregular program; 

assume $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FLHP Category I-3R 

(construction projects) $23,423,950 Unpredictable; assume average

$4,685,000 $4,685,000 $4,685,000 $4,685,000 $4,685,000

FLHP Category I-4R 

(construction projects) $1,994,865 Assume small fraction of 2010 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000

FLHP Category III 

(construction projects) $4,196,900 Unpredictable; assume average

$839,000 $839,000 $839,000 $839,000 $839,000

FLHP Design, Planning, 

Compliance and Admin $6,377,645 Unpredictable; assume average

$1,276,000 $1,307,900 $1,340,598 $1,374,112 $1,408,465

Alternative Transportation in 

Parks & Public Lands 

(ATTPL)**

$2,286,000 Unpredictable; 

assume average

$457,200 $457,200 $457,200 $457,200 $457,200

Scenic Byway Programs $125,000 

Assume participation 

with Parks, Seward 

Highway programs, 

possibly others

$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

Total $81,032,944 $12,548,000 $12,646,175 $12,746,734 $12,848,918 $12,951,768

*Projection notes based on personal communication with Paul Schrooten, April 29, 2011.

** Includes funding through Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program

Appendix Page 330