A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

FINAL

September 2012
Cover PHOTo: Floatplane taxing on Kashunuk River, Donna Dewhu

INSIDE COVER PHOTO: Arctic N
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

A Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

FINAL

September 2012
D A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan E

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act 

As the final version of the Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan was 

completed, the two-year highway authorization, Moving Ahead for Progress

in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), was signed into law. Effective October 

1, 2012, MAP-21 transforms the Refuge Roads Program, funded through 

previous Federal highway authorization, into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Transportation Program. Discretionary funding programs available 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal land management 

agencies under the previous Federal highway authorization also changed 

under MAP-21. For example, MAP-21 alters or eliminates programs, such 

as Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program, Paul S. Sarbanes Transit 

in Parks, Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails Program, and 

National Scenic Byways, and creates the Federal Lands Access Program—a 

formula-based program that provides funding for transportation planning, 

construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance for facilities located on or 

providing access to Federal lands.

Despite changes in Federal highway authorization, the high-level goals, 

recommendations, and actions presented in this long range transportation 

plan remain relevant and complementary to the new law. The next version 

of the Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan will further outline the 

connections between the region’s long-range goals, objectives, and actions in 

the context of highway authorization law in effect at that time.
F A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan I

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1.2	 Long RangeTransportation Planning in Region 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3	 Plan Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4	 Mission, Goals, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.5	 Planning Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5.1 Comprehensive Conservation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5.2 Land Protection Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.5.3 Other Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.5.4 This LRTP and NEPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.5.5 The Alaska Federal Lands LRTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.6	 Primary Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.6.1 Project Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.6.2 Regional Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.6.3 National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.6.4 Potential Partners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.7	 Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 Existing Transportation System Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.1	 Transportation System Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2	 System-Wide Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.3	 FLMATrends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

3 Goals and Baseline Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.1	 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

3.1.1 Identifying Sustainability Needs and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

3.2	 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

3.2.1 Identifying Environmental Needs and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.3	 Subsistence Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.3.1 Identifying Subsistence Needs and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.4	 User Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.4.1 Identifying User Experience Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.5	 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.5.1 Identifying Mobility Needs and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.6	 Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.7	 Identifying Partnership Needs and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
II A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

4 Funding and Project Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.1	 Transportation Funding in Region 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.1.1 Refuge Roads Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.2	 Transportation Project Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.3	 External Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

5. Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.1	 Long RangeTransportation Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Appendix A: National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Goals

Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts

Appendix C: Region 7 Refuge Transportation Factsheets

Appendix D: Transportation Planning Needs

Appendix E: Partnership Review

Appendix F: Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads Program Guidance

Appendix G: 2011 Region 7 Transportation Partnership Update Memorandum

Appendix H: Service Roadway Design Guidelines

List of Figures

Figure 1 	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 7 Refuges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 2 	 Service Plan Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 3 	 CCPs and NEPA Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 4 	 How to Read Asset Priority Index vs. Facility Condition Index Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Figure 5 	 Region 7 RefugeTransportation Asset Condition and Priority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Figure 6 	 Region 7 Administrative Site Condition and Priority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Figure 7 	 Alaska Permafrost Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Figure 8 	 Refuge Community* Erosion Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Figure 9 	 Project Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan III

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1 	 Planning Need and PlanTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 2 	 Number of Region 7Transportation Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 3 	 Number of Region 7Transportation Assets versus Service Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 4 	 Region 7Transportation Assets by Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 5 	 Region 7Transportation Assets by Administrative Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 6 	 Lower Priority Administrative Sites in Excellent Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 7 	 Condition of Refuge High Priority Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 8 	 Condition of Administrative Site High Priority Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 9 	 Condition of Refuge Low Priority Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 10 	 Condition of Administrative Site Low Priority Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 11 	 Road Inventory Program (RIP) Road Conditions (Miles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 12 	 ServiceTrail Inventory Conditions (Miles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 13 	 Parking Lot Conditions (Number of) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Table 14 	 Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Table 15 	 Refuge Community* Erosion Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Table 16 	 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 17 	 Subsistence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 18 	 User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 19 	 Region 7 Refuge Visits* (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 20 	 Gateway Communities and Mode of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 21 	 Reported Crashes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 22 	 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 23 	 Partnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 24 	 ServiceTransportation Asset Deferred Maintenance and Replacement Cost . . . . . . . .  6

Table 25 	 Anticipated Funding Gap through Planning HorizonYear (2035) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 26 	 Transportation Program Goals and Selection Criteria Used for Project Ranking. . . . .  6

Table 27 	 Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Table 28 	 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Table 29 	 Long-RangeTransportation Performance (October 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
IV A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

List of Acronyms and Definitions

API Asset priority index

ADOT&PF	 Alaska Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities

ANILCA	 Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act

ANCSA	 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

EIS Environmental impact statement

FCI Facility condition index

FHWA	 Federal Highway Administration

FLH Federal Lands Highway Division

FLMA	 Federal Land Management Agency

LRTP	 Long RangeTransportation Plan

MPO Metropolitan planning organization

NWR	 National Wildlife Refuge

NEPA	 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

RRP Refuge Roads Program

SAFETEA-LU	 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, EfficientTransportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users

SAMMS	 Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Service	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. United States
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This long range transportation plan 

(LRTP) is the first of its kind in the Alaska 

Region. The plan is needed to ensure that 

the fundamental mission of U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service), “working 

with others, to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people,” is advanced through 

the function of its entire transportation 

system – from float docks to roads and all 

transportation related assets in-between. 

The LRTP achieves this by establishing 

a transportation project selection process 

that emphasizes efforts that are most 

effective in furthering long range goals 

which represent the tenets of the agency’s 

mission statement. This document identifies 

needs, opportunities, actions, and strategies 

that would benefit the long range goals 

established in this plan. This LRTP is a 

policy-level plan intended to provide context 

and direction to project-level decisions 

over time. This plan does not make projectlevel decisions – that is, this plan is not

proposing road projects.

This LRTP establishes goals for the 

Service’s regional transportation system to 

help guide transportation decisions. Long 

range transportation planning provides 

a framework for identifying system-level 

needs and to objectively choose projects 

that are most likely to achieve these 

goals. The intent is to provide a defensible 

process for identifying transportationrelated projects that advances the Service’s 

overarching vision and mission.

The LRTP brings multiple benefits to the 

Service, such as: 

Providing policy suggestions for topics 

such as decommissioning roads, climate 

change, sustainability, and other long 

range recommendations, and brings 

the Service into compliance with 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) for conducting 

long range transportation planning.

Providing a platform for individual 

refuges to communicate needs and 

opportunities to regional, national 

decision makers, and potential partners.

Executive Summary

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

In addition to being an LRTP for Region 7, this plan 

is a “drop-down plan” to the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP. As a drop-down plan, this document elaborates 

upon topics discussed in the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP with Service-specific details including baseline 

conditions, transportation needs and gaps, project 

selection processes, funding opportunities, and 

recommended future actions. This information 

allows the Service and Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 

partner agencies to identify gaps in the statewide 

transportation system serving Federal lands, to develop 

better interagency coordination, and to leverage funds 

to address high-level priorities of mutual interest. The 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP is a unique opportunity 

afforded Federal lands management agencies in 

Alaska because of the shared regional boundaries of 

the Federal agencies in the state. This plan is also a 

first-of-a-kind effort.

Alaska

Federal

Lands

LRTP

NPS FS BLM FWS
2 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

 Enabling leaders to make informed 

decisions based on the long-term 

transportation mission, goals, and 

objectives as well as direct funding to 

the highest priority and most beneficial 

transportation projects.

Providing the Service with a better 

picture of future transportation needs and 

present day gaps.

 Enabling leaders to find alternative 

funding from Federal sources that 

are administered by States (Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities [ADOT&PF]), metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPO), and 

others. 

 Enabling leaders to synchronize 

transportation planning with other 

Service planning efforts such as 

comprehensive conservation plans (CCP) 

and visitor services plans, and with other 

regional planning efforts outside Service 

boundaries. 

Providing current data on multimodal 

transportation issues, needs, and 

opportunities across the region.

National Environmental Policy Act

This LRTP is not intended to meet 

the standards required of National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents and does not make project-level 

decisions. NEPA-level public involvement 

and documentation will occur once projectlevel needs are identified and solutions 

are considered. At the project-level NEPA 

stage, however, this LRTP will play a vital 

role in explaining how project need was 

identified. 

Plan Findings

The following observations highlight the 

key findings of the Region 7 LRTP:

 Based on current and forecasted funding 

allocation for the Refuge Roads Program, 

the Service will continue to experience a 

funding gap where funding allocations and 

funds fall short of program needs. The 

anticipated gap between funds available 

and funds needed will be $228 million by 

2035.

 Long range transportation goals can be 

furthered by emphasizing various unit 

level tasks and needs. Chapter 5 of this 

LRTP lists unit level actions that can be 

most effective in achieving long range 

transportation goals.

The project selection process adopted 

in this plan increases the defensibility 

of funding decisions and ensures that 

projects selected for implementation 

are effective in supporting the Service’s 

mission and goals. 

Participating in the joint actions identified 

in the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

will provide benefits to all Federal land 

management agencies involved, including 

the Service.

 As refuges consider climate change 

adaptation and mitigation, they can use 

the Draft Climate Change Technical

Report and Table 14 of this LRTP as 

resources.

 Refuges identified in Table 15 should 

monitor and respond to erosion on Service 

lands, especially on refuges adjacent to 

“priority action” communities.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

 Each refuge may consider the known and 

possible environmental threats identified 

in Table 16 in future refuge level planning 

efforts.

The number of transportation projects 

and/or percent of transportation funds 

spent to reduce fish and wildlife conflicts 

with the transportation system needs to 

be recorded and reported to national level 

leaders.

 Refuges identified in Table 19 as having 

high visitation, need to address user 

experience in transportation components 

of CCPs – especially as the experience 

relates to the refuge activities identified 

in Table 18.

The methods for delivering user 

information should complement the types 

of access and uses experienced to or 

within each refuge.

 Studies are needed to determine where 

there are ingress/egress issues between 

Service and non-Service lands and 

intervention is necessary to reduce safety 

needs identified in Table 21 and Table 22.

 Support is needed for alternative 

transportation systems (ATS) in refuges 

with identified needs (Table 22).

 Refuges can find partnership 

opportunities through their CCPs, 

as summarized in Table 23. Better 

communication is needed between refuges 

and regional offices to transfer knowledge 

about partnership opportunities to 

the regional (especially in relationship 

to performance measures 9 and 10 in 

Table 27) and national levels. 

Plan Implementation

This plan will be implemented over time as 

projects which further long range goals are 

selected and completed. The LRTP’s action 

plan (Chapter 5) ensures that progress is 

tracked through the use of performance 

measures and recommendations which 

respond to the needs and opportunities 

identified in each goal area. Performance 

measures embody outcomes that, once fully 

achieved, represent major milestones in 

meeting the long range goals and objectives 

expressed in this LRTP. The intent of the 

performance measures is to report progress 

in meeting these performance measures 

each year to Service leaders and other 

interested parties.

As performance measures are used to 

evaluate and track progress in meeting the 

long range goals and objectives expressed 

in this LRTP, the baseline for future 

measurements are also set in this LRTP. 

Regular reporting will show progress over 

time in achieving desired performance, 

and future plan updates will provide 

opportunities to modify performance 

measures to accommodate new needs and 

opportunities. The performance measure 

baseline, or starting point, values are 

documented in Chapter 5 of this LRTP.
Richardson-Highway, BLM Turner River landing area, FWS
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

1 Introduction

Region 7 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), with the assistance 

of the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), Western Federal Lands 

Highway Division (WFLHD), has 

developed this long range transportation 

plan (LRTP) to support transportationrelated decision making in Service 

Region 7 (Figure 1). This LRTP outlines 

a strategy for improving and maintaining 

transportation assets that provide access 

to and within Service-managed lands in 

Alaska to 2035 and beyond. This plan 

ensures that the Service’s fundamental 

mission of “working with others, to 

conserve, protect and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American 

people,” is advanced by a transportation 

system on Service-owned lands. This 

LRTP is also intended to help the Service 

make investment decisions for planning, 

preservation, and construction related to 

transportation throughout Region 7. This 

LRTP is a policy-level plan intended to 

provide context and direction to projectlevel decisions over time; however, this 

plan does not make project-level decisions.

This plan is a “drop-down plan” to 

the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP. As 

a drop-down plan, it elaborates on 

topics discussed in the Alaska Federal

Lands LRTP with Service-specific 

details including baseline conditions, 

transportation deficiencies and needs, 

project selection processes, funding 

opportunities, and recommended future 

actions. This information allows the 

Service and Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP partner agencies to identify gaps 

in the statewide transportation system 

serving Federal lands, to develop better 

interagency coordination, and to leverage 

project funds to address high-level 

priorities of mutual interest. 
6 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 7 Refuges

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

Yukon

Territory

Canada

Alaska, U.S.A.

Yukon Flats

Wildlife Refuge

DAWSON

CITY

WHITTIER

YAKUTAT

Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge

Yukon Delta National

Wildlife Refuge

Togiak National

Wildlife Refuge

Innoko National

Wildlife Refuge

Koyukuk National

Wildlife Refuge

Selawik National

Wildlife Refuge Kanuti National

Wildlife Refuge

Nowitna National

Wildlife Refuge

Kenai National

Wildlife Refuge

Kodiak National

Wildlife Refuge

Alaska Peninsula

National Wildlife Refuge

Tetlin National

Wildlife Refuge

Becharof National

Wildlife Refuge

Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge

Izembek National

Wildlife Refuge

TOK

NOME

SITKA

HOMER

BARROW

VALDEZ

JUNEAU

CHENEGA BAY

KODIAK

BETHEL CORDOVA

UGASHIK

KAKTOVIK

WRANGELL

KOTZEBUE

UNALASKA

FAIRBANKS

ANCHORAGE

KETCHIKAN

KING COVE

FORT YUKON

DILLINGHAM

HOOPER BAY

PRUDHOE BAY

KING SALMON

ARCTIC VILLAGE

$%1

$%5

$%37

$%4

$%6

$%97

$%2

$%8

$%9

$%16

$%3 $%7

$%11

$%10

$%6

$%97

$%1

$%16

$%4

$% $%37

37

$%37

$%37

$%8

UV2

UV1

UV6

UV8

UV4

UV3

UV5

UV10 UV7

UV929

UV937

UV924

UV4

UV1

F

Le gend

Ferry route to

Bellingham, WA

!( Ferry Terminal

Alaska Marine Highway

Highway

Major Road

Railroad

Fish and Wildlife

Service Refuges

0 30 60 120

Miles

British

Columbia
8 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

1.2 Long Range Transportation 

Planning in Region 7

This LRTP presents goals for the 

Service’s regional transportation system. 

These goals are intended to help guide 

transportation decisions. Long range 

transportation planning provides a 

framework for identifying system-level 

needs and objectively choosing projects 

that are most likely to achieve these 

goals. The intent is to provide a defensible 

process for identifying transportationrelated projects that advances the 

Service’s overarching vision and mission.

The LRTP brings multiple benefits to the 

Service, such as: 

Providing a platform for individual 

refuges to communicate needs and 

opportunities to regional, national 

decision makers, and potential partners.

 Enabling leaders to make informed 

decisions based on the long-term 

transportation mission, goals, and 

objectives, as well as direct funding to 

the highest priority and most beneficial 

transportation projects.

Providing the Service with a better 

picture of future transportation needs.

 Enabling leaders to find alternative 

funding from Federal sources that 

are administered by States (Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities [ADOT&PF]), 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO), and others. 

 Enabling leaders to synchronize 

transportation planning with other 

Service planning efforts such as 

comprehensive conservation plans 

(CCP) and visitor services plans, and 

with other regional planning efforts 

outside Service boundaries. 

Providing current data on multimodal 

transportation issues, needs, and 

opportunities across the region.

1.3 Plan Purposes

The LRTP supports the following topics 

by providing:

Policy

 Suggestions for decommissioning roads.

 Direction on long-term issues like 

climate change and sustainability.

 Compliance with the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) for conducting long 

range transportation planning.

Funding

 Strategies for partnering with other 

agencies and organizations.

Possible transportation funding sources.

Decision-Making

 Long range mission, goals, and 

objectives for transportation planning.

 Defensible framework for transportation 

planning and decision making.

 Understanding of transportation assets 

and how to determine and illustrate 

“needs” and “gaps”.

 Structure for incorporating long range 

goals into other levels of regional, unit, 

and project level planning.

Information

 Understanding of the unique nature and 

roles of transportation in Region 7.

 Documentation of external factors that 

could affect Service transportation 

assets.

 Region-wide transportation terms and 

definitions.

Increased regional and national 

awareness of refuge level alternative 

transportation system needs.

 Best management practices for 

transportation improvements on Service 

lands.
10 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation infrastructure provides 

critical links and resources in connecting 

people with nature, which in Alaska 

includes national wildlife refuges and 

off-refuge administrative sites. The 

Service seeks to systematically approach 

transportation funding decisions and 

leverage its transportation dollars wisely. 

The Service desires a planning process 

that involves partner agencies (Federal, 

State, and local), that is consistent with 

State and local transportation planning 

processes, and that clearly defines and 

offers opportunities for public input. The 

key objective of such a planning process 

is to develop and maintain a coordinated, 

transportation system for public use, 

ranging from ferries to vehicle access, 

summer and winter trails, airports 

and landing strips, and parking lots. 

Coordinated planning also helps ensure 

that the most critical projects receive 

funding.

A critical aspect of this LRTP is 

facilitating partnerships and fostering 

opportunities to leverage funds with 

other FLMAs, State, local, and tribal 

governments, as well as others to 

accomplish transportation improvements 

of common interest and mutual benefit. 

The intent is to increase the utility of 

transportation investments by pooling 

resources into efforts that satisfy the goals 

of multiple agencies and organizations. 

The LRTP serves as a tool in working with 

refuge gateway communities, boroughs, 

MPOs, other FLMAs, and stakeholder 

agencies.

1.4 Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Through a collaborative effort, Region 7 

defined this LRTP’s mission, goals, 

and objectives based upon the agency’s 

mission statement, National Wildlife 

Refuge System strategic goals (available 

in Appendix A), Alaska Federal Lands

LRTP goals and objectives, and the unique 

values and circumstances of Region 7. 

The mission, goals, and objectives of 

this LRTP reflect a union of these 

overarching directives, as they pertain to 

transportation. The following Region 7 

LRTP mission, goals, and objectives 

shaped the development, conclusions, and 

recommendations of this document.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

LRTP Mission

Support the Service’s overarching mission by connecting people to fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats through strategic implementation of transportation programs.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of this Region 7 LRTP represent the five goal categories. Each goal includes distinct 

objectives that describe targets the Service will strive for to accomplish each goal. 

Goal 1. Provide a sustainable transportation program to satisfy current and future land 

management needs in the face of a changing climate.

Objective 1.Address climate change and other environmental factors at all levels of 

transportation planning, design, project delivery, operations, and maintenance.

Objective 2.Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new assets in the planning 

process.

Objective 3.Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by refuge staff and visiting public while 

continuing to provide for and encourage compatible uses.

Goal 2. Conserve and protect natural and cultural resources through comprehensive 

transportation planning and management.

Objective 1.Conduct transportation planning at a landscape level by considering direct and 

indirect effects of the transportation system on ecosystems within and adjacent to 

refuges.

Objective 2. Ensure protection of open water, wetlands, and aquifers on refuges; maintain and/or 

improve air quality; and avoid or minimize impacts on permafrost and sensitive soils 

when planning for and constructing transportation improvements.

Objective 3.Avoid, minimize, or mitigate transportation-related habitat impacts.

Objective 4.Preserve cultural resources by avoiding or minimizing negative transportation 

impacts to culturally significant human settlements, subsistence areas, cultural 

landscapes, and historic and archaeological sites.

Goal 3. Fulfill the Service’s Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 

obligations as they relate to subsistence use and access.

Objective 1. Ensure effects of transportation decisions on resources and subsistence users are 

considered.

Objective 2.Consider subsistence access needs when making transportation decisions.

Objective 3.Document traditional uses of off-road vehicles for subsistence access.
12 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Goal 4. Proactively enhance connectivity of the Alaskan multimodal transportation system and user 

experience.

Objective 1. Engage visitors with compelling information so they can get to and better understand 

Alaska refuges.

Objective 2. Establish a seamless interagency multimodal transportation system that emphasizes 

the journey as part of the Alaska experience.

Objective 3.Collect and analyze visitor information to determine which experiences/expectations 

are most important and relevant to transportation access.

Goal 5. Provide opportunities for safe, efficient, affordable, and appropriate access to, through, and 

within refuge lands.

Objective 1.Identify and reduce safety problems and modal conflicts to and within Alaskan 

refuges.

Objective 2. Ensure that mission critical transportation assets are maintained in “good” or better 

condition. 

Objective 3.Develop partnerships to leverage resources and develop integrated transportation 

solutions.

Objective 4.Work with public and private sector partners to address shared transportation issues.

Objective 5.Coordinate annually with other agencies and partners to set priorities for needs, 

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

potential economic savings for projects of mutual interest and benefit.

1.5 Planning Structure

The Service uses planning documents 

at all levels of the agency (project, unit, 

regional, and national levels) to improve 

decision-making processes. Plans are 

used to express guiding principles and/

or specific deficiencies or needs ranging 

from the project to the policy level. A 

wide range of planning tools is therefore 

available at all Service levels. Figure 2 

illustrates various types of plans that are 

commonly used at different levels within 

the Service.

1.5.1 Comprehensive Conservation Plans

Of particular relevance to long range 

transportation planning are those plans 

that document management directions 

within individual units, such as resource 

management plans. Relevant Service 

resource management plans include 

refuge CCPs, visitor service plans, 

and land protection plans. CCPs are 

developed for individual refuges to 

provide a description of the desired 

future conditions and long range guidance 

with regard to resource management 

at the refuge unit level. CCPs establish 

management direction to achieve refuge 

purposes and establish vision, goals, and 

objectives for a refuge. The first series 

of CCPs were completed for all Alaska 

Refuges between 1985 and 1988. Since 

that time, 11 refuges have revised their 

CCPs to include environmental impact 

statements (EIS) or environmental 

assessments (EA) consistent with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as illustrated in Figure 3.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 13

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2 

Service Plan Levels

Project Level

Trac Studies

Road Safety Audits

NEPA Studies

National Level

National Asset 

Management Plan

National LRTP

National Fisheries 

Strategic Plan

National Refuge 

Strategic Plan

National Sign 

Manual

Regional Level

Regional Asset 

Management Plan

Regional LRTP

Regional Visitor 

Services Plan

Unit Level

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

Comprehensive 

Hatchery 

Management Plan

Land Protection 
14 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Review & Revise Plan

NEPA :

• Compliance and public involvement

Preplanning: Planning the Plan

NEPA :

• Determine purpose and need

• Collect data and info

Implement Plan; Monitor & Evaluate

NEPA :

• NEPA compliance for projects, public involvement

Prepare and Adopt Final Plan

NEPA :

• Public comment

• Respond to comments and modify preferred alternative

• Prepare & distribute final plan & EIS (if applicable)

Prepare Draft Plan & EA/EIS

NEPA :

• Prepare & distribute draft conservation plan & EA/EIS

• Identify preferred alternative

• Public comment

Develop & Analyze Alternatives

NEPA :

• Reasonable range

• No action alternative

• Assess environmental effects

Review Vision Statement & Goals; 

Determine Significant Issues

NEPA :

• Identify significant issues

Initiate Public Involvement & 

Scoping

NEPA :

• Notify and involve the public

• Determine scope of the issue

Figure 3 

CCPs and NEPA Compliance
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

1.5.2 Land Protection Plans

Land protection plans focus on private 

lands located within refuge boundaries 

and identify high-quality habitat for 

possible conservation. The plans guide 

land-protection activities and provide 

a framework for refuge and private 

landowner cooperation. The plans do 

not obligate either the refuge or the 

landowners to undertake any of the land 

conservation measures identified. The 

refuge must consider management goals, 

priorities, and the availability of funds 

when approached by private landowners 

with land conservation proposals. Ten 

land protection plans in Alaska (covering 

11 refuges) were completed between 1992 

and 2007, and the remaining four plans 

(covering five refuges) are expected to be 

completed by the end of 2015.

1.5.3 Other Plans

Regional and refuge level leaders have 

other planning tools available to them 

if there is a demonstrated need for 

additional transportation planning based 

on their knowledge of issues facing 

individual refuges. Additional plans fall 

into three categories: large-scale and 

comprehensive plans, issue driven plans, 

and small-scale plans and studies. These 

categories are used to describe the 

different types of plans and studies, as 

shown in Table 1.

1.5.4 This LRTP and NEPA

By design, this LRTP does not meet the 

standards required of a standalone NEPA 

document and does not make projectlevel decisions. As this long range plan is 

comparable to similar State and/or MPO 

transportation planning processes, the 

following references from 23 CFR section 

450 apply to this LRTP.

 § 450.222 Applicability of NEPA to 

Statewide Transportation Plans 

and Programs Any decision by the 

Secretary concerning a long range 

statewide transportation plan or 

statewide transportation improvement 

program developed through the 

processes provided for in 23 U.S.C. 135, 

49 U.S.C. 5304, and this subpart shall 

not be considered to be a Federal action 

subject to review under NEPA.§ 450.336 

 Applicability of NEPA to 

Metropolitan Transportation Plans 

and Programs Any decision by the 

Secretary concerning a metropolitan 

transportation plan or transportation 

improvement program developed 

through the processes provided for in 

23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this 

subpart shall not be considered to be a 

Federal action subject to review under 

NEPA.

Table 1

Planning Need and Plan Types

Planning Need Corresponding Plan Types

Comprehensive/Large Scale

• CCP step-down plan (e.g., wilderness stewardship, visitor 

service)

• Land protection plan

• Complex issue analysis (e.g., wind turbine environmental 

assessment or EIS)

• Regional transportation analysis (e.g., big picture look at 

connectivity, visitor use analysis)

Issue Driven • Engineering/traffic safety analysis

• Access analysis

Small Scale • Traffic or transportation safety audit
16 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

NEPA-level public involvement and 

documentation will occur once projectlevel needs are identified and solutions are 

considered. At this project-level NEPA 

stage, however, this LRTP plays a vital 

role in explaining how project need was 

identified, which supports NEPA-level 

project need and purpose definitions.

While this plan does not identify specific 

projects for implementation, it does 

provide a decision-making context to guide 

planning professionals in making better, 

more objective investment decisions 

(i.e., project selection). The information 

assembled to support this plan can be used 

to further develop project-level decisions 

that will contribute to better analysis of 

purpose and need, and therefore support 

NEPA documentation.

1.5.5 The Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

This Region 7 LRTP serves dual 

purposes: it is a Region 7 specific long 

range planning document as well as the 

Service’s drop-down plan to the Alaska

Federal Lands LRTP. The Alaska

Federal Lands LRTP was developed 

because of Alaska’s unique reliance on 

a statewide multimodal transportation 

system. More than anywhere else in 

the United States, Alaska depends on a 

combination of highway, trail, marine, 

river, and air connections to meet its 

transportation needs. This plan, unlike 

regional or state LRTPs developed for 

Federal lands in the lower 48 States, 

focuses on addressing planning issues 

related to interconnectivity of the various 

modes to provide a unique experience 

across multiple land jurisdictions for local 

residents, visitors, and administrative, 

commercial, and subsistence users.

The Alaska Federal Lands LRTP was 

also intended to help foster partnerships 

among Alaska’s FLMAs. As funding 

has become increasingly scarce, it has 

become progressively more important for 

the Service and other FLMAs to work 

together in addressing transportation 

needs, setting priorities, and implementing 

projects to provide public benefits, while 

meeting fundamental program goals. The 

LRTP describes the process and provides 

guidance for coordinated planning 

and decision making among FLMAs, 

including the Service, National Park 

Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, ADOT&PF, and FHWA 

FLH. The LRTP is intended to help 

these partners make mutually beneficial 

investment decisions for planning, safety 

management, preservation, construction, 

and other improvements related to the 

transportation system.

1.6 Primary Audience

This LRTP is written for project leaders 

from field stations, regional leaders 

from the Service, national-level decision 

makers, and potential local and regional 

partners from governmental agencies 

or non-governmental organizations. 

Information provided in the LRTP is 

intended to support these groups as 

documented in the following subsections.

1.6.1 Project Leaders

Project leaders use the LRTP as a guide 

for project identification strategies 

and tools for communicating project 

need to regional level management. 

Guidance found in this plan assists 

project leaders in using readily available 

data and resources to justify a project’s 

need. This will ultimately lead to better 

positioning for funding, which affects 

project prioritization at the regional level. 

Project leaders also use this plan as a 

process-based tool to partner with outside 

agencies and discuss project needs of 

mutual interest, such as safety concerns, 

alternative transportation systems, and 

addressing climate change with public and 

regional entities.

1.6.2 Regional Level

At the regional level, this LRTP provides 

the information necessary for leaders to 

make transportation decisions based on 

Service vision, mission, and goals. The 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

plan also enables regional transportation 

coordinators to direct funding to the 

most beneficial and highest priority 

transportation projects. Furthermore, 

the LRTP helps regional leaders find 

potential alternative funding sources 

from Federal, State, or MPO sources. 

At the regional level, the LRTP is also 

used to synchronize transportation 

planning with efforts such as CCPs, visitor 

services plans, land protection plans, 

and other regional and statewide plans 

outside Service boundaries, such as MPO 

regional transportation plans and State 

transportation plans.

1.6.3 National Level

This LRTP will align with the forthcoming 

National U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

LRTP and other regional LRTPs 

to provide additional information to 

congressional leaders as to unmet mission 

critical transportation needs. It also helps 

illustrate the Service’s foresight, need, 

and commitment to certain mission critical 

goals—especially when projects are being 

pursued jointly with other agencies or 

organizations and additional Federal 

dollars are requested. This regional plan 

will be updated in the future, as necessary, 

to align with the Service’s forthcoming 

National LRTP.

1.6.4 Potential Partners

Potential partners may use this LRTP to 

understand the Service transportation 

programs as well as its needs, goals, 

and objectives for the future. It can 

serve as a tool for identifying projects of 

mutual interest between the Service and 

external groups or agencies. The Service 

recognizes the value of cooperative 

transportation partnerships, and seeks to 

leverage funds with other agencies and 

organizations. Potential partner agencies 

could include other FLMAs, ADOT&PF, 

MPOs, borough governments, and others.

1.7 Plan Overview

This LRTP is structured into five 

chapters and several appendices. Each 

chapter builds upon the information 

and conclusions derived in the previous 

chapter(s). The document examines the 

existing transportation system, baseline 

conditions, funding and project selection, 

and recommendations for future action.

Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter 

introduces the purpose, goals, objectives, 

structure, and audiences for this plan. 

Chapter 2, Existing Transportation 

System and Baseline Conditions.

This chapter summarizes the Service’s 

existing transportation systems in Alaska 

and explores relevant trends. Conditions 

and trends are summarized using data 

from various sources including asset 

management systems and road inventory 

data maintained by the Service and FLH. 

Data such as road service life, visitation 

statistics and trends, population growth, 

alternative transportation opportunities, 

and other significant issues are used to 

establish baselines from which LRTP 

decisions can be made.

Chapter 3, Goals and Baseline 

Conditions. This chapter presents 

baseline conditions as they relate to the 

five goals of this plan. This chapter uses 

this information highlighted in Chapter 2.

Chapter 4, Funding and Project 

Selection. This chapter describes a 

variety of funding categories currently 

available to transportation projects in 

Region 7. Transportation funding needs, 

availability, and the gaps between the two 

are also illustrated in this chapter. This 

chapter also outlines a defensible project 

selection process that incorporates long 

range goals and objectives. 

Chapter 5, Action Plan. This chapter 

outlines performance measures that gauge 

progress in meeting long range goals and 

objectives. The chapter also presents 

recommendations for improving the 

effectiveness of future planning efforts. 
18 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Winter Backpacking at Kenai NWR, FWS
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

2 Existing Transportation System 

Conditions

The current state of Region 7’s 

transportation system serves as a baseline 

for identifying the needs and opportunities 

that will help achieve the long range goals 

expressed in Chapter 1. This chapter 

describes the nature and condition of the 

region’s transportation system, establishes 

desired future conditions, and explores 

relevant trends that could potentially 

affect the Service’s transportation 

system. The baseline data presented in 

this chapter and Chapter 3 are intended 

to inform the project identification and 

selection process described in Chapter 4, 

thereby allowing projects to be selected 

through on an objective process, and not 

based on conditions alone. In this chapter, 

the Service’s asset management system 

(SAMMS) data is categorized by refuge 

and administrative site, as summarized 

Table 2. 

2.1 Transportation System Overview

Understanding the unique nature of 

travel in Alaska is a prerequisite for 

transportation planning in Region 7. 

Alaska’s expansive multimodal network 

is necessary due to the State’s immense 

size, challenging physical geography, and 

extreme climate. It is commonplace for 

travel in the State to involve connections 

from one mode of transportation to 

another. 

Alaska distinguishes itself from other 

states in that seasons and climatic 

conditions significantly influence modes 

of travel. They also hasten degradation of 

transportation assets. Modes of travel are 

influenced as seasons restrict some forms 

of transportation and create opportunities 

for others. For example, extreme winter 

conditions inhibit automobile use in some 

remote areas; however, the winter season 

makes travel by snowmobile and on frozen 

river ice roads possible. 

Table 2

Number of Region 7 Transportation Assets

Location

Roads (Paved)Roads (Dirt)Roads (Gravel)Parking LotTrails (Paved)Trails (Unpaved)Board-walksBridges (Trail)Bridges (Culvert)Bridges (Road)Docks (Floating)Docks (Stationary)Airstrips

Refuge 12 10 47 90 6 51 8 2 0 4 2 2 3

Administrative Site 1 0 10 56 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 4 0

Total 13 10 57 146 9 53 9 3 0 4 3 6 3

Region 7 SAMMS (as of July 2011)
20 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Methods of travel to and through refuges 

in Alaska are diverse. Refuges range 

from roadless areas accessible only by 

air or boat with annual visitation below 

100 people to easily accessible destination 

refuges where over one million people 

visit annually. These refuges may be 

accessible by a wide range of modes of 

travel, including automobile, ferry, boat, 

foot, snowmobile, bicycle, and all-terrain 

vehicles. Region 7 is unique in that it 

reports relatively few transportation 

assets in SAMMS compared with other 

regions that rely on more traditional 

transportation assets (such as gravel 

and paved roads). The disparity 

between Region 7 transportation assets 

documented in SAMMS and those of other 

regions is summarized in Table 3. The 

table indicates that except for unpaved 

trails, trail bridges, and airstrips, Alaska, 

on average, has fewer units of documented 

transportation assets than other Service 

regions. The type of assets that exceed the 

service-wide averages reflects the unique 

composition of transportation assets in the 

Alaska Region. The limited nature of the 

Region 7 transportation network is further 

illustrated in Table 4, which shows refuge 

assets1

, and Table 5, which summarizes 

assets by administrative site2.

Refuge Interviews

Preparation of this LRTP involved conducting individual 

refuge interviews. Information about transportation 

access, threats, needs, opportunities, and other 

transportation related issues that are not necessarily 

captured though SAMMS and the Refuge Road Inventory 

Program were documented through this exercise. The 

results of these interviews are summarized in Chapter 3, 

where needs and opportunities are discussed for the 

region and individual refuges.

Table 3

Number of Region 7 Transportation Assets versus Service Averages

Asset Type Measurement 

Unit Region 7 Averages for all Other Regions

Roads (paved) Lane miles 8 74

Roads (dirt) Lane miles 35 451

Roads (gravel) Lane miles 173 549

Parking lot Count 90 256

Trails (paved) Miles 1 3

Trails (unpaved) Miles 174 32

Boardwalks Miles 8 6

Bridges (road) Count 0 30

Bridges (trail) Count 4 3

Bridges (culvert) Count 2 7

Docks (floating) Count 2 5

Docks (stationary) Count 2 9

Airstrips Count 3 0

Region 7 SAMMS (as of July 2011); Service-wide data (as of January 2011) footnotes 1 & 2.

1 Refuge assets are located within the boundaries of a national wildlife refug

2 Administrative sites, consisting of offices, visitor centers, warehoused, etc, are generally n

located within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 4

Region 7 Transportation Assets by Refuge

Refuge

Roads (Paved)Lane MilesRoads (Dirt)Lane MilesRoads (Gravel)Lane MilesParking LotCountTrails (Paved)Length in LNFTTrails (Unpaved)Length in LNFTBoardwalksLength in LNFTBridges (Trail)Size in SQYDBridges (Road)Size in SQYDDocks (Floating)CountDocks (Stationary)CountAirstripsCount

Alaska 

Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alaska 

Peninsula 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Arctic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Becharof 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Innoko 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Izembek 0 8 63 17 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0

Kanuti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kenai 7 27 102 65 3,784 758,659 2,733 67 0 2 1 0

Kodiak 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koyukuk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nowitna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Selawik 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 0

Tetlin 1 0 6 4 0 138,960 0 0 0 0 1 0

Togiak 0 0 0 0 0 20,390 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yukon Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,563 0 0 0 0 1

Yukon Flats 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 35 174 90 3,784 918,009 5,096 67 143 2 2 3

Region 7 SAMMS (as of July 2011)
22 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 5

Region 7 Transportation Assets by Administrative Site

Administrative Site

Roads (Paved)Lane MilesRoads (Gravel)Lane MilesParking LotCountTrails (Paved)Length in LNFTTrails (Unpaved)Length in LNFTBoardwalksLength in LNFTBridges (Trail)Size in SQYDDocks (Floating)CountDocks (Stationary)Count

Aleutian Islands Unit 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2

Aviation Manager 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bethel AS 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bettles AS 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cold Bay Hangar 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dillingham AS 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Yukon AS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Galena AS 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0

Homer Visitor Center AS 0 0 2 1,880 1,015 1,400 122 0 0

Juneau Fish and 

Wildlife Field Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Juneau Hangar Wildlife 

AS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ketchikan AS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

King Salmon AS 0 0 9 240 0 0 0 0 0

Kodiak AS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kodiak Office 0 1 3 0 1,320 0 0 0 0

Kotzebue AS 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

McGrath AS 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tok AS 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2 2 56 2,120 2,335 1,400 122 1 4

Region 7 SAMMS (as of July 201
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

2.2 System-Wide Conditions

Data from the Refuge Road Inventory 

Program (RIP) and SAMMS is used to 

quantitatively determine the condition 

of Service transportation assets. The 

datasets are updated regularly, and 

follow established procedures to ensure 

data consistency and objectiveness. 

These datasets serve as good measures 

for quantifying transportation system 

conditions across the region.

SAMMS uses an asset priority index 

(API) for ranking how critical assets are 

to accomplishing the Service’s mission 

and goals. The Service’s use of API is 

consistent with the Department of the 

Interior definition of API as, “an asset 

evaluation process that quantifies the 

value of an asset in relation to the mission 

of the Bureau or Office. The API ranks 

assets according to a rating system.” 

The Service uses this metric to ensure 

that maintenance activities focus on the 

highest priority assets. Similarly, it is used 

to identify the lowest priority assets for 

possible decommissioning. SAMMS also 

contains a measure of facility condition 

index (FCI). The FCI is the ratio of the 

deferred maintenance costs (which can be 

thought of as overdue maintenance, but is 

formally defined in the adjoining sidebar) 

to replacement value; therefore, a larger 

FCI value indicates higher costs to bring 

an asset back to full repair, while a lower 

value indicates that less cost is required to 

bring an asset back to full repair.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the SAMMS 

chart can be thought of as four quadrants. 

The top-left quadrant represents assets 

that are high priority and in better 

condition, and should therefore receive 

preventative maintenance. Assets in the 

top-right quadrant are higher-priority 

assets in poor condition, and should 

therefore be repaired or replaced. 

Assets in the bottom-left quadrant can 

be classified as lower-priority assets in 

good condition. These assets can perhaps 

wait to receive additional maintenance if 

maintenance funds are needed elsewhere. 

Assets in the bottom-right quadrant are 

facilities in poor condition and of low 

priority. Management strategies for these 

assets include keeping poor condition as 

the target condition or considering these 

assets for decommissioning. SAMMS 

summaries and charts are provided for 

each transportation asset type and refuge 

in Appendix B.

Deferred Maintenance

The Department of the Interior defines “deferred 

maintenance” as maintenance that was not performed 

when it should have been or which was scheduled 

and was, therefore, put off or delayed for a future 

period. Deferred maintenance is comprised of existing 

maintenance repairs and required replacements 

(component renewal), not accomplished when they 

should have been, not funded in the current fiscal 

year, or otherwise delayed to the future. It is typically 

identified by a comprehensive facilities condition 

assessment/audit of buildings, grounds, fixed equipment 

and infrastructure. These needs have not been 

scheduled to be accomplished in the current budget 

cycle. Therefore, these needs are postponed until future 

funding budget cycles. The projects have received a 

lower priority status than those to be completed in the 

current budget cycle. Indirect costs, which include 

salaries and benefits for government employees are 

covered by annual appropriations and not added to 

estimated costs for deferred maintenance, nor are they 

included in the numbers reported to the Department of 

the Interior for the annual deferred maintenance display 

in the Department's financial statement or any bureau 

financial statement.
24 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 4 

How to Read Asset Priority Index vs. Facility Condition Index Charts

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Public Use

Admin Use Only

Better

Condition

Higher

Priority

Asset

Lower

Priority

Asset

Worse

Condition

High priority assets in better condition

(Focus on preventative maintenance)

High priority assets in worse condition

(Invest in deferred maintenance

or complete replacement)

Low priority assets in better condition

(If very low priority asset is consistently maintained 

in excellent condition, reexamine level of maintenance 

programmed for the asset)

Low priority assets in poor condition

(If very low priority and poor condition,

consider decommissioning)
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 25

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 6

Lower Priority Administrative Sites in Excellent Condition 

SAMMS Asset 

Identification Administrative Site FCI API

10037133 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 30

10037145 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 30

10040578 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 40

10035567 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 45

10045678 McGrath AS 0.00 45

10035843 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 50

10034840 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field 

Office 0.00 50

10035597 Kotzebue AS 0.00 50

10035598 Kotzebue AS 0.00 50

10052519 Kotzebue AS 0.00 50

10052520 Kotzebue AS 0.00 50

Region 7 SAMMS (as of July 2011)

Using these measures, several 

observations can be drawn about 

the current state of the Region 7 

transportation system. Charting SAMMS 

information, as shown in Figure 5 and 

Figure 6, indicates that the only refuge 

asset that has an API rating lower than 55 

is an 800 foot long boardwalk in Selawik 

NWR (Asset 10035582). Also, only 12 

of the current 79 administrative site 

assets are very low in priority. Of these 

administrative assets, all but one are in 

excellent condition (FCI level of 0). This 

indicates that although the assets are 

low in priority, these assets are in better 

condition and the level of maintenance 

given to these assets may need to be 

reexamined. These lower priority 

administrative site assets in excellent 

condition are listed in Table 6.

Not illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 

are two assets that exceed an FCI of 1. 

An FCI above 1 indicates that it would 

cost more to bring the asset back to full 

repair through deferred maintenance 

than it would be to completely replace the 

asset. In these situations, replacement is 

therefore the best course of action, if the 

asset is still desired. Assets that exceed an 

FCI of 1 are:

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

Upper Skilak Campground foot trail 

(SAMMS asset number 10046985, API 

55, FCI 1.79)

The Kodiak Triplex Parking Lot 

(SAMMS asset number 10035314, API 

100, FCI 1.22)
26 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 5 

Region 7 Refuge Transportation Asset Condition and Priority

SAMMS (2011)

Figure 6 

Region 7 Administrative Site Condition and Priority

SAMMS (2011)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Better Condition Worse Condition

Bridges (Road)

Docks (Floating)

Trails (Paved)

Trails (Unpaved)

Boardwalks

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel)

Roads (Dirt)

Roads (Paved)

Bridges (Trail)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Better Condition Worse Condition

Docks (Floating)

Trails (Paved)

Trails (Unpaved)

Boardwalks

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel)

Roads (Paved)

Bridges (Trail)

Docks (Stationary)
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 27

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 7

Condition of Refuge High Priority Assets

Condition

Roads (Paved)Roads (Dirt)Roads (Gravel)Parking LotTrails (Unpaved)BoardwalksBridges (Trail)Bridges (Road)Docks (Floating)Docks (Stationary)Airstrips

Excellent 100% 86% 96% 89% 74% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Good 0% 0% 0% 4% 13% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fair 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Failed 0% 14% 3% 1% 13% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Condition as measured by FCI (“Excellent” is 0.1 or less, “Good” 0.1 to 0.15, “Fair” is 0.15 to 0.50, “Poor” is 0.50 to 0.70, “Fail” i

less than 0.70). “High” priority assets have an API of 60 or greater.

Table 8

Condition of Administrative Site High Priority Assets

Condition

Roads (Paved)Roads (Gravel)Parking LotTrails (Paved)Trails (Unpaved)BoardwalksBridges (Trail)Docks (Stationary)

Excellent 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Good 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fair 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Failed 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Condition as measured by FCI (“Excellent” is 0.1 or less, “Good” 0.1 to 0.15, “Fair” is 0.15 to 0.50, “Poor” is 0.50 to 0.70, “Fail” i

less than 0.70). “High” priority assets have an API of 60 or greater.

Not only does Figure 5 show that most 

of Region 7’s transportation assets have 

priorities of 55 or higher, but it also shows 

that assets have a wide range of conditions 

as determined by the FCI. It is helpful 

to separate high- and low-priority assets 

when discussing conditions because an 

asset’s priority determines the range for 

its allowable asset condition (generally, 

high-priority assets should be in better 

repair than lower-priority assets).

As summarized in Table 7 and Table 8, 

high-priority assets vary in condition. For 

example, refuge dirt roads, which account 

for 35 miles of the refuge network, are 86 

percent in excellent condition, while the 

other 14 percent are in failed condition. 

Likewise, administrative site paved 

trails, which account for 2,120 linear feet 

of the overall network, are 83 percent in 

excellent condition and 17 percent in failed 

condition. All high priority administrative 

assets are in excellent condition except 

for parking lots, where one percent of the 

total are in failed condition.
28 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 9

Condition of Refuge Low Priority Assets

Condition Roads 

(Paved)

Roads 

(Dirt)

Roads 

(Gravel)

Parking 

Lot

Trails 

(Paved)

Trails 

(Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail)

Excellent 100% 100% 99% 96% 83% 88% 75% 100%

Good 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0%

Fair 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 25% 0%

Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Failed 0% 0% 1% 4% 17% 2% 0% 0%

“Low priority assets” have an API of less than 60.

Condition as measured by FCI (“Excellent” is 0.1 or less, “Good” 0.1 to 0.15, “Fair” is 0.15 to 0.50, “Poor” is 0.50 to 0.70, “Fail” i

less than 0.70).

As indicated in Table 9, 100 percent 

of refuge low-priority dirt and paved 

roads are in excellent condition. This is 

a possible indication that maintenance 

performed on these low-priority gravel 

roads could be performed elsewhere (such 

as high-priority refuge dirt roads). 

A second quantitative tool for illustrating 

system conditions is RIP data, which is 

collected by FLH on behalf of the Service 

to provide ongoing condition monitoring 

of all public use roads, trails, and parking 

lots. The inventory is updated regularly 

and resulting datasets are compiled and 

released every 5 years.

Although it is possible to join SAMMS 

and RIP datasets at this time, doing so 

requires aggregation of SAMMS data. 

Given the relatively small SAMMS 

dataset in Region 7, the results of this 

reconciliation of SAMMS and RIP data 

provides results of limited utility. As such, 

RIP data is provided as a standalone 

dataset and serves the function of a 

cross-check for the Region 7 FCI based 

condition determinations. The cross-check 

is useful as the RIP measures observed 

surface condition rather than condition 

as function of deferred maintenance, as is 

done in SAMMS. Table 11, Table 12, and 

Table 13 summarize conditions of roads, 

trails, and parking lots by unit and surface 

type. Locations omitted from the tables do 

not have RIP data.

Table 10

Condition of Administrative Site Low Priority Assets

Condition Parking Lot Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary)

Excellent 94% 100% 100%

Good 0% 0% 0%

Fair 0% 0% 0%

Poor 6% 0% 0%

Failed 0% 0% 0%

“Low priority assets” have an API of less than 60.

Condition as measured by FCI (“Excellent” is 0.1 or less, “Good” 0.1 to 0.15, “Fair” is 0.15 to 0.50

“Poor” is 0.50 to 0.70, “Fail” is less than 0.70).
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 29

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 11

Road Inventory Program (RIP) Road Conditions (Miles)

Unit Surface Type Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Grand Total

Izembek

Gravel 14.9 8.9  0.0 0 0 23.7

Native  0.0 3 15.7 0.3 10.6 29.6

Total 14.9 11.9 15.7 0.3 10.6 53.3

Kenai

Asphalt 0.1 0.3 2.9 0 0 3.3

Gravel 0.2 58.2 9.6 0 0 68

Native   0.0 8 4.6 0 0.1 12.7

Total 0.3 66.5 17.1  0.0 0.1 84

Kodiak

Gravel   0.0 0.2 0.0  0  0.0 0.2

Total  0.0 0.2 0.0   0.0  0.0 0.2

Tetlin

Asphalt   0.0 0 0.5   0.0  0.0 0.5

Gravel   0.0 5.2 0.0  0.1 0.2 5.6

Native   0.0   0.0 1   0.0   0.0 1

Total  0.0 5.2 1.5 0.1 0.2 7.1

Grand Total 15.2 83.8 34.3 0.4 10.9 144.6

Refuge Roads Program, RIP Cycle 4 (2009)

Table 12

Service Trail Inventory Conditions (Miles)

Unit Surface Type Excellent Good Fair Poor Not Rated Grand Total

Homer Visitor 

Center

Asphalt 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boardwalk 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.3

Gravel 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2

Total 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5

Kenai

Boardwalk 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2

Gravel 3 0 0 0 0 3

Mowed 4.7 0 0 0 0 4.7

Native 69.7 15.5 0 3 27.2 115.4

Puncheon 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.6

Wood Chip 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.6

Total 78.8 15.5 0 3 27.2 124.5

Kodiak

Gravel 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2

Total 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2

Tetlin

Boardwalk 0 0 0 0 0 0

Native 1.5 0 1.1 0 0 2.6

Puncheon 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5

Total 2 0 1.1 0 0 3.1

Grand Total 81.3 15.7 1.1 3 27.2 128.3

Service Trail Inventory (2007)
30 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 13

Parking Lot Conditions (Number of)

Unit Surface Type Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Grand Total

Alaska 

Maritime

Asphalt 1 0 0 0 0 1

Total 1  0 0   0 0  1

Izembek

Asphalt 0 0 0 1 0 1

Gravel 0 2 3 2 0 7

Native 0 0 4 0 1 5

Total 0 2 7 3 1 13

Kenai

Asphalt 1 4 1 0 0 6

Gravel 13 32 18 0 0 63

Total 14 36 19 0 0 69

Kodiak

Gravel 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 0 1 0 0 0 1

Tetlin

Asphalt 0 1 0 0 0 1

Gravel 1 4 0 0 0 5

Native 0 1 1 0 1 3

Total 1 6 1  0 1 9

Grand Total 16 45 27 3 2 93

Refuge Roads Program, Cycle 4 (2009)

2.3 FLMA Trends

The Visitation Trends Technical Repor

developed for the Alaska Federal Lands

LRTP presents an analysis of trends 

in visitation to FLMAs. The report is 

available in the appendix of that LRTP. 

In general, the report concludes that 

out-of-state visits to Alaska are likely to 

increase over the next 20 years. Visitation 

is expected to increase most in FLMA 

units that are either directly accessed 

by cruise ships or are secondary stops 

for visitors who enter the state by cruise 

ship or commercial airline. Such units are 

generally those that are adjacent to cities 

with access to roads and accommodate 

tour busses and automobiles. The 

visitation technical report in the appendix 

of the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP also 

presents which FLMA units, including 

refuges, are in or near such destination 

communities. 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 31

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3 Goals and Baseline Conditions

This chapter discusses the current state 

of Region 7’s transportation system as 

it relates to the goals and objectives 

described in Chapter 1. The five LRTP 

goal areas include topics of sustainability, 

environment, subsistence access, user 

experience, mobility, and partnership. 

The following sections define the intent 

of each goal and provide supportive data 

and an analysis summary supporting each 

goal. This chapter provides a roadmap 

for identifying improvement needs (i.e., 

potential projects) at the refuge level 

using readily available data to identify 

deficiencies or needs in individual refuges. 

By applying the approach demonstrated 

in the following sections for each goal 

area, Service leadership can identify needs 

and opportunities that are most likely to 

help Region 7 meet the long range goals 

of this LRTP. This chapter outlines the 

data sources, data relationships, and 

steps necessary to identify needs and 

opportunities corresponding to the LRTP 

goals and objectives.

A common thread for needs and 

opportunities among each of the 

five LRTP goal areas is additional 

planning. While these planning needs 

and opportunities are documented in 

the subsections below, they are also 

documented for the entire region in 

Appendix D.

3.1 Sustainability 

The sustainability goal is to “provide a 

sustainable transportation program 

to satisfy current and future land 

management needs in the face of 

a changing climate.” The following 

objectives contribute towards reaching 

this goal. 

Objective 1

Address climate change and other 

environmental factors at all levels of 

transportation planning, design, project 

delivery, operations, and maintenance.

Objective 2

Consider sustainability of operation and 

maintenance of new assets in the planning 

process.

Objective 3

Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption 

by refuge staff and visiting public while 

continuing to provide for and encourage 

compatible uses.

3.1.1 Identifying Sustainability Needs and 

Opportunities

Several indicators are used to identify 

sustainable transportation program 

gaps, as defined by the sustainability 

Refuge 

Factsheets

The data, analysis, 

and conclusions 

presented in 

Chapters 2 and 3 

of this LRTP are 

summarized in 

Region 7 refuge 

factsheets. The fact 

sheets are presented 

in Appendix C. The 

factsheets provide a 

high level overview 

of each refuge in 

terms of its location, 

size, number and condition of assets, transportation 

planning needs, as well as other relevant data.
32 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

goal and its objectives. By using the data 

collected in interviews with refuge staff in 

conjunction with the information contained 

in the region’s CCPs, gaps in a regionwide sustainable transportation program 

were identified. Additionally, the Draft

Climate Change Technical Report, which 

was developed in support of the Alaska

Federal Lands LRTP, helps identify 

long range needs and threats to asset 

sustainability (as outlined in Objective 1).

Actions taken or planned by refuges as 

they relate to sustainability Objectives 1, 

2, and 3 are summarized in Table 14. The 

table shows that although planning related 

to sustainability in the transportation 

program in the face of a changing climate 

has not occurred, refuge-level actions are 

largely consistent with climate change 

mitigation.

Adaptation to climate change by the 

region’s transportation program remains 

a challenge for long-term improvement. 

Nevertheless, the groundwork for 

developing climate change adaptations 

to the region’s transportation program is 

already underway. In addition to refuge 

level climate change adaptation, results 

produced from interviews with refuge 

staff from the Draft Climate Change

Technical Report helps identify threats 

to asset sustainability over the long term. 

The results of the technical report identify 

transportation system impacts related to 

erosion and permafrost instability as the 

two primary climate change threats. As 

reported in the technical report, several 

communities in and near refuges are 

prone to erosion risk factors as well as 

high levels of permafrost. The results of 

this technical report are available in the 

appendix of the Alaska Federal Lands

LRTP, and summarized in Figure 7, 

Figure 8, and Table 15.

Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption

Interviews with refuge staff revealed that refuges 

use video conferencing and virtual private network 

capabilities to work remotely, thereby reducing fossil 

fuel consumption for work-related travel. 

Arctic, Kenai, Kodiak, Koyukuk, Maritime, and Tetlin 

National Wildlife Refuges have also committed to 

replacing fleet vehicles with higher efficiency vehicles 

such as four stroke instead of two stroke snowmobiles.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 33

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 14

Sustainability

Refuge

Refuge Interview CCP**

Climate Change Threats Climate Change Mitigation

Climate Change Response in CCP Climate Change Adaptation 

Strategies

Climate Change Mitigation 

Strategies

Sustainability in 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Planning

FloodingStorm Frequency/IntensityFreeze/Thaw CyclesSea/Lake Level ChangeFewer Motorized Vehicle TripsMore Fuel Efficient Fleet (snow machine, auto, etc.)Bike UseCarpoolOther

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge

* H * * No Yes Yes No * * * * *

Alaska PeninsulaBecharof National 

Wildlife Refuge

* M * * Yes No Yes No Video 

conferencing

* * Management policies and 

guidelines exist.

*

Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge H H * H Yes Yes Yes Yes

Consolidating 

flights; video 

conferencing; VPN 

capabilities

* * Is considered in alternatives 

analysis.

*

Innoko National Wildlife 

Refuge

* H * * Yes No No No

All-weather air 

strip; planning for 

fewer trips

Documented commitment to 

address the effects of climate 

change.

* * *

Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge H H M * Yes No Yes Yes Three-seat ATVs * * * *

Kanuti National Wildlife 

Refuge H * H H No Yes Yes No Video conferencing

Awareness of long-term effect is 

hoped to result in reprioritization 

of issues and changes in 

management strategies.

Moderate management areas are 

allowed to erect water control 

structures to mitigate potential 

wetland loss due to climate 

change.

* *

Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge M * * * No No No No Alternative fuels, 

telecommuting

Documented goal and objective 

to within one year of CCP 

adoption, develop internal 

policies to emphasize long-term 

management needs associated 

with climate change.

* * *

Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge M M * * No Yes No No LCD lighting * * * *

Koyukuk and Nowitna 

National Wildlife Refuge M * * * No Yes Yes No

Teleconferencing, 

building-related 

energy saving 

program

* * * *
34 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 14

Sustainability

Refuge

Refuge Interview CCP**

Climate Change Threats Climate Change Mitigation

Climate Change Response in CCP Climate Change Adaptation 

Strategies

Climate Change Mitigation 

Strategies

Sustainability in 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Planning

FloodingStorm Frequency/IntensityFreeze/Thaw CyclesSea/Lake Level ChangeFewer Motorized Vehicle TripsMore Fuel Efficient Fleet (snow machine, auto, etc.)Bike UseCarpoolOther

Selawik National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * M No Yes Yes No Video conferencing

A plan goal is to develop a 

leadership role in addressing 

climate change in northwest 

Alaska.

*

Public discussion of road 

development (to shorten travel 

times/distances) has resurfaced 

in response to skyrocketing fuel 

costs and economic hardships 

in outlying villages. Selawik, 

Noorvik, and Kiana.

*

Tetlin National Wildlife 

Refuge H * H * No Yes Yes Yes * * * * *

Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * * * No No No No Video conferencing

A plan goal is to manage refuge 

habitats and wildlife to ensure 

the health and integrity of native 

ecosystems by developing 

long term ecological inventory 

and monitoring programs 

and a collaborative research 

program, which incorporate data 

collection to evaluate the effects 

of climate change.

* * *

Yukon Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge

* H * * No No No No Tracking fuel use * * * *

Yukon Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge H * * * No No Yes No * * * * *

H Identified as a high level of potential threat

M Identified as a medium level of potential threat

L Identified as a low level of potential threat

* No comment from Refuge

** Publication date and status of CCPs on Table 16
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 35

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 7 

Alaska Permafrost Coverage

Source: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation Systems Alaska Field Office (1996). Reported in the C

Change Technical Report in the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP.

ARCTIC NWR

YUKON DELTA NWR

TOGIAK NWR

KOYUKUK NWR

INNOKO NWR

SELAWIK NWR

KENAI NWR

ALASKA PENINSULA NWR

NOWITNA NWR

KODIAK NWR

KANUTI NWR

BECHAROF NWR

TETLIN NWR

ALASKA MARITIME NWR

IZEMBEK NWR

Perma

C

D

S

Is

N

N

YUKON FLATS NWR

ALASKA MARITIME NWR

Canada

Alaska, U.S.A

ARCTIC NWR

YUKON DELTA NWR

TOGIAK NWR

KOYUKUK NWR

INNOKO NWR

SELAWIK NWR

KENAI NWR

ALASKA PENINSULA NWR

NOWITNA NWR

KODIAK NWR

KANUTI NWR

BECHAROF NWR

TETLIN NWR

ALASKA MARITIME NWR

IZEMBEK NWR

Permafrost Coverage

Continuous (90% to 100%)

Discontinuous (50% to 90%)

Sporadic (10% to 50%)

Isolated Parches (0% to 10%)

None

National Wildlife Refuge

YUKON FLATS NWR

ALASKA MARITIME NWR

Canada

Alaska, U.S.A
36 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Erosion related to climate change falls 

into two categories: coastal and river/

lakeshore. Coastal erosion can accelerate 

when shorelines are exposed due to 

melting sea ice, melting permafrost, 

increased storm and wave activity, and/

or rising sea levels. Transportation 

infrastructure near coastal areas could 

face increased risks due to climate 

change. Like coastal erosion, river erosion 

can damage the structural integrity 

or accelerate the degradation process 

of transportation assets. Warming has 

a particular effect on river shoreline 

erosion due to increased intensity of thaw 

periods and the resulting surges of stream 

activity, and even flooding. Increased 

storm frequency and precipitation levels 

can also accelerate stream bank erosion. 

As reported in the Draft Climate Change

Technical Report, several communities in 

and near refuges have erosion risk factors. 

These communities and their relative risk 

of erosion are shown in Figure 8 and are 

summarized in Table 15.

Figure 8 

Refuge Community* Erosion Risk

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment (2009). Reported in the Climate Change Techni

Report in the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP.

*Communities in or within 5 miles of an FLMA boundary

Canada

Alaska, U.S.A.

EEK

AKIAK

ANIAK

KOTLIK

HUSLIA

KIPNUK HOMER

TOGIAK

CHEVAK PALMER

CHIGNIK

NEWTOK

SELAWIK

OUZINKIE

WISEMAN

PORTAGE

CORDOVA SKAGWAY

KAKTOVIK

POINT LAY

McCARTHY

BUCKLAND

KING COVE

NORTHWAY

KING ISLAND

SHISHMAREF FORT YUKON

LIME VILLAGE

PORT ALSWORTH

CROOKED

CREEK

Yukon

C olv ille

Kusk okwim

Koyukuk

Susitina

Porcupine

Stikine

±

BLM Land

National Park

National Forest

Priority Action

Monitor Conditions

Minimal Erosion

Legend

0 50 100 200

Miles

National Wildlife Refuge
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 37

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 15

Refuge Community* Erosion Risk

Refuge Community Erosion Risk

Alaska Maritime

False Pass Monitor Conditions

King Island Minimal Erosion

Ouzinkie Monitor Conditions

Point Lay Minimal Erosion

Sand Point Minimal Erosion

Shishmaref Priority Action

Alaska Peninsula

Chignik Minimal Erosion

Chignik Lagoon Monitor Conditions

Chignik Lake Minimal Erosion

Ivanof Bay Minimal Erosion

King Cove Minimal Erosion

Perryville Minimal Erosion

Arctic

Birch Creek Minimal Erosion

Chalkyitsik Minimal Erosion

Fort Yukon Monitor Conditions

Kaktovik Monitor Conditions

Koyukuk Huslia Priority Action

Selawik

Noorvik Minimal Erosion

Selawik Priority Action

Tetlin

Northway Minimal Erosion

Northway Indian Village Minimal Erosion

Togiak Togiak Minimal Erosion

Yukon Delta

Akiachak Minimal Erosion

Akiak Priority Action

Alakanuk Priority Action

Aniak Monitor Conditions

Atmautluak Monitor Conditions

Bethel Monitor Conditions

Chefornak Priority Action
38 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 15

Refuge Community* Erosion Risk

Refuge Community Erosion Risk

Yukon Delta

Chevak Priority Action

Eek Monitor Conditions

Emmonak Priority Action

Hooper Bay Monitor Conditions

Kipnuk Monitor Conditions

Kongiganak (Site) Monitor Conditions

Kotlik Priority Action

Kwethluk Monitor Conditions

Kwigillingok Priority Action

Lower Kalskag Monitor Conditions

Mekoryuk Monitor Conditions

Napakiak Priority Action

Napaskiak Minimal Erosion

Newtok Priority Action

Nightmute Monitor Conditions

Nunapitchuk Priority Action

Oscarville Monitor Conditions

Toksook Bay Minimal Erosion

Tuntutuliak Monitor Conditions

Tununak Monitor Conditions

Upper Kalskag Monitor Conditions

Priority Action = Erosion issues in these communities warrant immediate and substanti

intervention.

Monitor 

Conditions = Erosion issue may warrant intervention in these communitie

Minimal Erosion = Reported erosion impacts that are not serious and are not currently affecting

the viability of the community. No intervention is necessary at this time.

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment (2009). Reported in

Climate Change Technical Report in the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP.

* Communities in a refuge, or within 5 miles of a refuge boundary
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 39

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge 

provides an example of how identified 

needs and opportunities can strengthen 

a refuge’s sustainable transportation 

program. Through interviews, Refuge 

Staff indicated a high level of vulnerability 

to changes in flooding and storm 

frequency as well as a medium level of 

threat from changes in freeze thaw cycles. 

The Refuge’s 1985 CCP did not include 

climate change responses, adaptations, 

or mitigation strategies as it predated 

widespread concern regarding climate 

change. Nevertheless, refuge staff are 

taking actions that can be classified 

as climate change mitigation; such as 

bicycle use and carpooling. The results 

of the refuge interviews and CCP 

reviews summarized in Table 14 show 

an opportunity to include sustainability 

in future planning efforts, thereby 

recognizing climate change efforts already 

underway as well as creating a strategic 

approach that includes adaptation in its 

transportation program.

Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge also 

identifies risk from changes in freeze/thaw 

cycles and did not include climate change 

issues in its 1998 CCP. In addition, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s erosion 

study identifies ten communities in and 

near the refuge that warrant immediate 

and substantial erosion intervention. The 

data suggest that future planning efforts 

would benefit from including climate 

change adaptation strategies, especially 

as they pertain to erosion and freeze/thaw 

cycles.

3.2 Environment 

The LRTP environment goal is to 

“conserve and protect natural 

and cultural resources through 

comprehensive transportation planning 

and management.” The following 

objectives contribute towards reaching 

this goal.

Objective 1

Conduct transportation planning at a 

landscape level by considering direct and 

indirect effects of transportation systems 

on ecosystems within and adjacent to 

refuges.

Objective 2

Ensure protection of open water, wetlands, 

and aquifers on refuges; maintain and 

improve air quality; and avoid or minimize 

impacts on permafrost and sensitive 

soils when planning for and constructing 

transportation improvements.

Objective 3

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

transportation-related habitat impacts.

Objective 4

Preserve cultural resources by avoiding 

or minimizing negative transportation 

impacts to culturally significant human 

settlements, subsistence areas, cultural 

landscapes, and historic and archaeological 

sites.
40 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3.2.1 Identifying Environmental Needs and 

Opportunities

Identifying areas of need and opportunity 

in terms of conserving and protecting 

natural and cultural resources through 

comprehensive transportation planning 

and management was achieved through 

individual refuge interviews and the 

review of Region 7 CCPs. The review of 

CCPs is significant because, as described 

in Section 1.4, CCPs are NEPA-compliant 

documents and therefore address the 

sentiments expressed in the environment 

goal of this LRTP. By this measure, if a 

CCP has been completed and is up to date, 

the underlying principle expressed in this 

LRTP’s environment goal is being met. 

Those that have not yet been updated are 

identified as improvement areas (these 

plans are to be developed and will no 

longer be viewed as gaps once they are 

adopted).

The CCP summaries used in conjunction 

with refuge interviews helped identify 

opportunities and needs in terms of 

improving transportation planning and 

management in conserving and protecting 

resources. Interview results pointed 

to known and possible environmental 

threats at the refuge level as they relate 

to transportation. These results illustrate 

perceived need, and can form the basis 

of future study and planning to ensure 

that the Region 7 transportation system 

continues to support the conservation 

and protection of natural and cultural 

resources.

Table 16 indicates that refuges perceive 

a wide range of environmental threats as 

they relate to the transportation system. 

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, for 

example, perceives existing threats from 

flooding, roads (through runoff, invasive 

species, and fuel spills), off-road vehicles, 

as well as possible threats from fuel spills 

and invasive species. Innoko National 

Wildlife Refuge, however, perceives fewer 

and lower threats though flooding alone 

and only views on-site fuel storage and 

fuel barges as low and medium threats, 

respectively. The results show that 

identifying needs based on environmental 

threats is highly subjective from one 

refuge to the next and dependent on each 

refuge’s perception of the situation.

The publication of this LRTP coincides with the release of the 

Service’s Roadway Design Guidelines. The guidelines present 

current state-of-practice ecological, planning, design, and 

engineering considerations for roadway projects. Through an 

easy to follow checklist and supporting material, the guidelines 

ensure that roadway projects conform to planning and 

design criteria established to support the Service’s mission. 

Moreover, adhering to the guidance provided in the Roadway 

Design Guidelines helps Region 7 meet the aspirations 

expressed in the environment goal and objectives documented 

in this LRTP. The Roadway Design Guidelines is available in 

Appendix H.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 41

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 16

Environment

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Known Threats Possible Threats

CCP Publish / 

Update Date Transportation-related Natural Impacts Transportation-related Cultural Impacts

FloodingRoads (runoff, invasive species, etc.)Off-road Vehicle (public use)WildfireWildlife (bears, moose, etc.)Coastal ErosionTrampling, vandalism and looting of archaeological sitesOn-site Fuel StorageFuel Barge Spills (including hazmat)Other vehicle fuel/hazmat spills (trucks, airplanes, etc.)Severe Weather (tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.)Invasive Species

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge

* H H * * * L * H * H H 1988 / expected 

in 2017

CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Alaska PeninsulaBecharof National 

Wildlife Refuge

* M * * * * L * H H H M 1985 (1987 

Update) / 2006

Goal to develop / implement methodology for monitoring off-road 

vehicle impacts on refuge lands. Would be conducted to document 

damage to vegetative cover and soils in areas of significant use, 

including Big Creek, King Salmon River (near Egegik), Becharof 

Lake outlet, Yantarni Bay airstrip, and Port Heiden.

CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.

Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge H M * M * H L M H * * M 1988 / 2012

No proposals have been made to build roads, pipelines, utility 

lines, or other transportation corridors through the refuge (south of 

the “1002” area).

CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

No proposals have been made to 

build roads, pipelines, utility lines, 

or other transportation corridors 

through the refuge (south of the 

“1002” area).

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Innoko National Wildlife 

Refuge M * * * * * L M L * * * 1987 / 2008 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge H L H * * * L * * * * *

1985 / Update due 

after Izemek Land 

Exchange and 

Road Corridor EIS 

is completed.

CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Kanuti National Wildlife 

Refuge H M M M * * L H * * * M 1987 / 2003 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge M * * * M H L * * H * H 2010

Directly addresses issues dealing with aircraft, snow machines, 

and general access to pipeline roads.

CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.

Directly addresses issues dealing 

with aircraft, snow machines, and 

general access to pipeline roads.

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.
42 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 16

Environment

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Known Threats Possible Threats

CCP Publish / 

Update Date Transportation-related Natural Impacts Transportation-related Cultural Impacts

FloodingRoads (runoff, invasive species, etc.)Off-road Vehicle (public use)WildfireWildlife (bears, moose, etc.)Coastal ErosionTrampling, vandalism and looting of archaeological sitesOn-site Fuel StorageFuel Barge Spills (including hazmat)Other vehicle fuel/hazmat spills (trucks, airplanes, etc.)Severe Weather (tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.)Invasive Species

Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge M M * * * * L * M H M M 2006 CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Koyukuk and Nowitna 

National Wildlife Refuge M H M * * * L * M * * H 2009 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Selawik National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * * * * L * * * * * 1987 / 2011 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Public discussion of road 

development in the region has 

resurfaced recently. Opinions on 

roads are divided. The use of ATVs 

for transportation is limited to 

within the villages.

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Tetlin National Wildlife 

Refuge H H H H H * L * * H * H 1987 / 2004 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * H * * * L * H * * * 1987 / 2008 CCP contains an EA and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Use of snow machine, motorboats, 

airplanes and nonmotorized 

surface transportation methods for 

traditional activities and for travel 

to and from villages and homesites.

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA.

Yukon Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge

* M H * * * L * H * * * 1988 CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

Yukon Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge H * * H * * L * * * * * 1988 CCP contains an EIS and the environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

CCP contains an EIS and the 

environmental protections provided 

through NEPA. 

H Identified as a high level of potential threat

M Identified as a medium level of potential threat

L Identified as a low level of potential threat

* No comment from Refuge
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 43

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3.3 Subsistence Access

The LRTP subsistence access goal is to 

“fulfill the Service’s Alaska National 

Interest Land Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) of 1980 obligations as they 

relate to subsistence use and access.” 

The following objectives contribute 

towards reaching this goal.

Objective 1

Ensure effects of transportation decisions 

on resources and subsistence users are 

considered.

Objective 2

Consider subsistence access needs when 

making transportation decisions.

Objective 3

Document traditional uses of off-road 

vehicles for subsistence access.

3.3.1 Identifying Subsistence Needs and 

Opportunities

Data collected through individual refuge 

interviews as well as the information 

contained in CCPs were used to 

identify areas where the Service has 

been successful, and where it might 

improve, meeting its obligations for 

subsistence access. For example, CCPs 

document whether or not traditional 

use determination studies have been 

conducted and which modes of travel 

are allowable for subsistence use. 

Interview results describe which modes 

of subsistence access are occurring 

on refuges. Areas where subsistence 

access could be examined further are 

places without formal traditional use 

determinations, as indicated in Table 17.

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 

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), which had a fundamental 

purpose of resolving Native land claims. ANCSA created 

12 Native-owned regional corporations, granted them 

nearly $1 billion in seed money, and authorized the 

Native Corporations to select 44 million acres of Federal 

lands in Alaska. ANCSA also provided for withdrawal 

of 80 million acres for possible designation as national 

parks, fish and wildlife refuges, national forests, and 

wild and scenic rivers.

Signed into law on December 2, 1980, ANILCA created 

or revised 15 national parks while setting aside public 

lands for the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

ANILCA, ANCSA, and the Alaska Statehood Act, 

combined with years of homesteading, mining claims 

and Native allotments, has resulted in a situation where 

private land is sometimes located in national parks, 

national forests, or national wildlife refuges. Access 

to these parcels has been, and continues to be, a 

significant transportation issue facing all Federal land 

management agencies. ANILCA addresses these issues 

by requiring reasonable access to and through Federal 

lands for residents affected by jurisdictional overlaps 

with Federal lands. For example, ANILCA Section 811(a) 

ensures that rural residents shall have reasonable 

access to subsistence resources, and 811(b) provides 

for the appropriate and reasonably regulated use of 

snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface 

transportation traditionally used by local residents. In 

certain cases ANILCA allows for access to and from 

villages and home sites, traditional activities, and in 

holdings for economic and other activities. 
44 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 17

Subsistence

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Allowable Subsistence Offroad Travel

Subsistence Travel Modes

Traditional UsesTruckSnow Machine (ORV)ATV

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* Yes Yes Yes Varies by location. Marine areas are used in many cases. 

Generally: snow machines, sled dogs, and three-wheelers. 

Alaska PeninsulaBecharof National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes *

Traditional use include snow machines, motorboats, dog 

teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally 

used by local rural residents engaged in subsistence 

activities. Provisions have been made for the use of off-road 

vehicles for subsistence purposes. Three- and four-wheeled 

vehicles with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 650 pounds 

are allowed on the Refuges for subsistence purposes.

Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes Yes

The use of snow machines (during periods of adequate snow 

cover), motorboats, airplanes, and non-motorized surface 

transportation methods for traditional activities on refuge 

lands and for travel to and from villages and home sites is 

permitted.

Innoko National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes *

CCP Goal 3 is to provide the opportunity for continued 

subsistence uses of the refuge, consistent with the 

subsistence priority and with other refuge purposes.

Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge

* Yes * Yes Dominant modes include foot and vehicle traffic.

Kanuti National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes *

The use of ORVs other than on established roads and parking 

areas is prohibited except on designated routes or areas or 

with a valid permit under the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Currently there are no roads, no parking areas, and no 

designated routes or areas on the refuge.

Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * * * No mention.

Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * *

Dog teams, motorboats, and snow machines are authorized 

when use is for specific purposes such as subsistence, 

access to villages and home sites, and access for traditional 

activities.

Koyukuk and Nowitna 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * * * No mention.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 45

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 17

Subsistence

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Allowable Subsistence Offroad Travel

Subsistence Travel Modes

Traditional UsesTruckSnow Machine (ORV)ATV

Selawik National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * *

No ATV routes or areas are currently designated. There is 

no known established use or pattern of use for subsistence 

purposes on Selawik Refuge.

Access to the refuge is possible only by boat, float- or skiequipped airplane, snow machine, or dog sled team. Snow 

machine trails provide vital links among the local communities.

Tetlin National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * Yes *

Traditional means include snow machines, motorboats, dog 

teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally 

used by local rural residents engaged in subsistence 

activities. A traditional use determination concluded that 

ATVs, three-wheelers, four-wheelers, tracked vehicles, or 

other ORVs are not traditional uses. 

Togiak National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * *

Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface 

transportation traditionally considered subsistence purposes 

are allowed.

Yukon Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * * Yes Villagers frequently request continued use of snowmobiles, 

motorboats and three-wheelers for hunting and fishing.

Yukon Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes *

Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface 

transportation traditionally considered subsistence purposes 

are allowed.

* No comment from Refuge

** Publication date and status of CCPs in Table 16
46 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3.4 User Experience

The LRTP user experience goal 

is to “proactively enhance the 

connectivity of the Alaska multimodal 

transportation system and user 

experience.” The following objectives 

contribute towards reaching this goal.

 Objective 1

Engage visitors with compelling 

information so they can get to and 

better understand Alaska refuges.

 Objective 2

Establish a seamless interagency 

multimodal transportation system that 

emphasizes the journey as part of the 

Alaska experience. 

 Objective 3

Collect and analyze visitor information 

to determine which experiences/

expectations are most important and 

relevant to transportation access.

3.4.1 Identifying User Experience Needs 

and Opportunities

User experience successes and 

improvement opportunities were 

identified through the use of CCP reviews, 

regional and individual refuge staff 

interviews, and published refuge visitation 

data. The CCP reviews indicate whether 

or not plans contained visitor experience 

goals and/or objectives as they relate 

to transportation, as shown in Table 18. 

The inclusion of transportation user 

experience in the CCPs demonstrates 

success in meeting the LRTP user 

experience goal. This is considered a 

success because it illustrates recognition 

and forethought of transportation’s 

role in visitor journeys and access, as 

specified in Objectives 2 and 3. A lack of 

user experience in a CCP may indicate 

an opportunity to shape a refuge-specific 

direction for its transportation system 

in supporting user experience. Refuge 

interviews helped highlight specifics of 

how user experience is being supported 

through a refuge’s transportation 

system (for example, the presence of 

kiosks and signage). Conversely, gaps in 

user experience related planning and/

or assets are potential opportunities or 

needs for future efforts in improving user 

experience.

As specified in Objective 3, visitation data 

is used to express which user experiences 

are common in Region 7’s refuges. This 

information informs decision makers of 

user expectations through counts of visit 

purpose. This data, used in conjunction 

with information about dominant modes 

of refuge access, show where there is 

overlap in a refuge’s transportation 

system and visit purpose, which are 

potential opportunities for user experience 

improvements. For example, based on the 

visitation data shown in Table 19, Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge has high levels 

of fishing, hiking, and wildlife observation 

visits. Access mode information provided 

in Table 20 indicates the refuge’s primary 

access modes are road and air. The 

data suggest visitors mostly arrive by 

roads and air for fishing, hiking, and 

wildlife observation activities. Visitor 

experience improvement opportunities 

could exist where there are transitions 

from the arrival mode of travel to the 

visitor activity (for example, a candidate 

for improvements could be a parking lot 

where visitors arrive by vehicle and begin 

a pedestrian activity).
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 47

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 18

User Experience

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Frequently Used Visitor Information Delivery

Visitor Experience Topics in CCP Are/How Are Neighboring FLMAs Discussed?

Visitor 

Center Website

Off-site Signs 

(airports, 

highways, etc.)

Kiosks Phone E-mail Other (list)

Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes Yes * * * Tourist industry is not developed in many communities near the refuge; 

access hinders tourism. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 

Alaska Peninsula-Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge Yes * * * * * Guides

Moderate management areas will be managed for greater 

concentrations of visitors than Minimal Management and Wilderness 

areas. The Refuges will manage all recreation use to avoid crowded 

conditions and to minimize adverse effects to cultural resources, fish 

and wildlife, wilderness, and other special values of the refuge. Leave 

No Trace techniques will be the standard.

Bristol Bay side of the refuge has a lot of bordering state land. BLM 

land is not present except for some in the north.

Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * * No mention. The refuge coordinates Pan-Arctic information with BLM.

Innoko National Wildlife 

Refuge * Yes * * Yes * * No mention. BLM lands are nearby as part of a game management unit and hunts go 

in and out of FWS/BLM areas.

Izembek National Wildlife 

Refuge * Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * No mention.

The lands nearby include State Fish and Game Refuge, Native 

Corporation, some of Alaska Maritime Refuge and Alaska Peninsula 

Refuge. 

Kanuti National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes * Yes * Yes Yes *

CCP Goal 4 is to provide opportunities for quality public use and 

enjoyment of refuge resources in ways that minimize conflicts among 

user groups through compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography.

There are BLM lands east and south of the Refuge, State of Alaska 

lands on the west and north side of the refuge, but no state parks 

nearby. There is a 37,000 acre BLM area of ecological concern on the 

southwest side.

Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes Yes * * Yes No AM radio Members of the general public and the planning team raised concerns 

about increasing public use of Refuge resources. Chugach National Forest borders the refuge.

Kodiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes * * Yes Yes Yes *

A plan goal is to improve management of commercial use opportunities 

that are compatible with Refuge purposes, provide quality public use 

opportunities, enhance visitor experiences, and ensure compliance 

with provisions of ANILCA.

Alaska State Lands and State Parks and Abercrombie State Park border 

the refuge.

Koyukuk and Nowitna 

National Wildlife Refuge * Yes Yes Yes * Yes Postal mail No mention. BLM lands and State Land border the refuge.

Selawik National Wildlife 

Refuge * * * * Yes Yes Administrative site

A plan goal is to provide quality visitor experiences and enjoyment of 

refuge resources through compatible recreation activities in ways that 

minimize conflicts among visitor groups and residents.

Plan mentions collaboration among FLMAs in search and rescue 

efforts. Recreation visits typically go to the State Park instead. There 

are BLM lands nearby but no State Lands.
48 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 18

User Experience

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Frequently Used Visitor Information Delivery

Visitor Experience Topics in CCP Are/How Are Neighboring FLMAs Discussed?

Visitor 

Center Website

Off-site Signs 

(airports, 

highways, etc.)

Kiosks Phone E-mail Other (list)

Tetlin National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes *

The plan referenced the Visitor Services Plan. The CCP states that 

significant increases in fuel prices will likely affect refuge visitation 

and use. Upgrade the Tetlin Refuge Visitor Center to reduce the 

noise, pollution, and cost of operation by 50 percent within five years 

of completing the Revised Conservation Plan to enhance the user 

experience.

BLM and Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park border the refuge.

Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes * * * * * * No mention. No mention.

Yukon Delta National Wildlife 

Refuge Yes * Yes * Yes * * Visitor experience is intentionally not a CCP topic as recreational uses 

account for a very small percentage of the public use. No mention.

Yukon Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge * Yes Yes Yes * * *

Subsistence activities account for over 90 percent of the public use 

so non-local visitors are rare. Visitor experience is therefore not a 

significant CCP topic.

No mention.

*No comment by Refuge

** Publication date and status of CCPs in Table 16
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 49

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 19

Region 7 Refuge Visits* (2010)

Refuge

Total 

number of 

Visitors

Number of 

Foot Trail/

Pedestrian 

visits

Number of 

Auto Tour 

visits

Number of 

Boat Trail/

Launch 

visits

Number 

of Bicycle 

visits

Total 

Wildlife 

Observation 

visits

Alaska 

Maritime

Count 120,000 20,000 300 70,000 500 90,800

% of Visits 17% 0% 58% 0% 76%

Alaska 

Peninsula

Count 5,305 2,000 0 0 0 2,000

% of Visits 38% 0% 0% 0% 38%

Becharof

Count 4,133 1,300 0 0 0 1,300

% of Visits 31% 0% 0% 0% 31%

Arctic

Count 12,600 2,000 0 6,300 0 8,300

% of Visits 16% 0% 50% 0% 66%

Innoko

Count 1,400 0 0 0 0 0

% of Visits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Izembek

Count 7,600 230 770 60 12 1,072

% of Visits 3% 10% 1% 0% 14%

Kanuti

Count 4,283 30 0 0 48 78

% of Visits 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Kenai

Count 1,074,379 135,750 0 13,500 400 149,650

% of Visits 13% 0% 1% 0% 14%

Kodiak

Count 48,951 1,000 0 0 0 1,000

% of Visits 2% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Koyukuk

Count 3,000 10 0 1,600 0 1,610

% of Visits 0% 0% 53% 0% 54%

Nowitna

Count 1,000 0 0 250 0 250

% of Visits 0% 0% 25% 0% 25%

Selawik

Count 4,342 50 0 30 0 80

% of Visits 1% 0% 1% 0% 2%

Tetlin

Count 38,168 7,366 23,760 400 100 31,626

% of Visits 19% 62% 1% 0% 83%

Togiak

Count 8,000 0 0 7,800 0 7,800

% of Visits 0% 0% 98% 0% 98%
50 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 19

Region 7 Refuge Visits* (2010)

Refuge

Total 

number of 

Visitors

Number of 

Foot Trail/

Pedestrian 

visits

Number of 

Auto Tour 

visits

Number of 

Boat Trail/

Launch 

visits

Number 

of Bicycle 

visits

Total 

Wildlife 

Observation 

visits

Yukon Delta

Count 64,000 500 0 1,350 0 1,850

% of Visits 1% 0% 2% 0% 3%

Yukon Flats

Count 10,537 0 0 0 0 0

% of Visits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Regional Total

Count 1,407,698 170,236 24,830 101,290 1,060 297,416

% of Visits 12% 2% 7% 0% 21%

Source: Refuge Annual Performance Plan (2010)

*Visitors and visits are different measures. One visitor can be responsible for several visits on a refuge. For example, i

family of 4 goes fishing in the morning, hikes a short nature trail in the afternoon, and later participated in an environmental

education program, that family of 4 would have contributed 12 activity visits to the refuge, yet they are only 4 visitors. Visits 

not include use by staff, volunteers, researchers, meeting participants, contractors, or special use permit holders. For example,

visits count visitors arriving by tour bus but not the bus driver. Visits do not include individuals who do not stop on the stati

or whose purpose for being on the station is to get to some other non-refuge location (e.g., access to in-holdings).
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 51

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 20

Gateway Communities and Mode of Access

Refuge Gateway Communities

AirRoadBoatFerryTrailRailroadSnowmobile

Comments

Alaska 

Maritime 

NWR

Homer, Adak, Dutch Harbor, St. George, 

St. Paul, Sitka, Unalaska, Kodiak, Sand 

Point, Atka, Umnak, Akutan, Point Hope

x x x x

Visitor center in Homer on SH1 

off-site attraction, entry

Alaska 

Peninsula 

NWR

King Salmon, Chignik, Naknek x x x

Air from King Salmon; Boats from 

communities; Planes are mostly 

float; Fly in, boat within unit

Arctic NWR Coldfoot, Kaktovik, Arctic Village, and 

Fort Yukon x x x x x

Cold Foot visitor center serves 

Arctic, Yukon Flats, Kanuti

Becharof 

NWR

King Salmon, Anchorage Bay, Chignik, 

Bristol Bay, Yantarni Bay, and Naknek x x x Air from King Salmon; Boat from 

towns; Air float, some wheel

Innoko NWR

McGrath, Galena, Koyukuk, Nulato, 

Kaltag, Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, Holy 

Cross (Northern Unit), Willow, Huslia, 

Hughes, Tanana, Ruby, Poorman, and 

Kaltag

x x x

Commercial thru McGrath; 

Floatplane from McGrath, Galena, 

Anchorage; Yukon River boat 

access

Izembek 

NWR Cold Bay, King Cove x x x Air, ferry, road from Cold Bay; allterrain vehicles from ferry/boats

Kanuti NWR Coldfoot, Bettles, Allakaket, Alatna, and 

Evansville x x x Fairbanks Airport; River floating 

from communities

Kenai NWR

Kenai, Sterling, Homer, Seldovia, 

Seward, Cooper Landing, Ninilchik, and 

Anchorage

x x x x x Hunters use SH1; Air is mostly 

float

Kodiak NWR Kodiak, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old 

Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions x x x x Air is mostly float; Ferry through 

Kodiak; Boats from towns

Koyukuk 

NWR

Galena, Huslia, Hughes, Tanana, Ruby, 

Kaltag, Koyukuk, Nulato x x x

Air Galena; Float from McGrath, 

Galena, Anchorage; Yukon River 

boat access

Nowitna 

NWR

Galena, Huslia, Hughes, Tanana, Ruby, 

Kaltag, Koyukuk, Nulato x

Selawik NWR

Kotzebue, Noorvik, Selawik, Villages 

of Ambler, Buckland, Shungnak, Kiana, 

and Kobuk

x x x Airport at Kotzebue main portal

Tetlin NWR Tok, Tetlin, and Northway x x x x x Off-site visitor center in Tok, 

access from SH2; Fly in from Tok

Togiak NWR Dillingham, Bethel x x x Access from Dillingham town and 

airport, Dillingham Alekanik

Yukon Delta 

NWR

Bethel, St. Mary’s, Mary’s Village, St. 

Michaels, Chevak x x x x Bethel is the air portal

Yukon Flats 

NWR Circle, Coldfoot, Fort Yukon x x

Source: CCPs, Refuge interviews, mapping; x = primary mode; x = secondary mode; x = ??
52 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3.5 Mobility

The LRTP mobility goal is to “provide 

opportunities for safe, efficient, 

affordable, and appropriate access to, 

through, and within refuge lands.” The 

following objectives describe how the goal 

will be met. 

Objective 1

Identify and reduce safety problems and 

modal conflicts to and within Alaskan 

refuges.

Objective 2

Ensure that mission critical transportation 

assets are maintained at “good” or better 

condition. 

3.5.1 Identifying Mobility Needs and 

Opportunities

The safety concerns expressed in 

Objective 1 can be addressed by using 

refuge interviews, CCP reviews, and 

ADOT&PF crash data. Needs and 

opportunities that respond to Objective 

2 are identified though the SAMMS and 

RIP data discussed in Chapter 2.

Through interviews, refuges without 

airstrips frequently expressed a need for 

one to support administrative use and 

the added value airstrips play in avoiding 

crashes (due to fuel issues or inclement 

weather) or supporting search and rescue 

operations. Refuge interview results and 

CCP review results are listed in Table 22.

Vehicle crashes are also of concern to 

refuges. Conflicts between vehicles, or 

wildlife and vehicles, significantly detract 

from the mobility goal. Accordingly, areas 

of frequent crashes in or near refuges are 

opportunities to improve safe access to 

and through Service lands. For example, 

ADOT&PF crash data illustrated in 

Table 21 indicates that between 2003 and 

2007, 1,059 accidents were experienced 

through or within a quarter mile of Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge on Sterling 

Highway. The results show a spike in 

Road/Transportation Safety Audits

A Road Safety Audit/Assessment (or in the multimodal context of Alaska, Transportation Safety Audit) 

is a formal safety performance examination of future 

roadway projects or in-service facilities conducted by 

an independent, experienced, multidisciplinary team. 

The studies are used to identify root causes of safety 

issues, identify possible solutions, and communicate 

safety needs to decision makers.

5

Conduct

Analysis and

Prepare

Report

1

Identify

Project

3

Conduct

Start-up

Meeting

2

Select

RSA Team

4

Perform

Field

Reviews

6

Present

Findings

to Project

Owner

7

Prepare

Formal

Response

8

Incorporate

Findings
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 53

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 21

Reported Crashes

Refuge Vehicle Crashes

Alaska Maritime N/A

Alaska Peninsula None Reported

Arctic N/A

Becharof N/A

Innoko N/A

Izembek None Reported

Kanuti N/A

Kenai

363 (Funny River Road)

209 (Kalifornsky Beach Road)

2 (Kenai Spur Highway)

12 (Ski Hill Road)

1,059 (Sterling Highway)

3 (Swanson River Road)

Kodiak N/A

Koyukuk N/A

Nowitna N/A

Selawik N/A

Tetlin

144 (Alaska Highway)

19 (Northway Road)

Togiak N/A

Yukon Delta N/A

Yukon Flats N/A

Source: Vehicle crashes (2003 to 2007), ADOT&PF; Airplane Crashes (1990 to 2011), Natio

Transportation Safety Board.

“N/A” means not applicable as the refuge does not contain roads

vehicle accidents compared to other 

Region 7 refuges that experience lower 

volumes of traffic. The results may be 

grounds to investigate the cause of the 

accidents (through coordination with 

ADOT&PF and Division of Alaska State 

Troopers) to learn more about the cause 

of these accidents and devise a response 

strategy, if needed. Other possible 

responses for areas of higher crash rates 

include road/transportation safety audits.

Identifying needs that respond to the 

Objective 2 charge for mission critical 

transportation assets to be maintained at 

“good” or better condition is largely based 

on SAMMS and RIP data as described in 

Section 2.2. Needs are identified by assets 

that are high priority (have an API of 60 

or greater), but are in poor condition (an 

FCI greater than 0.15) as suggested in 

Figure 4.
54 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 55

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 22

Mobility 

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Typical Modes of Travel to/in Refuge Alternative Transportation 

Opportunities Safety

Access to Refuge Allowable Public Transportation 

Uses Transportation Safety Issues

AutomobileATVBoatsCanoe/KayakSnow MachineFloatplaneAirplaneFootFerryOther (list)BikesTrailsKayakOther (list)Boat AccidentAirplane CrashesVehicle CrashesWildlife Interaction (bears, moose, etc.)

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Yes Yes Yes * Yes * Yes * Yes * * * * * H * H * Auto, ATV, boats, snowmobile, 

airplane, and ferry.

Traditional motorized access is 

permitted for traditional activities. No mention.

Alaska 

PeninsulaBecharof 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* Yes Yes Yes Yes * Yes * * * * * * * H L * * ATV, boat, canoe/kayak, snowmobile, 

and airplane. No mention.

Includes a safety plan which focuses 

on providing a safe and healthful 

environment for employees and the 

visiting public. It aims to minimize 

accidents resulting in injury to 

employees and the visiting public 

and to prevent property damage. It 

describes programs needed to train 

personnel in how to deal with the 

environment, materials, and machines 

that may pose hazards, with the goal 

of making safety and environmental 

health an integral part of every task. 

The safety plan is revised annually.

Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * * Yes Yes * * * M * M

Locals’ access is primarily by motor 

boats or snowmobile. There is a big 

distinction between transportation of 

locals and visitors.

Auto, boat, canoe/kayak, 

snowmobile, floatplane, airplane, 

and walking.

No mention.

Innoko National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes * Yes Yes Yes * * * * * * * * * * * Boat, snow machine, floatplane, and 

airplane. No mention. A plan goal includes continuing an aggressive safety program.

Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes Yes Yes * * Yes Yes * Yes * Yes Yes Yes * H H H *

42 mile Cold Bay road system 

provides easy access. Others living 

outside of the local communities 

fly to Cold Bay to gain access. Four 

wheel drive roads are available. Also 

use of boats, float plane, airplane 

and ferry system.

No mention. No mention.

Kanuti National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes * Yes Yes Yes * * * * Yes * * * M M * Boat, snowmobile, floatplane, and 

airplane. No mention.

An objective is to work with 

community, State and Federal 

authorities to develop a 

comprehensive law enforcement 

program with an emphasis on 

educating visitors to prevent 

violations.
56 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 22

Mobility 

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Typical Modes of Travel to/in Refuge Alternative Transportation 

Opportunities Safety

Access to Refuge Allowable Public Transportation 

Uses Transportation Safety Issues

AutomobileATVBoatsCanoe/KayakSnow MachineFloatplaneAirplaneFootFerryOther (list)BikesTrailsKayakOther (list)Boat AccidentAirplane CrashesVehicle CrashesWildlife Interaction (bears, moose, etc.)

Kenai National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes Yes Yes * Yes Yes *

sled dogs 

and cross 

country 

skiing

* Yes * * M M M H

Auto, boat, canoe/kayak, 

snowmobile, airplane, walking, sled 

dog, and cross country skiing.

No mention.

Aircraft, snowmobile, general access 

routes to pipeline roads, Sterling 

Highway through the Refuge.

Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes * * Yes Yes * Yes * * * * * M M * H Boat, float plane, airplane, and ferry.

Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, 

and other means of surface 

transportation is allowed in 

moderate and minimal management 

areas.

YEA

Koyukuk and 

Nowitna 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * Yes Yes * * Yes * * * * * * * M M * * Boat, canoe/kayak, airplane. No mention. No mention.

Selawik National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * Yes Yes * Yes Yes * * * Yes * * ATV to/from 

hanger

* L * * Boat, canoe/kayak, float plane, and 

airplane.

No ATVs are allowed on the refuge. 

During scoping, refuge staff and 

a nongovernmental organization 

identified various forms of motorized 

transportation such as ATV) and 

helicopters as a concern. None 

of these forms of motorized 

transportation appear to be key 

planning issues at the time of CCP 

adoption, but have potential to 

become issues in the future.

There are several established winter 

trails cross the refuge that link Selawik 

to Buckland, Noorvik, Kiana, Ambler, 

and Shungnak. With no roads in 

the area, these trails serve as the 

“highways” of the region, providing 

critical transportation routes for 

subsistence activities and inter-village 

travel.

Tetlin National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * Yes * Yes * Yes Yes * * * Yes * * * * H H Automobile, boat, snowmobile, 

airplane, walking.

Boats and highway vehicles were 

identified as the primary modes of 

transportation in the area (USFWS 

1997a).

No mention.

Togiak National 

Wildlife Refuge Yes * * * Yes * Yes * * * * * * * * * * * Snowmobile, boat and airplane

Boats are used by both locals and 

visitors, snowmobiles are utilized 

by mainly locals and aircraft are 

typically utilized by non-locals. There 

is no road access.

No mention.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 57

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 22

Mobility 

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Typical Modes of Travel to/in Refuge Alternative Transportation 

Opportunities Safety

Access to Refuge Allowable Public Transportation 

Uses Transportation Safety Issues

AutomobileATVBoatsCanoe/KayakSnow MachineFloatplaneAirplaneFootFerryOther (list)BikesTrailsKayakOther (list)Boat AccidentAirplane CrashesVehicle CrashesWildlife Interaction (bears, moose, etc.)

Yukon Delta 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * Yes * Yes * Yes * * * * * * Dog 

sledding H * * *

Airplanes are the primary method 

of access followed by water. Road 

access into the refuge does not 

exist. Boat and snow machine 

access exists.

ORVs will be prohibited except on 

specifically designated routes and 

areas.

No mention.

Yukon Flats 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* * Yes * Yes * Yes * * * * * * * * M * H

Access is primarily by air and water. 

Road access into the refuge does 

not exist. Boat and snowmobile 

access exists.

 A few airstrips, as well as lakes 

and gravel bars make the refuge 

accessible by light aircraft. River 

boats, canoes, and small watercraft 

are allowed.

No mention.

H Identified as a high level of potential threat

M Identified as a medium level of potential threat

L Identified as a low level of potential threat

* No comment from Refuge

** Publication date and status of CCPs on Table 16
58 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 59

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

3.6 Partnership

The LRTP partnership goal is to 

“develop partnerships to leverage 

resources and develop integrated 

transportation solutions.” The following 

objectives contribute towards reaching 

this goal.

Objective 1

Work with public and private sector 

partners to address shared transportation 

issues.

Objective 2

Coordinate annually with other agencies 

and other partners to set priorities for 

needs, exchange data, and discuss mutual 

policies to facilitate shared projects of 

mutual interest and benefit including 

project development and potential 

economic savings.

3.7 Identifying Partnership Needs and 

Opportunities

Successes in interagency and/or other 

partnerships are documented in CCPs 

and interviews. Refuge-level knowledge 

is most appropriate for identifying 

partners because of their awareness of 

local interest groups, neighboring land 

management agencies, and personal 

connections. Recent or ongoing 

partnerships are documented by refuge 

in Appendix E. Opportunities for future 

partnerships are identified in refuge 

survey results, as indicated in Table 23. 

For example, refuge interviews identified 

potential opportunities for alternative 

transportation system grant funds in 

supporting bike travel to, from, and within 

some refuges. Izembek, Alaska Maritime, 

Arctic, Koyukuk, Nowitna and Northern 

Unit Innoko, Alaska Peninsula-Becharof, 

Selawik, and Yukon Flats National 

Wildlife Refuges all expressed need for 

bikes for use by staff and/or visitors.
60 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 61

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 23

Partnership

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Frequent Inquiries about 

Other FLMAs

Nearby FLMAs that Attract/

Generate Visitors Partnership Examples Partnership Opportunities Partnership Goals

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

Kodiak NWR, NPS *

Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, Friends of Alaskan 

National Wildlife Refuges, city of Homer, Coast 

Guard, RAP, the Ferry, numerous state, national, and 

international science collaborations

Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, 

NPS, Friends of Alaskan National 

Wildlife Refuges, City of Homer

No mention.

Alaska PeninsulaBecharof National 

Wildlife Refuge

Katmai * Aleutians, DOI, Coast Guard, NOAH, NPS, ADFG, Togiak 

and Izembek

*

Partnership is a repeated CCP objective. Opportunities include: 

Koniag, Inc., the Aleut Corporation, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, 

local village corporations, local village councils, local communities 

and boroughs, State of Alaska, National Park Service, universities, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the Alaska Natural History 

Association (ANHA).

Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge

* BLM

North Slope Borough, Kaktovik polar bear, Dalton 

Highway Working Group, Game Commercial Service 

Board, Air Force, and local university

* The refuge works with the ADOT&PF on Dalton Highway efforts.

Innoko National 

Wildlife Refuge

* BLM None *

CCP goals include partnerships. Refuge staff collaborates with the 

following partners, among others: State of Alaska, other Federal 

agencies, Federal Subsistence Western Interior Regional Advisory 

Council, Migratory Bird Co-management Council, Grayling, Anvik, 

Shageluk, and Holy Cross village councils, Tanana Chiefs Conference, 

Inc. (Regional Native non-profit organization), City of McGrath, Iditarod 

Area School District, universities and museums, and nongovernmental 

organizations.

Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge

*

State Fish and Game Refuge, 

Native Corporation, Alaska 

Maritime Refuge and Alaska 

Peninsula Refuge 

Alaska Fish and Game, USGS, FWS, Coast Guard, 

Aleutians East Borough

Alaska Fish and Game, USGS, and 

Coast Guard No mention.

Kanuti National 

Wildlife Refuge

* BLM, State Land City of Bethel, Evansville Tribe, Park Service, Friends of 

Alaska ADOT&PF

CCP objectives include partnerships. For example, "in partnership with 

the BLM and the NPS, continue providing interpretive and educational 

experiences to visitors at the Arctic Interagency Visitor Center in 

Cold foot by contributing staff and operational support.” Objective 

48 is to seek out and develop partnerships with Native corporations, 

universities, other government agencies, etc., to cooperatively inventory, 

manage, and protect cultural and historical resources. 
62 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 23

Partnership

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Frequent Inquiries about 

Other FLMAs

Nearby FLMAs that Attract/

Generate Visitors Partnership Examples Partnership Opportunities Partnership Goals

Kenai National 

Wildlife Refuge

* Chugach NF; Kenai Fjords ADOT, Kenai Watershed Forum, Kenai River Special 

Management Area, State Troopers

*

CCP objectives include partnerships. Habitat and Population 

Management—Continue to develop and maintain partnerships with 

the public, other governmental agencies, and private organizations to 

increase the ability of the Refuge and those agencies with management 

responsibilities that overlay the Refuge to conserve fish, wildlife, 

and their habitats. Objective 6.1.1: Effective Environmental Education 

Programming— Continue to maintain and develop the partnership with 

Alaska Natural History Association (ANHA) and/or other cooperating 

associations to provide interpretive and environmental sales products 

on the natural and cultural history of Kenai Refuge and surrounding 

public lands. Objective 6.1.11: Effective Environmental Education 

Programming— Within three years of Plan’s approval, form partnerships 

with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe and Cook Inlet Region Inc., to interpret 

their cultural history.

Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge

* State lands and parks Coast Guard * CCP objectives include partnerships.

Koyukuk and Nowitna 

National Wildlife 

Refuge

* BLM lands near Yukon BLM, Louden Tribe youth program, Friends group *

CCP goals include partnerships. Refuge staff collaborates with the 

following partners, among others: State of Alaska, other federal 

agencies, Federal Subsistence Western Interior Regional Advisory 

Council, Migratory Bird Co-management Council, tribal governments 

in Galena, Hughes, Huslia, Kaltag, Koyukuk, Nulato, Ruby, and Tanana, 

Gana-A’Yoo (Galena, Koyukuk, Nulato, and Kaltag); K’oyitl’ots’ina, Limited 

(Hughes and Huslia); Dineega (Ruby); and Tozitna, Limited (Tanana) 

village corporations, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (a regional Native 

non-profit organization), local governments in Galena, Hughes, Huslia, 

Kaltag, Koyukuk, Nulato, Ruby, and Tanana, Yukon Koyukuk and City of 

Galena school districts, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of 

Alaska Anchorage, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks museum, and 

nongovernmental organizations (including Friends of Alaska National 

Wildlife Refuges, Alaska Geographic, and Ducks Unlimited).

Selawik National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * BLM, NPS *

CCP goals and objectives include partnerships. The hope is to develop 

and maintain credibility and open communication with partners in 

resource management and conservation, including Federal and State 

agencies, local communities, Native corporations, tribal governments, 

neighboring landowners, and businesses and organizations.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 63

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 23

Partnership

Refuge

Refuge Interviews CCPs**

Frequent Inquiries about 

Other FLMAs

Nearby FLMAs that Attract/

Generate Visitors Partnership Examples Partnership Opportunities Partnership Goals

Tetlin National 

Wildlife Refuge

BLM, Denali, Yukon Charley 

River, KenaiNWR

*

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and 

Economic Development, 

ADOT&PF, Native Corporations and Tribal councils, 

APLIC

ADOT&PF

The CCP cites a specific partnership examples. For one, the Tok APLIC, 

focus and design of the Tetlin Refuge Visitor Center toward interpretation 

of the unique aspects of Tetlin Refuge and other refuges in Alaska. 

Also, within three years of the Plan’s approval, and in cooperation with 

ADOTPF, the refuge will develop strategies consistent with Service 

policies and guidelines to standardize refuge signage; and develop a 

schedule for revising, repairing, and replacing refuge signs.

The BLM Alaska Fire Service (BLM/AFS) provides emergency 

suppression services on refuge lands in Alaska , as directed by the 

refuge manager. Through a cooperative agreement with BLM/AFS, the 

State of Alaska Division of Forestry provides emergency suppression 

services on refuge lands in State protection zones, as directed by 

the refuge manager. Tetlin Refuge is located in the Tok Area Fire 

Management Zone with suppression services provided by the State of 

Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry.

Togiak National 

Wildlife Refuge State parks * Alaska State Park ADOT&PF

CCP goals include partnerships. Development of a visitor contact 

station at the Dillingham Airport, including exhibits related to refuge 

resources, should be done through partnerships with local agencies and 

organizations. Another objective is to organize and participate in local, 

regional, state, national, and international partnerships, groups, and 

associations pursuing common natural resource management goals.

Yukon Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge Togiak Refuge, BLM lands * Yukon Health Corporation, FAA * No mention.

Yukon Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge

* * DOT Alaska Fire Service, BLM * No mention.

* No comment from Refuge

** Publication date and status of CCPs on Table 16
64 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 65

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Funding for the Service’s transportation 

program does not meet current needs. 

SAMMS indicates a shortfall in asset 

deferred maintenance of $1.7 billion ($1.2 

billion in public use assets and $0.5 billion 

in administrative use assets) nationally 

and $63 million ($62 million in public use 

assets and $1 million in administrative 

use assets) in Region 7. Table 24 lists 

national and Region 7 needs through 

an aggregate facility condition index of 

high- and low-priority assets. The table 

shows that a maintenance backlog exists 

Service-wide, and that Region 7’s highpriority transportation assets are in worse 

condition (have an average FCI of 0.41) 

than the national average (which is an 

average FCI of 0.22).

Estimates show that approximately 

$130 million per year is needed 

nationally to ensure that Refuge Roads 

Program (RRP) eligible public roads 

and bridges are maintained in “good” 

to “excellent” condition. This estimate 

assumes an aggressive schedule for road 

reconstruction and bridge rehabilitation 

over an extended period of time. The 2010 

report Life Cycle Investment Needs for

Assets in the Refuge System found that 

the deferred maintenance cost for public 

roads alone is over $1 billion (41 percent 

of all Service assets), with a replacement 

value of $6.7 billion (30 percent of all 

Service assets). Today, approximately 45 

percent of the public roads and 40 percent 

of the public bridges are in “fair” to 

“poor” or “failing” condition throughout 

the entire Service’s transportation 

system. Given the deferred maintenance 

backlog, improving the overall condition 

of transportation assets through the 

RRP requires increasing the program’s 

funding.

Based on the nationwide need of $130 

million per year, $3 to $6 million per year 

is needed in Region 7 just to maintain 

the road system and bridges in good to 

excellent condition. SAFETEA-LU, the 

current Federal transportation legislation 

and authorization for public transportation 

systems, expired in September 2009, 

but has been extended since that time. 

In 2011, dialogue on new transportation 

legislation continues. While the changes 

brought by a new Federal transportation 

authorization are yet unknown, 

documentation of transportation need will 

continue be an essential component for 

decision makers. 

Table 24

Service Transportation Asset Deferred Maintenance and Replacement Cost

Nationally

(millions of dollars)

Region 7

(millions of dollars)

Replacement Cost

High Priority Assets $5,917.2 $146.1

Low Priority Assets $1,251.1 $69.5

Total $7,168.3 $215.6

Deferred Maintenance

High Priority Assets $1,302.7 $59.3

Low Priority Assets $362.6 $3.7

Total $1,665.3 $63.0

Total FCI

High Priority Assets 0.22 0.41

Low Priority Assets 0.29 0.05

Total 0.23 0.29

Source: SAMMS (2011)

High-priority assets = API equal or greater than 60. Low-priority assets = API less than 60.

4 Funding and Project Selection
66 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

A well-defined funding and investment 

strategy and a defensible project selection 

process are critical to maintaining Service 

transportation assets. The Region 7 LRTP 

is an important step in documenting 

such a process. This chapter identifies 

reasonably expected funding through the 

2035 LRTP planning horizon, illustrates 

the gap between projected funding 

levels and anticipated need for Service 

transportation improvements, identifies 

existing funding opportunities through 

partnership with State and local entities, 

and defines the current project selection 

process for transportation projects in 

Region 7.

4.1 Transportation Funding in Region 7

The two primary funding sources used 

for transportation projects are the 

RRP and deferred maintenance funds. 

For fiscal year 2010, Region 7 received 

approximately $550,000 through the RRP 

and $2.4 million in deferred maintenance 

funds. Visitor facility enhancement 

funds were allocated through resource 

appropriations averaging $50,000 annually 

over the last five years.

It is important to note that only a 

small portion of the total budgets for 

both deferred maintenance and visitor 

facility enhancement funds are used for 

transportation projects. This section 

provides an overview of the two primary 

sources currently used to fund Region 7 

transportation improvements.

4.1.1 Refuge Roads Program 

The Service’s RRP began in 1998 with 

the passage of the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 

which authorized $20 million annually. 

Initially, work focused on completing 

inventories and addressing the most 

pressing transportation improvement 

needs. Transit and trail improvements 

were also evaluated across Service owned 

lands to prepare for future needs. Under 

SAFETEA-LU, RRP was re-authorized 

at $29 million per year. This represented 

a 45 percent increase over the previous 

TEA-21 funding levels. Nationwide, the 

program provides a funding source to 

improve public-use transportation assets 

at wildlife refuges within the Service’s 

eight regions. 

A majority of program funds have 

gone to improve roads and bridges. 

More recently, the emphasis for use of 

program funds has grown to include 

other transportation improvements such 

as bicycle and pedestrian access and 

alternative vehicle use. By law, however, 

the Service can use only up to five percent 

of the allocated RRP funds to improve 

existing trails. Other program funding 

sources (Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in the 

Parks, for example) are needed to fulfill 

this need. With pending transportation 

reauthorization, the Service intends 

to continue providing multiple quality 

transportation options for visitors and 

staff.

Funds are also allocated to the RRP from 

the FHWA according to Title 23 United 

States Code, Chapter 2 section 202(e). In 

keeping with its decentralized decision 

making structure, the Service has chosen 

to allocate the majority of its funds to its 

eight regional offices using an internally 

developed formula. The current RRP 

allocation to Region 7 is $550,000 per 

year. A small percentage, which varies 

with the RRP actual allocation from the 

Highway Trust Fund, is used to fund 

the ongoing Inventory and Assessment 

Program and national level research, 

technical assistance training, partnership 

development, and coordination of 

legislative affairs with the Service’s 

Congressional and Legislative Affairs 

Division. The Service’s allocation formula 

has three components: 

1.Size of a region’s combined adjusted 

road/bridge/parking inventory 

2.Amount of a region’s road/bridge/

parking assets assessed as being in fair/

good/excellent conditions

3.Public use of a region’s refuges, wetland 

management districts, and hatcheries
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 67

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Fifty-five percent of a region’s allocation 

is based on roadway miles and type 

(paved, improved gravel, improved native, 

and native surfaces), square footage of 

bridges, and parking lot square footage 

and type (paved, improved gravel, 

improved native, native surfaces, and 

mowed). This data is gathered by the 

ongoing Public Use Roads inventory 

program (RIP) conducted by FHWA 

FLH. Thirty percent of the allocation 

is based on asset condition (fair/good or 

excellent). Fifteen percent of the formula 

is based on the amount of public visitation 

per region as reported each year in the 

Refuge Annual Performance Plan. The 

National Transportation Coordinator in 

the Service’s Washington office manages 

the allocation process to the Service 

regions through coordination with FHWA 

and the Regional Refuge System Chief. 

Any legislative changes associated 

with upcoming Federal transportation 

legislation may also change this allocation 

process. 

Through the RRP, the Service is working 

to improve public access to refuges and 

provide a better overall visitor experience. 

Eligible project types under this program 

include improvements to existing public 

use roads, bridges, parking lots, and 

trails. This includes projects needed to 

correct safety problems at high accident 

locations and to protect natural and 

cultural resources within national wildlife 

refuges. Additional information on project 

eligibility is in the Guidance on the

Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads

Program (2005) in Appendix F.

The following types of projects are not

presently eligible to be funded under the 

RRP guidance:

 Constructing new roads, parking areas 

or pullouts, or widening of existing road 

benches.

 Realigning or relocating roads.

 Constructing new pedestrian or bicycle 

paths.

 Recurring, routine maintenance (e.g., 

grading roads and mowing roadsides).

Based on current and forecasted funding 

allocation for the RRP, the Service will 

continue to experience a funding gap that 

significantly falls short of program needs. 

Table 25 shows current and anticipated 

funding through this plan’s horizon and 

indicates an over $200 million funding gap 

through 2035 to maintain all Region 7’s 

RRP transportation assets a condition 

rating of good to excellent.

Table 25

Anticipated Funding Gap through Planning Horizon Year (2035)

Existing Region 7 

annual funding 

(in millions)

Anticipated need through 

2035 

(in millions)

Anticipated funding 

available through 2035 

(in millions)

Funding gap 

through 2035 

(in millions)

$0.55 $250 $22 $228

Note: Anticipated need is based on a current need of $15 million, with 4 percent annual inflation.

Anticipated funding is based on 20 percent program increase every 6 years, starting in 2012.
68 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

4.2 Transportation Project Selection 

Process

Currently, Region 7 transportation 

projects are generated by soliciting needs 

from each refuge. Headquarters then 

announces funds available and decides 

on projects that fit within the specified 

budget. Larger projects, therefore, 

require funding over multiple years.

This LRTP creates an updated and 

defensible transportation project selection 

process that is based on goals, information, 

and funding to advance the projects that 

best fulfill the Service’s vision and mission. 

This process will be used to guide project 

programming. The Region may alter the 

process as needed to be responsive to 

emergency needs, changes in the funding 

allocation, and other urgent programming 

needs. The six-step decision-making 

process, described below and illustrated in 

Figure 9, is conducted annually to address 

critical transportation needs. 

Step 1: Call for projects. The first step 

in project selection is initiated when the 

transportation coordinators for refuges 

issue a call for projects. This call will be 

released in a memorandum that describes 

the project selection process, describes 

the integral relationship between project 

selection and transportation goals and 

objectives, and includes a list of existing 

projects generated through work orders in 

SAMMS. 

Step 2: Project leaders review work 

orders and prioritize needs. This call is 

an opportunity for refuge supervisors and 

project leaders to review the needs of each 

unit and submit projects to the regional 

transportation coordinator. Project 

submittals should include sufficient 

information to support eligibility and 

need for the transportation improvements 

based on the information provided in this 

LRTP. 

Step 3: Review and validate projects. 

Upon receiving project submittals from 

the call process, the transportation 

coordinators review each potential 

project and validate it against the goals, 

objectives and the “identifying areas of 

improvement” subsections of Chapter 3 

of this LRTP. The validation process may 

include site visits to confirm the condition 

of a specific facility and/or discussions 

with project leaders and refuge managers 

to confirm or clarify a project’s purpose 

and need and how it relates to the 

Region’s priorities. Consistent with the 

goals described in this LRTP, rankings 

are assigned to each goal category as a 

function of the relative importance the 

Service places on achieving a particular 

goal relative to the mission of the agency, 

as illustrated in Table 26. The rankings 

represent the relative priority of each of 

the goal areas in which a project can be 

scored. Projects with the highest total 

ranking points indicate the Region’s 

highest priority projects, while projects 

with lower scores may be funded if 

additional funds were to become available. 

Regional leadership has discretion in 

altering the priority of individual projects 

as needed.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 69

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 9 

Project Selection Process

SAMMS 

Work Order 

List by 

Station

Project Leaders 

review work orders, 

prioritize these into 

projects, and add

 new RRP eligible 

projects to list

Transportation 

Coordinator issues 

call for projects to 

project leaders

Regional 

Management Team 

prioritizes validated 

unit level project lists, 

adds projects and/or 

transportation studies 

region-wide

Transportation 

Coordinators present 

regional priorities to 

refuge supervisors

Regional priorities 

compiled into 5 year 

Transportation 

Improvement Plan 

(broken out by 

fiscal year)

Transportation 

Coordinator 

review/validate 

projects by goal area

Project

Goal Area



    







       

Step

1

Step

2

Step

3

Step

4

Step

5

Step

6

Table 26

Transportation Program Goals and Selection Criteria 

Used for Project Ranking

Goals/Objectives Ranking Priority

Goal 1: Sustainability Medium

Goal 2: Environment High

Goal 3: Subsistence Access High

Goal 4: User Experience Low

Goal 5: Mobility Medium

Goal 6: Partnership Medium

Source: Region 7 LRTP Core Team
70 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Step 4: Regional-level prioritization. 

Following validation, the regional 

management team will meet to discuss 

and prioritize the validated project listing. 

Using the information obtained during the 

call for projects and validation process, the 

transportation coordinator presents each 

project to the management team. Regional 

priorities are aligned with project level 

decisions, resulting in an approved, 

prioritized ranking of projects. 

Step 5: Presentation of regional 

priorities. The transportation coordinator 

then presents this prioritized list to refuge 

supervisors. 

Step 6: Develop 5-year Transportation 

Improvement Program. In order to 

program projects, the transportation 

coordinator aligns the prioritized project 

list with available funding to identify 

when each project will be implemented. 

Once this alignment has been completed, 

the list serves as the Region’s 5-year 

Transportation Improvement Program. 

Because this process is conducted on 

an annual basis, changes in funding 

availability, local conditions, and 

unforeseen circumstances may influence 

how and when specific projects are 

programmed for implementation during 

the 5-year timeframe. 

Because Region 7’s project selection 

process is designed to be a defensible 

mechanism to select projects, the key to 

advancing projects is ensuring consistency 

with the Region’s transportation priorities 

(the five goals and corresponding 

objectives and strategies). 

In addition to creating a work order in 

SAMMS, the project proponent must 

describe how a project supports specific 

goal areas or objectives, as described in 

Chapters 2 and 3 of this LRTP. It is also 

critical to communicate the validity of 

the project and how it supports regional 

transportation goals/objectives with 

the respective project leader, as these 

individuals play an important role early 

in the selection process during the initial 

review of work orders and identification of 

eligible projects. 

One of the most important ways to 

inform regional decision makers about 

the validity of a project is to submit 

appropriate documentation supporting the 

projects’ need. Additional factors needed 

to articulate project needs are identified 

in Chapter 3 of this LRTP. Examples of 

supporting documentation include road or 

bridge condition data, safety assessments, 

traffic volumes, accident data, visitation 

statistics, site photos, and potential 

funding partnerships. Recognizing 

the limited funding for transportation 

projects within the region, the Service is 

placing greater importance on the need to 

coordinate beyond refuge boundaries, and 

seek partnerships for projects that receive 

RRP funds. 

4.3 External Funding

Because this document is a companion 

piece to the Alaska Federal Lands

LRTP, funding sources identified in 

that plan are relevant to the Service 

as supplemental funding sources to be 

pursued when projects meet funding 

program requirements. Chapter 4 of the 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP outlines 

external funding program types and 

eligibility that are available to all FLMAs, 

including the Service. A common theme 

for external funding programs is local 

partnership. These programs emphasize 

the importance of partnering with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies to 

overcome funding gaps. 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 71

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

5. Action Plan

Table 27

Performance Measures

Goal Area Performance Measure

Sustainability

1. Address transportation related climate 

change adaptation and mitigation in all 

CCPs.

Percentage of published CCPs or step-down plans 

that include climate change adaptation and potential 

mitigation.

Environment 2. Reduce transportation and wildlife 

conflicts. *

Number of transportation projects and/or percentage 

of transportation funds spent on reducing wildlife 

conflicts with the transportation system. *

Subsistence 

Access

3. Each refuge will formally define 

traditional subsistence transportation 

uses. 

Percentage of refuges that define traditional uses in 

CCPs or other formal reports.

User 

Experience

4. All CCPs will include transportation user 

experience components.

Percentage of published CCPs or step-down plans 

that address transportation related visitor experience.

5. All refuges surveyed will have a “good” 

or better transportation system user 

rating. *

Percentage of units with good/better satisfaction 

rating for transportation system (Question 5 from 2011 

visitor survey). *

Mobility

6. Percent of high priority assets in good 

condition (SAMMS/RIP).

All high priority transportation assets (API of 60 or 

higher) will be maintained at “good” condition or 

better (RIP pavement condition greater than 75, or an 

FCI of 0.15 or less).

7. All transportation assets that are no 

longer needed will be decommissioned.

Percentage of transportation assets that are both in 

very low priority (API less than 20) and failed condition 

(FCI greater than 0.70) as measured by SAMMS. 

Percentage of assets named for decommissioning 

in CCPs and/or facility asset management plans that 

have not been decommissioned.

8. Transportation project selection process 

will be defensible and consistent.

Adherence to project selection process documented 

in Section 4.2.

The action plan consists of performance 

measures and recommendations, 

which respond to the needs identified 

in Chapter 3. Performance measures 

embody outcomes that once fully achieved, 

represent major milestones in meeting 

the long range goals and objectives 

expressed in this LRTP. These outcomes 

are presented in Table 27 as a desired 

performance, followed by the measure 

from which progress can be evaluated and 

tracked. The intent is to report progress 

in meeting these performance measures 

each year to national leaders and other 

interested parties.
72 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Goal Area Performance Measure

Partnership

9. Strengthen communication within 

the Service – especially with national 

leaders:

• 5-year plan

• RIP/BIP data

• Research studies

• Completed/active partnership projects*

• Performance measure reporting

Annual reporting.

10. Participate in at least one transportation 

project coordination meeting with other 

FLMAs and ADOT&PF each year.

Meeting notes/materials.

11. Seek multiple funding sources for 

transportation projects on or accessing 

refuges (see Chapter 4, Funding and 

Project Selection).*

Number of transportation:

Projects on or accessing Service units using multiple 

funding sources. *

Grants applications.

Dollars received from outside sources.

* Same as, or slight rewording of, the draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National LRTP performance measure (as of July 14,

2011)

The recommendations presented in 

Table 28 also address the needs identified 

in Chapter 3, Goals and Baseline 

Conditions, but are not considered 

performance measures. Needs are not 

included as performance measures when:

Performance is not quantifiable.

 Specific actions are better determined at 

the refuge, issue driven, and small scale 

planning levels (as illustrated in Table 1) 

than at a regional and long range level.

 Additional information is needed 

before actions can be recommended 

and performance benchmarks can be 

established.

 Needs are short term and not fully 

consistent with the long range outlook of 

this plan.

Table 27

Performance Measures (continued)
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 73

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 28

Recommendations

Goal Area Need Possible Action(s)

Sustainability

1. When refuges are considering climate change 

adaptation and mitigation in CCPs, consider erosion and 

permafrost impacts and locations identified in the Draft 

Climate Change Technical Report as well as the threats 

identified in Table 14.

Consideration for CCP updates.

Environment

2. Refuges identified in Table 15 should monitor and 

respond to erosion in Service lands, especially in 

refuges adjacent to “priority action” communities.

Consideration for CCP updates.

3. Each refuge should consider the known and possible 

environmental threats identified in Table 16. Consideration for CCP updates.

4. Record number of transportation projects and/or 

percent of transportation funds spent to reduce fish/

wildlife conflicts with the transportation system. *

Periodic memorandum.

Periodic work order literature 

review.

Subsistence 

Access None specified.

User Experience

5. Ensure that the refuge level visitation hot-spots 

identified in Table 19 and hot-spot activities in Table 18 

are addressed in transportation user experience 

components of CCPs.

Consideration for CCP updates.

Possible topic for a comprehensive/ 

large scale, issue driven, or small 

scale plan (Table 1).

6. The method for delivering user information should 

complement the types of access and uses experienced 

to/within each refuge.

Consideration for CCP updates.

Possible topic for a comprehensive/

large scale, issue driven, or small 

scale plan (Table 1).

Mobility

7. Take steps to reduce safety hot-spots identified in 

Table 21 and Table 22.

Safety audit or other issue driven or 

small scale plan (Table 1). *

Reenergize refuge safety plans.

Collect traffic data.

Report accidents in the Service’s 

safety management system.

8. Determine where there are ingress/egress issues. 

Begin tracking projects that resolve these issues.*

Issue driven or small scale plans 

(Table 1).

9. Support ATS in refuges identifying need (Table 22), as 

appropriate.

Consideration for CCP updates

Grant application (Chapter 4).

Partnership

10. Support partnership opportunities identified in Table 23. Interagency project coordination 

(See number 11 in Table 27)

11. Communicate refuge level knowledge about partnership 

opportunities to the regional (especially in relationship 

to performance measure 9 and 10 in Table 27) and 

national level. 

Consideration for CCP updates.

* Is a prerequisite for measuring draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National LRTP performance measures (as of July 14,

2011)
74 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

5.1 Long Range Transportation 

Performance

As performance measures are used to 

evaluate and track progress in meeting the 

long-range goals and objectives expressed 

in this LRTP, the baseline for future 

measurements are also set in this LRTP. 

Regular reporting will show progress over 

time in achieving desired performance. 

Future plan updates will provide 

opportunities to modify performance 

measures to accommodate new needs and 

opportunities. The performance measure 

baseline, or starting point, values are 

noted in Table 29.

Canoeing by upper ramparts of Porcupine River, FWS
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 75

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 29

Long-Range Transportation Performance (October 2011)

Goal Area Performance Measure

2011 Baseline 

Performance 

Measure Value

Value Comments

Sustainability 1. Address transportation related climate change 

adaptation and mitigation in all CCPs.

Percent of published CCPs or step-down plans that include climate change adaptation and potential 

mitigation. 43% Table 16 indicates that 6 of 14 CCPs mention climate change, adaptation or mitigation.

Environment 2. Reduce transportation and wildlife conflicts. * Number of transportation projects and/or percent of transportation funds spent on reducing wildlife 

conflicts with the transportation system. * 1 project

Subsistence 

Access

3. Each refuge will formally define traditional 

subsistence transportation uses. Percent of refuges that define traditional uses in CCPs or other formal reports. 21% Table 17 indicates that 3 of 14 CCPs mention traditional uses.

User Experience

4. All CCPs will include transportation user 

experience components. Percent of published CCPs or step-down plans that address transportation related visitor experience. 64% Table 18 indicates that 9 of 14 CCPs mentioned visitor experience.

5. All refuges surveyed will have a “good” or better 

transportation system user rating. *

Percent of units with good/better satisfaction rating for transportation system (Question 5 from 2011 

visitor survey). *

No data available at this time. Survey will be released 

in the fall of 2011.

Mobility

6. Percent of high priority assets in good condition 

(SAMMS / RIP).

All high priority transportation assets (API of 60 or higher) will be maintained at “good” condition or better 

(RIP pavement condition greater than 75, or an FCI of 0.15 or less). 94% Of those transportation assets with an API of 60 or greater, 12 of 200 have an FCI of 0.15 or greater 

7. All transportation assets that are no longer needed 

will be decommissioned.

Percent of transportation assets that are both in very low priority (API less than 20) and failed condition 

(FCI greater than 0.70). 0% No asset API is less than 20 (0%).

8. Transportation project selection process will be 

defensible and consistent. Adherence to project selection process documented in Section 4.2. No

This project selection process is newly adopted as 

part of this LRTP. Therefore the process has not yet 

been performed.

Partnership

9. Strengthen communication within the Service, 

especially with national leaders:

• 5-year plan

• RIP / BIP data

• Research studies

• Completed/active partnership projects*

• Performance measure reporting

Annual reporting. Yes See Appendix G for annual report.

10. Participate in at least one transportation project 

coordination meeting with other FLMAs and 

ADOT&PF each year.

Meeting notes / material. Yes Last FLMA and ADOT&PF project coordination 

meeting held in October, 2010 in Fairbanks, AK.

11. Seek multiple funding sources for transportation 

projects on or accessing refuges (see Chapter 4). *

Number of transportation:

Projects on or accessing Service units using multiple funding sourcese*

Grants applications

Dollars received from outside sources

1 grant 

application

Grant application submitted for Sterling Highway 

project.

* Is a prerequisite for measuring draft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National LRTP performance measures (as of July 14, 2011)
76 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Partnership Review 77

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan