Alaska Federal Lands Collaborative Long-Range 

Transportation Plan, 2020-2040

Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve. NPS Photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

2

The Alaska Transportation Working Group would like to thank the 

following agencies and organizations for their contributions to this 

plan. This document is a truly collaborative effort that benefits from 

the unique perspectives of all who have participated.

Alaska Transportation Working Group

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

National Park Service (NPS)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

U.S. Forest Service (FS)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western Federal Lands 

 Highway Division (WFL)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Alaska Division Office 

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)

Alaska Municipal League (AML)

Development Team

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Volpe National 

 Transportation Systems Center

National Park Service (NPS), Denver Service Center (DSC)

Acknowledgements

Contacts

Roxanne Bash, PMP

Planning Team Lead

Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Division

610 East 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661

roxanne.bash@dot.gov

(360) 619-7558

Curt Fortenberry (BLM)

cfortenb@blm.gov

907-474-2206

Kevin Doniere (NPS)

kevin_doniere@nps.gov

907-644-3390

Amy Klein (FWS)

amy_klein@fws.gov

907-786-3579

Aaron Eklund (FS)

aeklund@fs.fed.us

503-808-2473

Dog Sled Crossing Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

3

Prologue

Seven years ago, the Alaska Transportation Working Group published 

its first-ever long-range transportation plan for Federal lands in 

Alaska, the 2012 Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP). This plan was a collaboration between a wide range of 

partners – the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Federal Highway 

Administration, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities, and the Alaska Municipal League – to create a strategic, 

performance-based vision for future transportation investments. The 

plan recognized the highly unique nature of Alaska’s multimodal 

transportation network, which often crosses jurisdictional boundaries 

to provide access to recreation, economic development, and 

subsistence uses on Federal lands. 

Since the completion of the 2012 Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, the 

Alaska Transportation Working Group has implemented the plan by:

● completing joint research related to the plan’s goals of 

system management, safety and mobility, user experience, 

and resilience; 

● holding regular teleconferences and annual in-person 

meetings to discuss common challenges and opportunities 

for collaboration; and 

● leveraging multiple funding sources to complete projects 

of mutual benefit that improve transportation access to 

Federal lands for Alaska’s residents and visitors. 

The purpose of the Alaska Federal Lands Collaborative LongRange Transportation Plan (CLRTP), 2020-2040, is to update the 

2012 Alaska Federal Lands LRTP and build on the successes of the 

original plan. This plan updates the baseline conditions to reflect 

new data, agency guidance, and surface transportation legislation. 

This plan also provides updated goals, objectives, implementation 

actions, and performance measures for a new 20-year transportation 

planning horizon (2020-2040). The collaboratively identified goals 

work toward achieving a “seamless” transportation system for public 

and administrative access to Federal lands. 

This update represents the continued commitment of participating 

agencies to work together to solve transportation challenges and 

manage existing transportation systems. Partnering agencies 

understand that transportation systems can span multiple 

jurisdictions necessitating the need for communication and 

partnerships to address transportation system needs, make informed 

decisions, and use resources efficiently. The contribution of each 

participating agency in the development of this plan provides for 

not just a collaborative document, but a truly richer plan. 

The Alaska CLRTP, 2020-2040 plan is meant to be a living document 

and participating agencies will continue to collaborate after its 

completion to implement the goals of this plan. We thank you for 

your interest in this plan and hope you find it useful and informative.

Final Plan: December 2019

Pinnell Mountain National Recreation Trail. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

4

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

5

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................... 8

Introduction................................................................................. 13

System Management................................................................... 23

User Experience........................................................................... 35

Safety and Mobility ..................................................................... 45

Environment................................................................................ 57

Risk and Resilience ...................................................................... 69

Partnerships ................................................................................ 77

Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems ....... 87

Outreach Plan.............................................................................. 97

Implementation Plan................................................................... 105

Appendices.................................................................................. (Separate Document)

Appendix A - ANCSA and ANILCA

Appendix B - Visitor Trends Technical Report

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

Appendix D - Safety Exploratory Analysis and Baseline Conditions

Appendix E - Natural Hazards Vulnerability Technical Report

Appendix F - Risk Assessment Workshop
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

6

Acronymns

AIVC Arctic Interagency Visitor Center

AMATS Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions

AML Alaska Municipal League

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

API Asset Priority Index

ATAP Alaska Transportation Alternatives Program

ATV All-Terrain Vehicles

AVSP Alaska Visitor Statistics Program

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CIRES Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental 

Sciences

CTP Community Transportation Program

CVTS Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

DOT&PF Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

ER Emergency Relief

ERFO Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAHP Federal-Aid Highway Program 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (Act)

FC Functional Classes

FCI Facility Condition Index

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program

FLH Federal Lands Highway

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program

FMATS Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System

FS U.S. Forest Service

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal Year

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GIS Geographic Information System

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

IAA Interagency Agreements

IFA Independent Federal Agencies

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LRTP Long-Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

MOA Memoranda of Agreement

MOU Memoranda of Understanding 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NCA National Conservation Area

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NSFHP Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects

NSFLTP Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NP National Park

NP&P National Park & Preserve

NPS National Park Service

NRA National Recreation Area

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

7

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation

PDC Programming Decision Committee

PM Particulate Matter

RTP Recreational Trails Program

RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization

RV Recreational Vehicle

SAR Search and Rescue

SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SOx Sulfur Oxides

STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TAP Transportation Alternatives Program

TINA Transportation Investment Needs Analysis

TIP Transportation Improvement Program/Transportation 

Improvement Plan

TMA Transportation Management Area

TRB Transportation Research Board

TRSPT Transportation Resource Stewardship Planning Tool 

TTP Tribal Transportation Program

US/U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USMP Unstable Slope Management Program

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WFL Western Federal Lands Highway Division
Executive Summary Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

8

Executive Summary

This plan is the 2020-2040 update to the Alaska Federal Lands LongRange Transportation Plan (LRTP), originally published in 2012. This 

plan describes the benefits of and actions for coordinated planning 

and decision making among Federal lands management agencies 

(FLMA) involved in managing transportation systems to and 

within Federal lands in Alaska. This plan results from a partnership 

between the National Park Service (NPS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest 

Service (FS); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Alaska Department 

of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF); and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western Federal Lands 

Highway Division (WFL). This LRTP assists FLMAs to consolidate 

efforts through long-term coordination in transportation planning 

and decision-making processes. Such cooperation is accomplished 

through developing common goals and objectives; setting priorities 

for implementing projects; facilitating objective decision making for 

the transportation system; and developing common actions that 

benefit each FLMA in furthering the common goals and objectives. 

The key objective of such a planning process is to develop and 

maintain a coordinated, “seamless” transportation system for public 

and administrative access to Federal lands.

The LRTP is an update to the original Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, 

published in 2012. The 2012 plan was a pioneering effort to develop 

the first multiagency LRTP for Federal lands. The 2012 LRTP was 

developed with a 20-year time horizon (2012-2032) but is meant 

to be updated periodically to reflect new transportation conditions, 

multiagency accomplishments, and needs. This LRTP update covers 

the years 2020-2040 and addresses the following:

● Reflects new requirements and funding opportunities in the

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act;

● Uses updated transportation and visitation data to provide

more current information on the conditions and needs of

Federal lands transportation networks;

● Aligns the updated LRTP with FLMAs’ national guidance;

● Reports on FLMA and partner accomplishments from the

2012 plan;

● Builds upon the interagency team’s progress to develop

performance measures and monitoring systems; and

● Increases understanding of the unique benefits and

challenges of transportation planning for Federal lands.

LRTP Goals

System Management: Provide a long-term transportation system 

to address current and future land management needs.

User Experience: Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal 

transportation system experience and connectivity.

Safety and Mobility: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, 

and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands.

Environment: Protect and enhance natural and cultural resources 

through comprehensive transportation planning and management.

Risk and Resilience: Develop a long-term transportation system 

that addresses environmental, social, and economic risks.

Partnerships: Maintain existing mutually beneficial relationships 

and build future opportunities for collaboration with tribal, Federal, 

state, local, and other external partners. 
Executive Summary Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

9

Alaska’s multimodal transportation system provides critical links 

to connect local residents and visitors with their Federal lands 

and, in many cases, provides critical links for inter-village travel 

and subsistence use. Understanding the connection between 

transportation and conservation, the Alaska FLMAs have established 

mission, goals, and objectives to serve as benchmarks for evaluating 

improvements to the transportation system as part of this LRTP. 

Together with an understanding of existing transportation 

infrastructure deficiencies in the state of Alaska, this plan enables 

FLMAs, individually and collectively, to make better decisions 

regarding the most critical needs. Other specific benefits of the LRTP 

include:

● Enables Alaska Federal land managers to make informed 

decisions based on long-term transportation mission, goals, 

objectives, and performance measures. 

● Provides a holistic and long-term view of transportation 

in relation to core operations and other programs and 

priorities such as asset management, deferred maintenance, 

resource protection, visitor services, and the visitor 

experience. 

● Provides current data on multimodal transportation issues 

and needs across the region. 

● Provides an opportunity for Alaska Federal land units to 

partners and discuss areas of mutual interest with the public 

and regional entities such as minimizing carbon footprint, 

alternative transportation systems, and transportation 

system linkages. 

● Provides Alaska Federal land managers with a better 

understanding of future transportation needs. 

● Serves as a basis for FLMA leaders to work with local 

communities, native tribes, and other FLMAs, many of 

whom could potentially contribute funding or in-kind 

services to advance priority projects. 

● Fulfills Federal requirements to conduct long-range 

transportation planning in a manner that is consistent 

with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) planning 

practices for states and metropolitan organizations. 

Travel in Alaska

Understanding the unique nature of travel in Alaska is a prerequisite 

for planning future transportation projects. More than anywhere 

else in the United States, Alaska depends on a mix of roads, rail, 

marine, snow, and air connections to meet its transportation 

needs. This multimodal network responds to the state’s immense 

size, challenging physical geography, and extreme climate. Travel in 

the state is often a matter of connecting from one modal system 

to another. The efficiency of Alaska’s multimodal transportation 

system heavily influences accessibility, subsistence living, business 

and recreational travel opportunities, and the state’s overall 

economy.

RVs on Taylor Highway. BLM photo.

Float Plane at Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge Mother Goose Lake. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Executive Summary

10

In order to provide information for this multiagency plan, each Federal 

agency also has prepared their own long-range transportation plans, 

called drop-down plans, for the portions of Alaska’s transportation 

system within an agency’s jurisdiction. These drop-down plans 

enable each agency to outline the transportation facilities within 

their jurisdiction as well as the existing and future needs. Drop-down 

plans elaborate upon topics discussed in the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP with agency-specific details including baseline conditions, 

transportation needs and gaps, project selection processes, funding 

opportunities, performance measures, and recommended future 

actions. All agencies coordinate with Alaska DOT&PF during the 

development of these plans, and the information resulting from 

these planning efforts informs the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP. This 

tiered approach, illustrated in Figure 1, is structured so that all FLMAs 

are represented in the LRTP, and agency-specific topics and details 

are represented in an agency drop-down plan.1

This plan and the FLMA drop-down plans are therefore 

interdependent in nature. This plan relies on the details established 

in the drop-down plans about agency specific conditions, needs, 

1 The 2012 NPS, FS, FWS, and BLM drop-down plans are available on the FHWA Federal Lands Planning 

Program website: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flpp/lrtp/. NPS is currently updating its drop-down 

plan.

gaps, and performance measures. Conversely, drop-down plans rely 

on this plan for FLMA-wide analysis (in the areas of visitation trends 

and natural hazards), coordination (for partnerships and improved 

statewide system management / experience / mobility), and the 

mutually beneficial implementation plan. 

Through development of this LRTP and individual agency dropdown plans, several actions were identified as being necessary to 

further common FLMA LRTP goals and objectives or improving the 

impact of future FLMA and drop-down plans. The following section 

identifies the implementation actions identified by the interagency 

planning team. The performance of FLMAs in achieving LRTP goals 

and objectives is therefore measured by the progress made in 

accomplishing these actions over time. 

Figure 1. Tiered LRTP Approach

Alaska 

Federal 

Lands 

LRTP

NPS FS BLM FWS

Alaska Railroad Depot. FS photo.

Iditarod National Historic Trail. BLM photo.
Executive Summary Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

11

Short Term Implementation Actions

The multiagency LRTP team selected the following implementation 

actions as high-priority actions to work towards in the first one to 

two years after plan update completion: 

1. Create a Multimodal Transportation Safety Database: 

Collaborate with FLMAs, state, and local partners to collect 

and analyze multimodal transportation safety data and 

monitor safety performance for travel to and through 

Federal lands in Alaska. Where appropriate, link this database 

with Alaska DOT&PF efforts to monitor and improve safety 

performance through the Highway Safety Improvement Plan 

and Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

2. Collaborate to Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at a 

Watershed Level through completing a culvert inventory 

and compiling existing watershed documentation. Conduct 

an inventory of culverts across FLMA units to identify 

locations and conditions, where culverts are not properly 

sized to accommodate expected flow levels, and where 

culverts and other transportation infrastructure poses fish 

passage barriers. Create a set of best practices for culvert 

management and maintenance.

3. Maintain Collaborative Multiagency Working Group

focusing on Federal lands transportation needs:

● Maintain and update coordinated GIS systems

● Participate in annual Project Coordination Meetings 

and regular teleconferences

● Document collaborative accomplishments

4. Pursue Collaborative Funding Opportunities such as 

FLAP, FLTP, and other applicable funding sources to support 

transportation projects, plans, and research.

5. Coordinate Training Efforts: Organize annual multiagency 

training on topics of mutual interest, such as conducting 

Transportation Safety Assessments. In addition, each agency 

should invite other agency staff to attend applicable trainings 

they are organizing, as appropriate. 

Medium Term Implementation Actions

The LRTP team identified the following as second tier implementation 

actions: 

1. Complete Gravel Roads Condition Assessment for Federal 

lands in Alaska that generates actions to improve condition 

and contribute to performance management.

2. Develop Key Factors of Multimodal Access: Develop key 

factors and data collection for multimodal travel and active 

transportation (tie-in with safety database); this also includes 

consideration of concessionaires / private partners, such as 

shuttle operators. 

3. Monitor Emerging Visitor Use Trends: Identify and research 

the emergence of new visitor transportation trends – such as 

fat bikes, electric bikes, and changing shoulder season and 

winter travel patterns – and their implications for Federal 

lands transportation and safety. 

4. Tribal and Municipal Relations: Reach out to tribes, 

Alaska Native Corporations, and municipalities on LRTP 

implementation and update.

5. Visitor Data: Periodically (every five years) administer a 

collaborative survey of Federal lands transportation users in 

Alaska. Analyze survey data and share with partners to inform 

future decision making.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

12

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

13

Introduction

Arctic Interagency Visitor Center. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

14

Introduction

Transportation infrastructure connects local residents and visitors 

with Alaska’s Federal lands including national parks, national 

forests, national wildlife refuges, and other dispersed lands under 

the jurisdiction of Federal land management agencies. This Alaska 

Federal Lands Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2020-2040 (Alaska 

Federal Lands LRTP 2020-2040) is the joint product of the following 

agencies: 

FLMAs:

● Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

● National Park Service (NPS)

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

● U.S. Forest Service (FS)

Partners: 

● Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Federal 

Lands Highway (FLH)

● Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

(Alaska DOT&PF)

● Alaska Municipal League (AML)

Decisions regarding transportation projects on Federal lands 

necessitate participation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); 

therefore, the BIA is considered a significant stakeholder, but not a 

FLMA Core Team member because the BIA is not a land management 

agency. 

This LRTP is intended to assist FLMAs in consolidating their 

transportation-related efforts, where reasonable, by coordinating 

planning and decision-making processes and identifying areas of 

common need and interest. This coordination is achieved through 

documenting common goals and objectives; setting priorities 

for implementing projects; facilitating objective decision making 

processes; identifying areas of need; and developing common 

actions that benefit each FLMA in furthering the common goals and 

objectives of this LRTP. The key objective of such a planning process 

is to develop and maintain a coordinated, “seamless” transportation 

system for public and administrative access to Federal lands. 

This Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2020-2040 strengthens opportunities 

where there is overlap in agency missions, while supporting the 

unique aspects of each FLMA through agency-specific plans. This 

tiered approach, illustrated in Figure 1, is structured so that matters 

that relate to all FLMAs are represented in this Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP 2020-2040, and agency-specific topics and details are 

represented in agency-specific plans. Figure 2 shows the division 

of content and agency-specific details between the Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP 2020-2040 and the drop-down plans.

Purpose of the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP 2020-2040 Update

The LRTP is an update to the original Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, 

published in 2012. The 2012 plan was a pioneering effort to develop 

the first multiagency LRTP for Federal lands. The 2012 LRTP was 

developed with a 20 year time horizon (2012-2032) but is meant 

to be updated periodically to reflect new transportation conditions, 

multiagency accomplishments, and needs. This LRTP update covers 

the years 2020-2040 and addresses the following: 

● Reflects new requirements and funding opportunities in the 

FAST Act;

● Uses updated transportation and visitation data to provide 

more current information on the conditions and needs of 

Federal lands transportation networks;

● Aligns the updated LRTP with FLMAs’ national guidance;

● Reports on FLMA and partner accomplishments from the 

2012 plan;

● Builds upon the interagency team’s progress to develop 

performance measures and monitoring systems; and

● Increases understanding of the unique benefits and 

challenges of transportation planning for Federal lands.
Introduction Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

15

Figure 2: Alaska Federal Lands LRTP and Agency Drop-Down LRTPs

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

● Establishes common Alaska FLMA transportation goals, 

objectives, and strategies.

● Documents unique role of multimodal travel to and within 

FLMAs and Alaska as a whole. 

● Identifies common FLMA transportation-related trends, 

policies, and relevant non-FLMA transportation planning. 

● Identifies common FLMA transportation funding sources.

● Documents role of outreach in the LRTP planning process.

● Identifies joint FLMA actions and long-range transportation 

performance measures. 

Drop-Down LRTP

● Establishes agency-specific transportation goals, objectives, 

and strategies.

● Documents the role of the LRTP in decision-making 

processes and significance to other plans.

● Establishes existing and baseline conditions.

● Identifies needs, gaps, or opportunities. 

● Identifies agency-specific transportation funding sources and 

trends.

● Documents transportation project selection processes. 

● Identifies actions and performance measures.

● Makes recommendations for future actions. 

Plan Purpose

Each FLMA in has its own defined mission, as defined in its specific 

enabling legislation. These missions guide all aspects of these 

agencies, including how they manage their transportation networks. 

The purpose of the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP is to coalesce around 

the many shared goals of these agencies, which are reflective of 

individual FLMA missions. The defined mission of each agency is 

summarized as follows:

BLM Mission - To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of 

America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.

FWS Mission - The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.

NPS Mission - The National Park Service preserves unimpaired 

the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park 

system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future 

generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the 

benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation throughout this country and the world.

FS Mission - The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands 

to meet the needs of present and future generations. 

The Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2020-2040:

● Defines the transportation network.

● Identifies needs for the transportation network.

● Defines consistent transportation performance measures 

and targets.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

16

● Develops a process that identifies each agency’s larger 

planning needs and supports their local-level transportation 

planning processes.

● Creates interagency working groups to continue 

collaborating on transportation planning after the LRTP 

process.

The LRTP update does not include specific project selection or 

management decisions, but instead provides high-level analysis and 

guidance to inform local, implementation-level plans and decisions. 

As such, this LRTP provides pre-decisional analysis that FLMA staff 

and partners can use as a resource and it does not require a National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.2

Alaska Specific Plan

More than anywhere else in the United States, people in Alaska 

depend on a mix of highway, rail, marine, trail, water and air 

connections to meet their transportation needs. As with nearly all 

travel in Alaska, visiting the state’s Federal lands requires access to 

multimodal transportation opportunities. Multimodal access to and 

within Federal lands is particularly important in Alaska where FLMAs 

manage 62 percent of the state’s surface land area. This LRTP, unlike 

other LRTPs developed for FLMA regions in the lower 48 states, 

focuses on addressing planning issues related to interconnectivity 

of the various modes to provide a unique and seamless experience 

for visitors, local residents, agency staff, and other non-recreational 

users, such as contractors and concessionaires. While each FLMA 

addresses their own unique transportation system through dropdown plans, this LRTP looks at the state as a whole and identifies 

how these systems interconnect, where modal gaps occur, and how 

information is disseminated to visitors regarding how to access 

multimodal connections.

2 Transportation planning under 23 USC 134 and 135 are NEPA FHWA categorical exclusions per 23 

§771.117.

Supporting Alaska’s Communities 

This multiagency regional plan is intended to recognize and support 

economic, environmental, and social quality of life in gateway 

communities that are located around and within Alaska’s Federal 

lands. The intent of this multiagency effort is to promote collaboration 

on projects and policies. The general concepts reflected in this plan 

include recognition of the following:

● Many of the Federal lands in Alaska are tourist destinations 

in tourism-driven economies

● FLMA transportation systems support subsistence and intervillage travel

● There is seasonal variation in transportation choices and 

hazards associated with winter travel

● Some modes of transportation on Federal lands preserve 

historic or traditional access, such as dog sleds and ice 

roads

● FLMAs contribute to educational and recreational 

opportunities

● Alaska communities and Federal lands are vulnerable to a 

wide range of natural hazards 

● FLMAs may play a role in community and economic 

development as a result of transportation corridors within 

their boundaries

Access

Transportation matters in Alaska are especially sensitive to topics 

of access. Private land is sometimes located within or effectively 

surrounded by Federal public lands. Access to these places is 

addressed through specific legal requirements within each land 

management unit.

Policy also ensures that Alaska Native communities’ land and access 

claims are addressed by state and FLMAs. Such access issues are 

considered in this LRTP and each agency-specific drop-down plan. 
Introduction Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

17

These concerns evolved from pre-statehood, when nearly all land in 

Alaska was Federally owned. The 1959 Alaska Statehood Act granted 

the state the right to select 104 million acres of Federal land. Much of 

the land selected by the state consisted of lands traditionally used by 

Alaska Native communities. Contention and several lawsuits arose as 

a result. This situation finally led to broad Alaska Native community 

objections and resulted in a freeze on further state land selections 

until Congress could settle the Native claim issues.

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA), a fundamental purpose of which was resolution of Native 

land claims. ANCSA provides for the conveyance of approximately 

44 million acres of public land and nearly $1 billion to distribute to 

the Native corporations. ANCSA Section 17(b) reserves public trail 

easements across lands conveyed to Native corporations as a means 

of access to public lands. Section 17(d)(2) also provided for the 

withdrawal of 80 million acres of unreserved public lands suitable 

for addition to or creation as national parks, fish and wildlife refuges, 

national forests, and wild and scenic rivers.

In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), which created 21 new conservation 

system units, designated 3,210 miles of wild and scenic rivers, 57 

million acres of wilderness areas, and expanded 12 existing parks 

and refuges, influencing over 157 million acres in Alaska.

The FLMAs involved in this LRTP recognize the importance of ANILCA 

and carefully consider the Act in addressing access issues in this and 

subsequent transportation plans. The full text of ANILCA Title VIII, 

XI, XIII, and ANCSA Section 17(b) is in Appendix A of this document.

Authority for Long-Range 

Transportation Planning

Title 23 United States Code (USC)—Highways, and Title 49 USC, 

Chapter 53—Public Transportation, include most of the laws that 

govern transportation planning for the Federal-Aid Highway Program 

(FAHP), and the Public Transportation Program, respectively. The 

provisions under each Title establish similar requirements for states 

and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for transportation 

planning.

Beginning with the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, and as further supported by the 

enactment of the FAST Act in December 2015, FLMAs are required 

to develop and implement transportation planning processes and 

procedures that generally are consistent with the currently adopted 

metropolitan and statewide planning processes guidance (23 USC 

§134 and §135). This requires that FLMAs have regional, statewide, 

or unit-level long-range transportation plans (LRTPs) that inform 

the inclusion of projects in Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Programs (STIPs). The STIP is a four-year, fiscally constrained list of 

Federal-aid projects maintained by states. FLMAs work with FHWA 

to integrate their projects into STIPs. MAP-21 and the FAST Act also 

further emphasize the need for multiagency collaboration, breaking 

down of stove-piped funding, and establishment of transportation 

system performance metrics.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

18

MAP-21 established two new programs through which the majority 

of FHWA-directed transportation funds specifically dedicated to 

system improvements benefiting FLMA units are authorized:

1. Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), which 

provides funding for transportation projects that facilitate 

mobility to and within the jurisdictional boundaries for 

units of five core partners: FS, BLM, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), FWS, and NPS. (The FAST Act included 

the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) on the list of eligible recipients for FLTP funding.)

2. Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), which provides 

funding for transportation projects for those facilities 

or services that are owned or maintained by non-FLMA 

organizations (typically state DOTs or local government 

agencies) that facilitate access to Federal lands in each state 

or territory.

MAP-21 and the FAST Act allow up to five percent of the total annual 

appropriations funding for the FLAP and FLTP programs to be set aside 

for strategic planning, bridge inspections, and data collection. One 

intention of the transportation planning set-aside is to facilitate the 

collaboration between multiple FLMAs, tribes, state Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs), and other local transportation agencies in the 

areas of strategic long-range transportation planning, transportation 

improvement program development, and transportation facilities 

condition data collection and assessment.

Planning Scale and Scope

This LRTP is focused primarily on the role of FLMAs. However, it 

explicitly acknowledges that planning does not occur in a vacuum, 

and continued collaboration with external stakeholders will be 

necessary to see the goals set forth in this Plan come to fruition. 

Jurisdictional boundaries limit the amount of influence FLMAs have 

on the overall transportation networks that provide access to Federal 

lands. Programs such as the FLAP help to bridge the gap, yet hurdles 

still exist in developing seamless transport to and from these valued 

Federal lands. Therefore, the LRTP is intended to be consistent with 

statewide transportation plans.

Policy and Strategic vs. Project Level Analysis 

Transportation planning is conducted at a policy level, plan level, 

or project level, depending on the application. Each of these three 

levels of planning require varying levels of outreach to state and local 

agencies and the public. This Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2020-2040 

is a strategic and policy-level document, addressing transportation 

issues for all FLMAs. Long-range policy plans address big-picture 

topics through guidance and direction for transportation programs.

Plan level activities occur during development of medium-range 

or long-range plans that analyze specific transportation needs and 

identify potential project solutions such as land use management 

plans, comprehensive conservation plans, area long-range 

transportation plans, MPO LRTPs, borough transportation plans, 

corridor studies for specific highways or local transit development 

plans. Alaska Marine Highway, MV Aurora. FS photo.
Introduction Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

19

Project level activities occur when specific projects are being 

developed. Planning at this level includes environmental evaluation 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 

resulting in a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or 

environmental impact statement, depending on the complexity of 

the project. Further project development activities result in project 

design and construction.

Long-Range Transportation Plan Relationship to 

NEPA

By design, this LRTP does not meet the standards required 

of a standalone NEPA document and does not make projectlevel recommendations. NEPA-level public involvement and 

documentation will occur once project-level needs are identified and 

solutions are considered. At the project-level NEPA stage, however, 

this LRTP plays a vital role in explaining how project need was 

identified, which supports NEPA-level project need, purpose, and 

objective 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 and the collective drop-down plans can contribute to future 

NEPA documentation and analysis.

Audience and Outreach

The primary audience for the LRTP update are the FLMAs who will 

benefit from having its contents available to inform their individual 

agency planning processes. Additionally, the Plan also will benefit 

and have implications for partner agencies and for the millions of 

visitors to these Federal lands. The FLMAs and their partners each 

have conducted outreach activities throughout the development of 

the Plan. The following are a representative sample of the public 

forums at which the LRTP has been presented and information about 

the Plan has been shared:

● Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, 

January 2016, Washington, DC

● Alaska Federation of Natives Conference, November 2016, 

Fairbanks, AK

● TRB Annual Meeting, January 2017, Washington, DC

● Alaska Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, March 2017, 

Anchorage, AK

● Alaska Tribal Transportation Working Group Symposium, 

March 2017, Anchorage, AK

● Southeast Alaska Tribal Transportation Workshop, April 

2017, Ketchikan, AK

● TRB Symposium on the Transportation Needs of National 

Parks and Public Lands, September 2017, Washington, DC

● Alaska Tribal Conference on Environmental Management, 

November 2017, Anchorage, AK

● BIA Annual Providers Conference, December 2017, 

Anchorage, AK

● TRB Annual Meeting, January 2018, Washington, DC

● Alaska Forum on the Environment, February 2018, 

Anchorage, AK

● Alaska Tribal Transportation Working Group Symposium, 

April 2018, Anchorage, AK

● BIA Providers Conference, November 2018, Anchorage, AK
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Introduction

20

Goals and Objectives

System Management: Provide a long-term transportation system to 

address current and future land management needs.

● Asset management: Use asset priority and facility 

condition information as a guide when considering 

transportation investments that benefit multiple FLMAs. 

● Interagency coordination: Accomplish annual interagency 

coordination by setting priorities for needs, exchanging 

data, and discussing mutual policies to facilitate shared 

execution and potential economic savings for projects of 

mutual interest. 

● Asset investment planning: Consider sustainability of 

operation and maintenance of new assets in the planning 

process.

● Hazard avoidance: Recognize and avoid conditions that 

jeopardize asset management or creation of new assets.

User Experience: Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal 

transportation system experience and connectivity. 

● User profile: Collect and analyze user information on an 

ongoing basis to determine which experiences are most 

important, relevant to transportation access.

● Multimodal transportation: Establish a seamless 

interagency multimodal transportation system that 

emphasizes the journey as part of the Alaskan experience.

● Mobility: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, and 

agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands for 

all users. 

Safety and Mobility: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, 

and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands.

● Coordinated planning: Strive for seamless multimodal 

connections to and across Federal lands in Alaska.

● User information: Provide a recognizable interagency 

multimodal transportation system and effective 

communication through outreach efforts.

● Safety: Transportation infrastructure will provide safe access 

for the public to and within Alaska’s Federal lands. 

Environment: Protect and enhance natural and cultural resources 

through comprehensive transportation planning and management.

● Planning at an appropriate ecosystem scale: Consider 

indirect effects on regional areas. 

● Water quality: Ensure protection of open water, wetlands, 

and aquifers across Federal lands. 

● Air quality: Maintain or improve air quality.

● Habitat: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate transportation related 

impacts.

● Cultural: Avoid or minimize negative impacts to culturally 

sensitive human settlements, subsistence areas, cultural 

landscapes, and historic and archaeological sites while 

providing appropriate access consistent with protecting said 

resources.

● Soils: Avoid or minimize impacts on permafrost and other 

at risk soil systems.
Introduction Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

21

Risk and Resilience: Develop a long-term transportation system that 

addresses environmental, social, and economic risks.

● Risk identification: Evaluate major risks to transportation 

systems. 

● Adaptation: Adapt transportation systems and practices to 

address extreme weather, environmental hazards, and other 

risks where appropriate.

● Mitigation: Identify and alter transportation practices and 

activities that contribute to increased risks while continuing 

to provide for and encourage compatible uses.

Partnerships: Maintain existing mutually beneficial relationships 

and build future opportunities for collaboration with tribal, Federal, 

state, local, and other external partners. 

● Partner Coordination: Coordinate with partners to share 

resources, data, and expertise.

● Project Champions: Coordinate with project champions to 

support mutually beneficial programs, initiatives, projects, 

and goal area working group activities.

Sea Ice at Demarcation Bay, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

22

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

23

System Management

Goal Provide a long-term transportation system to address current and future land management needs.

Objectives • Asset Management: Use asset priority and facility condition information as a guide when considering 

transportation investments that benefit multiple FLMAs. 

• Interagency coordination: Accomplish annual interagency coordination by setting priorities for needs, 

exchanging data, and discussing mutual policies to facilitate shared execution and potential economic savings 

for projects of mutual interest. 

• Asset investment planning: Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new assets in the 

planning process.

• Hazard avoidance: Recognize and avoid conditions that jeopardize asset management or creation of new 

assets. 

Dalton Highway. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

24

Introduction

Understanding the unique nature of travel in Alaska is a prerequisite 

for planning future transportation projects, operations, and 

maintenance. More than anywhere else in the United States, Alaska 

depends on a mix of road, trail, rail, marine, snow, and air connections 

to meet its transportation needs. These multimodal transportation 

systems provide crucial access to and across Federal lands that 

support industry, recreation, subsistence, and intervillage travel. As 

such, Alaska Federal lands transportation systems provide critical 

support to FLMA missions and local economies.

Alaska’s transportation network is extremely multimodal, depending 

on a mix of road, trail, rail, marine, snow, and air connections to 

meet users’ transportation needs. This multimodal network responds 

to the state’s immense size, challenging physical geography, and 

extreme climate. Travel in Alaska is often a matter of connecting from 

one modal system to another. The efficiency of Alaska’s multimodal 

transportation system heavily influences access to Federal lands, 

which comprise a large majority of the land area of the state, for 

recreation, economic activity, intercommunity travel, and access to 

subsistence resources. 

Maintaining such a wide variety of assets for which a number of 

agencies are responsible is a difficult but important task. Because 

of limited funding and staff resources, it is important for FLMAs and 

their partners to identify and fund their highest asset management 

priorities, and to coordinate with partners where possible to achieve 

project efficiencies.

Baseline Conditions and Trends

Baseline conditions analysis considers the dynamics of use and 

the roles of transportation modes in efficiently moving people 

and goods to and through Alaska’s Federal lands. Ultimately, it is 

a matter of condition, importance, and need that determines which 

transportation assets receive funding. This section provides an 

overview of Alaska’s unique multimodal transportation system and 

its significance to Alaska Federal lands. 

System Overview

The transportation systems that make up Alaska’s multimodal 

network can be broken down into the following modes of travel: 

roads, trails, aviation, rail, transit, and water. Each mode of travel 

impacts the ways in which residents and non-residents travel to and 

within FLMA lands (see User Experience goal area). Any given trip 

that a user takes to or through Federal lands in Alaska will depend on 

at least one of these modes; many trips depend on multiple modes 

of transportation. Therefore, each of these networks are affected by 

and dependent on all of the others.

Roads

Despite the uniquely multimodal nature of transportation in 

Alaska, roads provide critical connections for visitors, residents, and 

commerce alike. According to the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program 

(AVSP), Visitor Volume and Profile (State of Alaska, 2016), tour bus/

van, rental vehicle, and personal vehicle form a significant portion 

of visitors’ travel between sites in Alaska and depend on Alaska’s 

View of Dalton Highway from Sukakpak Mountain. BLM photo.
System Management Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

25

road system. Furthermore, residents are dependent upon the use of 

roads, with 93 percent of the state’s population 16 years of age and 

older being licensed drivers in 2016.3

According to the Certified Report of Public Road Mileage (Alaska 

DOT&PF, 2012), there are 16,301 centerline miles of public-use 

roads in Alaska, 62 percent of which are unpaved and 38 percent 

are paved. However, Alaska is exceedingly sparse in terms of roads 

per square mile of land. Based on FHWA lane mile and U.S. Census 

land area data, Alaska contains only 0.06 lane miles of road for every 

square mile of land compared to the national average of 2.47 lane 

miles per square mile. 

Public-use roads are within the jurisdictions of multiple land 

management agencies, but are predominantly managed by the 

state and boroughs, as summarized in Table 1. Individual FLMAs 

do not account for a large number of public roads within the state; 

collectively, NPS, FS, FWS, and BLM account for only 5.1 percent of 

Alaska’s public roads. 

Federal lands with road infrastructure are connected by Alaska’s 

state, borough, and municipal road network. These road connections 

are essential for access to Federal lands. 

Trails

Trails support numerous travel modes including off-highway vehicles 

(OHV), snow machines, pedestrians, dog sleds, horses, bicycles, 

paddlers, and boaters. Trails can be land-based or water-based 

providing access for recreational and non-recreational travel. Landbased trails in Alaska are often designated as winter and/or summer 

trails. Special trail designations such as a national historic trail offer 

the opportunity to communicate historic and cultural information 

about the region while linking communities and providing 

recreational opportunities that can span multiple jurisdictions and 

FLMA lands through multiagency coordination and partnerships. 

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Highway Statistics, Licensed Drivers by Sex and 

Ratio to Population – 2016, Table DL-1C, published December 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

policyinformation/statistics/2016/.

Table 1: Miles of Roads by Alaska Public Road Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Miles (paved 

and unpaved)

Percentage of 

Total

Alaska DOT&PF 5,609 34.4

Borough 3,697 22.7

Indian Nations 2,241 13.7

Municipal 1,854 11.4

U.S. Army 702 4.3

U.S. Forest Service 548 3.4

Bureau of Indian Affairs 476 2.9

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources 456 2.8

Other local agencies 205 1.3

National Park Service* 162 1

U.S. Navy 169 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service* 102 0.6

Private Agency 60 0.4

Bureau of Land Management* 24 0.1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 12 0.1

Other State Agencies 3 0.02

U.S. Coast Guard 2 0

Total 16,322 100%

*Total as of 2018, all other mileage is as reported in the Certified Report of Public Road Mileage (Alaska 

DOT&PF, 2012).

Table 2: Miles of Paved and Unpaved Roads and Number of Bridges by FLMA

Asset Type NPS FWS FS BLM Total

Paved Roads (miles) 26.2 3.3 18.9 1.2 49.6

Unpaved Roads (miles) 136.4 98.7 2,228.4 23 2486.5

Road Bridges 12 4 543 2 561
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

26

Table 3: Miles of Trails and Number of Trail Bridges by FLMA

Asset Type NPS FWS FS BLM Total

Trails (miles) 213.2 145.35 1,527.3 873 2758.85

Trail Bridges 40 14 450 14 504

Steese National Conservation Area, Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River. BLM photo.

Tanalian Trail, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve. NPS photo.

The Iditarod National Historic Trail is one such example. Trails may 

also be designated as an accessible trail, providing those with 

mobility impairments the opportunity to utilize these resources.4 

In addition to providing recreational access, many trails in Alaska 

provide important transportation access to subsistence resources 

or intervillage travel. For some remote communities, trails are the 

primary means of accessing neighboring communities or goods and 

services. Although a large number of trails have been documented 

throughout Alaska in all jurisdictions including Federal, state, and 

tribal lands, there are also many undocumented trails. 

Table 3 shows the trail mileage and trail bridges for each FLMA in 

Alaska. This data represents documented trail assets, but there are 

also many additional trails that are not documented in agency asset 

management databases. The FS manages by far the largest trail 

network among FLMAs in Alaska, comprising over half of all Federal 

trail mileage in the state. 

Aviation

Air travel is a critical mode of transportation to and within Alaska. 

Air travel is possible through a wide range of options, including 

commercial airlines, air taxis, and personal general aviation. General 

aviation and air taxis play an important role for in-state travel and 

are used to access both remote backcountry areas and populated 

places.

The significance of personal air travel in the state is demonstrated 

by the high number of registered active aviation pilots found in 

4 “Accessible trail” refers to trails designed to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) or Architectural Barriers Act (ABA).
System Management Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

27

the state. By a significant margin, Alaska has the highest per capita 

quantity of pilots at 1.1 per 100 people, whereas the second highest, 

North Dakota, has less than half that amount at 0.5 pilots per 100 

people, and is substantially higher than the national average of 0.2 

pilots per 100 people.5

 

Alaska has 567 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documented 

airports, 55 heliports, and 138 seaplane bases.6 Fourteen percent 

of these are located on Federal lands (but are not necessarily 

maintained by FLMAs or open to the public). These facilities provide 

access to Federal lands through general aviation and are important 

gateways to remote areas. Undocumented “backcountry” landing 

strips are also used for accessing remote recreational opportunities 

and private lands, but were not quantified or located geographically 

for the purposes of this LRTP. 

Communication with public and private associations will be needed 

to better determine the scope, sensitivity, cost, and liability of 

securing a higher level of documentation of backcountry airstrips. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the 

United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (NST-EST2017-01), Released 

December 2017; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Civil Airmen 

Statistics, 2017, Table 5 Estimated Active Pilots and Flight Instructors by FAA Region and State December 

31, 2017. 

6 Federal Aviation Administration. June 6, 2018. Airport Facilities Data. https://www.faa.gov/airports/

airport_safety/airportdata_5010/

Plane at Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.

Self-propelled Chugach Explorer Railcar. FS photo.

Rail and Transit

According to the AVSP VII7, 14 percent of visitors to Alaska utilize 

rail on their trips. In 2017, the Alaska Railroad transported 506,000 

passengers and 4.8 million tons of freight.8 The Alaska railway system 

extends 656 miles from Seward to Fairbanks. The privately-owned 

White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad provides a 21 mile link from 

Skagway into Canada.

Trains providing access stations to Federal lands serve as a single 

stage of travel in a multi-stage trip to visit or view Federal lands 

while en route to a secondary destination. The Alaska railway system 

provides access to well-known Federal lands such as Denali National 

Park & Preserve and Chugach National Forest. The Alaska Railroad 

reported that about one in five visitors to Denali National Park & 

Preserve in 2015 arrived by train.9 

7 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII: https://www.alaskatia.org/marketing/alaska-visitors-statisticsprogram-avsp-vii. 

8 Alaska Railroad. March 29, 2018. 2017 Annual Report. https://www.alaskarailroad.com/sites/default/

files/Communications/ARRC_Annual_Report_2017_forWeb.pdf.

9 Alaska Railroad. May 15, 2016. Railroad at a Glance. https://www.alaskarailroad.com/sites/default/

files/Communications/2016_ARRC_Facts-Figures_or.pdf.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

28

According to the Federal Lands Multimodal Catalog, there are 

six bus or shuttle systems that provide access to Federal lands in 

Alaska.10 These include public transit systems that provide access to 

or near FLMAs – such as the Anchorage People Mover (accessing the 

BLM’s Campbell Tract) and Ride Sitka (accessing NPS’s Sitka National 

Historical Park). Other transit systems are private shuttle systems 

that provide access to or within Federal lands, such as the shuttle to 

Mendenhall Glacier in Tongass National Forest. These systems are 

operated by local municipalities, tribal governments, or by a private 

entity through a concessions contract or other agreement. While 

none of these systems are FLMA owned or operated, they provide 

important access to Federal lands. Transit routes also have specific 

needs related to FLMA-managed road and parking lot assets, such 

as pull-offs for stops, dedicated parking spots, or turnaround areas.

Water

Water allows for direct and scenic access by ferries, passage for island 

barge traffic, flexible access by small craft to coastal areas and rivers, 

landing sites for seaplanes, and access for snow machines during 

winter months. The Alaska Marine Highway System – a system of 

roads and ferry ports operated as a division of the Alaska DOT&PF – 

is an iconic Alaskan mode of travel for passengers, cars, recreational 

vehicles (RVs), and OHVs. The system carries vehicles to locations 

where roads cannot. The Alaska Marine Highway System serves 33 

ports along 3,500 miles of coastline from Bellingham, Washington 

to Unalaska in the Aleutian Island chain. Alaska DOT&PF estimates 

that the Alaska Marine Highway serves approximately 300,000 

passengers and over 100,000 vehicles annually.11 The Alaska Marine 

Highway is also used as one stage in a multimodal trip to directly 

access Federal lands or to view the land from marine vessels. Direct 

access to Federal lands describes trips that enter Federal land 

boundaries during the course of a traveler’s journey, including outof-state visitors, residents, and administrative users (e.g. for shuttling 

workers and supplies). Indirect access describes travelers who view 

10 USDOT Office of Federal Lands Highway. Federal Lands Multimodal Catalog Access Database. https://

flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flpp/.

11 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. 2015. Annual Traffic Volume Report. https://

issuu.com/alaskamarinehighwaysystem/docs/atvr_15/4.

Federal lands while on the Alaska Marine Highway, but never set 

foot on the lands. This type of access is sometimes accompanied by 

interpretation services offered on some ferry routes. 

Small watercraft are frequently used to access Federal lands. Such 

access does not require the use of formal harbors or ports and is 

therefore a popular mode of travel for remote access of Federal lands 

for recreation. Inland waterways are therefore important corridors 

for water based travel. By a significant margin, Alaska has the most 

miles of navigable inland waterways in the country. According to 

the USACE, Alaska has 15,400 miles of inland waterways whereas 

the second highest state, Louisiana, has about one-third as much, 

5,334 miles. The national average for inland waterways is 837 miles 

per state.

In addition to the extensive Alaska Marine Highway System, smaller 

water taxis such as the privately owned Russian River Ferry provide 

desired services to residents and visitors. The Russian River Ferry is 

located adjacent to Chugach National Forest and Kenai National 

Wildlife Refuge National Wildlife Refuge, and it provides access to 

the popular Russian River fishing area and the nearby Russian River 

Alaska Marine Highway System MV Tazlina Vessel. Alaska DOT&PF photo. 
System Management Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

29

campground in Chugach National Forest. The Russian River Ferry is 

a privately owned concessionaire through Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge that is operated by a permit.

Other Systems

In addition to the modes of transportation already discussed, there 

are a few smaller transportation systems that provide access to 

Federal lands. These systems include a vehicle-railroad tunnel, aerial 

tram, and bikeshare. 

The Whittier Tunnel (Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel) is a 2.5 mile 

single-lane tunnel, originally constructed in 1943 to provide military 

access to the Port of Whittier via rail. In 1998 it was opened to 

vehicles after a vehicular road was constructed to access the tunnel. 

The tunnel now operates as a combined vehicle and railroad tunnel. 

Prior to construction of the access road vehicles were transported 

through the tunnel on flatbed train cars.12 The Whittier Tunnel 

provides access between Portage and Whittier, Alaska.

12 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. “Whittier Access Tunnel.” http://www.dot.

state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/index.shtml.

Mount Roberts Tramway is an aerial tramway that opened in 1996 

and provides seasonal services taking passengers 1,800 feet from 

its based on the south side of downtown Juneau into the Tongass 

National Forest. Located near the cruise ship dock, it offers visitors 

a unique experience into the National Forest that they may not 

otherwise get to experience with limited time at each cruise stop.13 

Bikeshare programs offer another way for both visitors and residents 

to get around. In some cases bikeshare programs are a tourist 

attraction in themselves for visitors. Fairbikes bikeshare14 currently 

operates several docking stations within Fairbanks providing access 

to the downtown and also to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Alaska’s seasonal weather, distance between population centers, 

and lack of bicycle infrastructure can be a challenge for operating 

a bikeshare system in many locations. Although there are currently 

very limited bikeshare systems accessing Federal lands in Alaska, this 

may be an area of growth in the future – particularly in locations 

where communities are in relatively close proximity to Federal lands. 

13 Mount Roberts Tramway. http://mountrobertstramway.com/.

14 Republic Bike, Lock+Dock Profile: Fairbikes. http://www.republicbike.com/sharedbike_lock_and_

dock.asp.

Girdwood Hand Tram. USDOT photo.

Chugach National Forest, Alaska Railroad Glacier Discovery Train Tunnel. FS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

30

Figure 3. Alaska CLRTP Transportation Network
System Management Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

31

Asset Management Priorities and Investment 

Planning

All FLMAs in Alaska face a common challenge: with limited amounts 

of funding, FLMAs have to make strategic investment decisions 

to manage their transportation systems. While specific project 

prioritization processes differ between agencies, each agency has 

a process to identify priority transportation assets for investment 

based on which assets are most critical to agency missions. 

It is also important for FLMAs to consider the full life-cycle of an 

asset when making investment decisions. In the case of a road or 

similar infrastructure, this would include building, maintaining, and 

operating the asset until it needs replacement. In the case of a transit 

system this could include the capital cost of vehicle purchase as well 

as the cost of operations, maintenance. 

Asset Priority Index

FLMAs within the DOI utilize an Asset Priority Index (API) which ranks 

assets based on their importance to serving each agency’s mission 

and goals. The API is used to rank owned and leased real property and 

is applicable to existing and proposed assets. The API scale ranges 

from 0 to 100, where 100 is the highest importance. The scale is used 

to prioritize assets, the result of which decision-makers incorporate 

into asset funding, best use, and disposal decision-making. 

Functional Class

Functional classes (FC) are labels used to describe types of 

surface roads. The labels denote the utility of a given road. A road 

segment is given an FC of 1 through 8, which reflects a qualitative 

description of the purpose that given road serves within the larger 

transportation system. FCs can be used to determine priority if a 

park values certain types of roads over others. 

Facility Condition Index

Facility condition index (FCI) is another way for an agency to 

objectively benchmark a facility’s condition with respect to the 

condition of other facilities. The FCI value can be calculated by 

dividing the cost of necessary maintenance and repair obligations 

demanded of a facility by the current replacement value of that facility 

(what it would cost to re-construct today). Usually, a facility’s FCI will 

be a number between 0 and 1. A score of more than 1 would mean 

that the facility in question costs more to maintain than it would to 

rebuild. In many cases, an asset’s value is not necessarily its utility, 

rather many transportation assets have a cultural and historical value 

that cannot be measured in dollars.

Interagency Coordination

Because many travel corridors to and within Federal lands in Alaska 

are multijurisdictional – including multiple FLMAs, Alaska DOT&PF, 

municipalities, boroughs, tribes, and private land owners – it is 

important for FLMAs to collaborate with partners to manage these 

assets as a coherent system. This involves developing a shared 

understanding of the uses and importance of the system and the 

potential to achieve project efficiencies by coordinating maintenance 

and capital projects. 

In Alaska, the FLMAs and their partners have established strong 

collaborative relationships, described in more detail in the 

Partnerships goal area. This includes regular teleconferences, 

collaboration on long-range transportation planning, and annual 

project coordination meetings where partners review their respect 

programs of projects. The FLMAs and their partners have also 

worked to coordinate opportunities from multiple funding programs 

– including the FLTP, FLAP, Transportation Alternatives Program 

(TAP), and others. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to optimize 

the utility of transportation investments that support LRTP goals and 

objectives, leverage partnerships to access diverse funding streams, 

and ultimately create cost efficient construction scenarios. 

Natural Hazards and Resilience

System management also requires consideration of risks to assets 

from hazards such as extreme weather conditions, seismic and 

volcanic hazards, and geotechnical hazards (e.g., landslides or 

rockslides). New projects should be designed to avoid hazards or 

with resilience measures to avoid catastrophic failure. High-priority 

assets in high risk areas should be evaluated for context-appropriate 

solutions that increase their resilience. See the Risk and Resilience 

goal area for additional information.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

32

Collaborative Asset Management in Practice: Herman Leirer Road, Seward, Alaska

Herman Leirer Road, near Seward, Alaska, is an example of a multijurisdictional road corridor that requires coordination between multiple land owners 

and transportation agencies. The road provides sole road access to Exit Glacier in Kenai Fjords National Park. The road is 13 miles long from Highway 9 

(Seward Highway) to the Exit Glacier Visitor Center and passes through land owned by private landowners, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Chugach National Forest, and Kenai Fjords National Park. Alaska DOT&PF manages the land to the boundary of the national park, and NPS manages 

the remainder of the road. To effectively manage the road, it is therefore necessary for all of the agencies along the road to coordinate on operations, 

maintenance, and planning for future projects.
System Management Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

33

Figure 4. Alaska CLRTP System Management: Asset Adjacencies
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

34

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the System Management goal area: 

● Asset Data Coordination: 

○ Share asset definitions across agencies to facilitate 

greater understanding of partner transportation 

systems. 

○ Coordinate for increased compatibility of asset data.

● Collaborate to Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at a 

Watershed Level through completing a culvert inventory 

and compiling existing watershed documentation. Conduct 

an inventory of culverts across FLMA units to identify 

locations and conditions, where culverts are not properly 

sized to accommodate expected flow levels, and where 

culverts and other transportation infrastructure poses fish 

passage barriers. Create a set of best practices for culvert 

management and maintenance.

● Complete Gravel Roads Condition Assessment for Federal 

lands in Alaska that generates actions to improve condition 

and contribute to performance management.

Performance Management

Performance measures for the System Management goal area 

include: 

● Percent of paved road miles in good / fair / poor condition

● Percent of bridges in good condition or better

● Percentage of bridges in poor condition

● Completion of pilot gravel roads condition assessment

● FLMA units with agency-appropriate asset-level vulnerability 

assessments completed

Taylor Highway at Mount Fairplay Wayside. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan User Experience

35

User Experience

Goal Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal transportation system experience and connectivity.

Objectives • User profile: Collect and analyze user information on an ongoing basis to determine which experiences are 

most important, relevant to transportation access. 

• Multimodal transportation: Establish a seamless interagency multimodal transportation system that 

emphasizes the journey as part of the Alaskan experience.

• Mobility: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal 

lands for all users. 

Delta Wild and Scenic River Wayside. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan User Experience

36

Introduction

Alaska Federal lands offer unique experiences for both recreational 

visitors and non-recreational users. These users include Alaska 

resident recreational users, non-resident recreational users, 

economic users, and Alaska resident subsistence users. 

Alaska’s transportation system is unique because it is truly 

multimodal and an integral part of the user experience. Users may 

arrive to Federal lands in Alaska by cruise ship, ferry, road (paved 

or unpaved), plane, or even by snow machine or dog sled. Further, 

there are seasonal variations that dramatically affect transportation 

systems. Due to this complexity, it is crucial for FLMAs to consider 

the transportation network holistically rather than focusing on one 

mode or one type of user.

One important aspect of the experience a user has when on Federal 

land in Alaska is communication. In order for a user to rely on a 

safe and efficient transportation system, the user needs to be wellinformed about what to expect. Road closures, inclement weather, 

and wayfinding all contribute to a user’s experience when on Federal 

land. To support such a system, it is important for FLMAs and their 

partners to effectively communicate travel and safety conditions and 

to manage users’ expectations for their travel experience.

Baseline Conditions and Trends

The baseline conditions and trends established in this section rely 

heavily on the results of the Collaborative Visitor Transportation 

Survey (CVTS): Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey, March 1, 2018

report. This report is the product of the multiagency collaboration 

to implement the 2012 Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, which called for 

developing baseline data to better understand users’ experiences 

traveling to and within Federal lands in Alaska.

User Profile

Most users of Alaska Federal lands can be classified into one of 

three categories: Alaska resident recreational users, non-resident 

recreational users, and Alaska resident subsistence users. Popularity 

of activities that users engage in have some notable variations by 

user type. The use of Federal lands by Alaska resident recreational 

users is generally characterized as those activities in which one would 

engage as an extension of their own backyard such as hiking and 

camping. Recreational activities on Federal lands popular among 

non-residents overlap a great deal with Alaska resident activities 

but diverge in several ways as shown in Figure 5. For example, 

non-residents are more likely to engage in activities more closely 

associated with tourism, such as commercial aircraft tours (“flight 

seeing”). 

Visitation Statistics

Each FLMA takes responsibility for collecting visitation data on its 

own land. This type of data collection is particularly difficult in Alaska 

given the vast amount of land managed by each FLMA across the 

state. The sheer size of the Federal lands, and in some cases, the 

integrated nature of the Federal lands with communities, leads to 

numerous ways to enter and exit Federal lands which cannot all be 

monitored on a daily basis to track visitation. 

Each agency employs its own methodology for collecting data on 

how many visitors arrive and what they are doing on Federal land. 

In general, the NPS is able to keep more precise visitation statistics 

due in part to more limited ingress and egress routes into the parks. 

NPS breaks down visits into Recreation Visits and Non-Recreation 

Visits. On average from 2013-2017, NPS sites across Alaska saw 

approximately 835,000 non-recreational visitors and 2.7 million 

recreational visitors totaling an average of 3.5 million visits per year.15

Of the 15 NPS sites reporting visitation statistics in Alaska, Klondike 

Gold Rush National Historical Park, Denali National Park & Preserve, 

and Glacier Bay National Park were the top three most visited and 

accounted for approximately 81 percent of total visitation.

The BLM, on the other hand, manages lands over a more dispersed 

area. As such, BLM reports visitation in terms of recreation visits and 

15 National Park Service (NPS), Public Use Statistics
User Experience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

37

dispersed visits. A recreation site visit is a visit to BLM lands designated 

as developed recreation sites containing some component of site 

management. A dispersed area visit constitutes visits to all other 

BLM lands, which while open to recreational use are not managed or 

developed for recreational use. On average, between 2013 and 2017, 

BLM sites in Alaska saw an average of 440,000 recreation visits and 

327,000 dispersed area visits totaling an average of 767,000 visits 

per year on BLM managed lands.16

16 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Public Land Statistics, Table 4-1, editions 2013 through 2017

The FWS, in additional to maintaining total yearly visitation counts, 

provides a breakdown of different categories of site visits such as 

hunting or fishing visits, boat launch visits, wildlife observation, 

photography participants, etc. The average total yearly visitation 

from 2013 to 2017 to all FWS refuges in Alaska was 1.5 million visits. 

Of the 16 refuges that the FWS manages in Alaska, one in particular, 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, accounts for 75 percent of total 

visitation among FWS-managed land in Alaska. 17

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Region 7, Alaska Annual Visitation 2013-2017 (from FWS staff)

Figure 5: Recreational Activity Participation in Alaska by Resident and Non-Resident

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Hiking or walking

Viewing wildlife (including birdwatching)

Camping

Driving for pleasure on roads (paved, gravel, or dirt)

Fresh water fishing

Berry picking/food gathering

Backpacking/trekking

Canoeing, kayaking, sailing, rafting

Bicycling, including mountain biking

Riding on trails (ATV, UTV, etc.)

Salt water fishing

Water travel (motor boat, jet ski, etc.)

Gold panning

Climbing/mountaineering

Hunting

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, endurance events, etc.)

Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas

Other motorized actvities (organized events, etc.)

Commercial aircraft tours

Horseback riding

Non-Residents Residents

Source: Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS): Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey, March 1, 2018, Figure 21
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan User Experience

38

The FS collects visitation data on a rotating basis, sampling each 

forest once every five years. For this reason, it is difficult to provide 

precise visitation numbers for the FS Alaska-wide for a single year. 

Although data is not available on a yearly basis for all units, having 

snapshots of data is still important for understanding visitation 

volumes trends over time. In the FS 2012-2016 National Summary 

Report there were approximately 2.4 million National Forest visits 

reported per year in Alaska.18 

Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey

The Alaska CVTS published in 2018 is a survey measuring user 

experience related to Alaska Federal lands. The CVTS specifically 

focuses on transportation-related experiences and was conducted 

during the summer of 2016 through a multiagency effort. The CVTS 

was developed as an implementation action in the 2012 LRTP. 

Completing this action with the publication of the survey results 

provides detailed baseline data on resident and non-resident visitor 

experiences accessing and using Alaska Federal lands. 

Overall, more than 90 percent of both Alaska residents and nonresidents rated their transportation experience arriving at and 

traveling within an FLMA site as good or excellent according to the 

CVTS report. Only one percent of both Alaska residents and nonresidents rated their transportation experience as poor. Most visitors 

had no problems with transportation connections (74 percent) or 

accessing sites/activities (90 percent). Users expressed high levels of 

satisfaction with all travel modes, particularly train, boat, commercial 

aircraft, and foot. They also expressed high levels of satisfaction 

with facilities, especially trails, although there was a slightly lower 

satisfaction with number of trail markers.

18 U.S. Forest Service (FS), Visitor Use Report, Alaska Region (R10), 2012-2016

Figure 6: 2016 Visitor Volume by FLMA Unit
User Experience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

39

Figure 7. Alaska CLRTP User Experience: Visitor Travel Satisfaction
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan User Experience

40

Figure 8. Alaska CLRTP User Experience: Top Ten Cross Site Itineraries for Federal Destinations
User Experience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

41

Multimodal Transportation Experiences

Visitors arrive to Alaska primarily by one of two modes: cruise ship 

and air, which constitute approximately 96 percent of visitor trips to 

Alaska (Figure 9).

While traveling to Alaska may not be synonymous with traveling to 

and through Federal lands in Alaska, it does have quite a significant 

impact. For example, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 

Visitor Center is located a short distance from a dock at which 

thousands of visitors disembark from cruise ships in a short period 

of time. Their mode of arrival impacts how they move through the 

park and the town of Skagway, since they do not have vehicles and 

have limited time on shore. 

Modes of travel between sites in Alaska is more diverse and evenly 

distributed. A 2016 study by the AVSP found that most visitors travel 

between sites by either a personal or rental vehicle, a tour bus, by air, 

or railroad (Figure 10).

Modes of travel specifically to Federal lands, however, are 

predominately by private vehicle for both Alaska residents (92 

percent) and non-residents (49 percent), as shown in Table 4. Nonresidents also utilize walking/hiking, commercial tours, cruise ship, 

commercial aircraft, and railroad to a greater extent than Alaska 

residents to access Federal lands demonstrating the preference to 

use a private vehicle or the fact that multimodal options for Alaska 

residents may not be as easily accessible due to locations served, 

frequency, and/or cost. 

Travel within Federal lands is much more similar between Alaska 

residents and non-residents with a few notable deviations. Nonresidents tend to have a higher usage of commercial tours and the 

Denali Visitor Transportation System than Alaska residents, and 

Alaska residents tend to have higher usage of watercraft and allterrain vehicles (ATVs) than non-residents.

Figure 9: Mode of Visitor Arrival to Alaska, 2011 and 2016 Average

Cruise Ship

59%

Air

37%

Highway/Ferry

4%

Source: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 3-4, Table 3.2; Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI, p. III-4, 

Table 3.3

Figure 10: Visitors’ Mode of Travel between Sites in Alaska, 2016

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Tour bus or van

Rental Vehicle

Alaska Railroad

Air

Personal vehicle

Rental RV

State ferry

Personal RV

Source: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VII, p. 4-9, Chart 4.8
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan User Experience

42

Travel to FLMA Travel Within FLMA Travel to FLMA Travel Within FLMA

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) 92% 31% 49% 26%

Foot/Hiking 10% 72% 16% 72%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus 1% 3% 15% 12%

Cruise ship 0% 2% 16% 2%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, helicopter) 3% 2% 7% 2%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad 2% 2% 7% 4%

AMHS ferry 3% 2% 5% 2%

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys) 0% 2% 2% 2%

Private airplane 1% 2% 2% 1%

Denali Visitor Transportation System 0% 2% 1% 9%

Motorboat 1% 7% 1% 2%

Kayak, canoe, or raft 1% 17% 1% 4%

Bicycle 2% 11% 1% 3%

Other 0% 2% 2% 6%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle 1% 11% 0% 1%

100% 100% 100% 100%

Mode of Transportation Resident Non-Resident

Table 4: Types of Transportation Used to Travel to and Within Alaska FLMA Sites by Resident and Non-Resident

Mode of Transportation Resident Travel 

to FLMA

Resident Travel 

Within FLMA

Non-Resident 

Travel to FLMA

Non-Resident 

Travel Within FLMA

Private vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, RV) 92% 31% 49% 26%

Foot/Hiking 10% 72% 16% 72%

Commercial shuttle/tour bus 1% 3% 15% 12%

Cruise ship 0% 2% 16% 2%

Commercial aircraft (includes air taxi, helicopter) 3% 2% 7% 2%

Alaska/White Pass Railroad 2% 2% 7% 4%

AMHS ferry 3% 2% 5% 2%

Public bus (not including shuttles or trolleys) 0% 2% 2% 2%

Private airplane 1% 2% 2% 1%

Denali Visitor Transportation System 0% 2% 1% 9%

Motorboat 1% 7% 1% 2%

Kayak, canoe, or raft 1% 17% 1% 4%

Bicycle 2% 11% 1% 3%

Other 0% 2% 2% 6%

All-terrain vehicle (ATV) or off-road vehicle 1% 11% 0% 1%

Source: Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS): Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey, March 1, 2018, Tables 25 and 29

User Information

Communication is an essential part of managing user experiences on 

Federal lands. Communication can help users have a more positive 

experience on Federal lands when they know what to expect whether 

it is information to assist with pre-planning or tools such as signage 

and maps that can assist users once they are on-site. Communication 

of transportation conditions, especially road closures (seasonal, 

maintenance, or hazard closures), are important for managing user 

experiences. When users are informed they can alter travel patterns 

or modify their planned activities accordingly.

User information is disseminated in a variety of ways such as agency 

websites, social media, maps, signage, intelligent transportation 

systems (ITS), and partner platforms (e.g., state DOT road weather 

information system). Due to the remoteness of many Federal lands 

in Alaska, consideration must be given to the ways in which user 

information is disseminated as cell phone and internet service may 

be very limited or not exist at all while traveling to or within Federal 

lands. For this reason, relying solely on websites and apps to provide 

up-to-date and real time information may meet the needs for preplanning a trip, but may have very limited use for someone that is 

traveling to or within a Federal land where cell phone service does 

not exist. Having good signage including dynamic messaging with 

real time safety alerts and closure information; wayfinding signage 

for parking, trails, amenities, etc.; information stations; and maps that 

can be downloaded and used off-line are some of the ways in which 

to communicate with users traveling to or within Federal lands. 
User Experience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

43

Perception of safety is a major part of managing user experiences. 

CVTS found lack of cell phone coverage cited most often as a safety 

concern (39 percent), followed by bad weather (16 percent), wildlife 

encounters (13 percent), and poor road conditions (11 percent). 

Table 5 outlines the reasons cited by users that have prevented them 

from visiting FLMA lands. While the weather and other unforeseen 

natural hazard events resulting in closures or cancellations cannot 

be controlled, the results of the survey indicate there may be 

opportunities to improving information about activities and 

addressing safety concerns to reduce the number of people who 

were unable to participate in a planned activity.

Table 5: Reasons Preventing Alaska Residents and Non-Residents from Visiting 

FLMA Lands

Reasons preventing site visitation Residents Non-Residents

Not enough time 45% 52%

Bad weather 27% 23%

Didn't realize how long it would 

take to travel to destination(s) 9% 16%

Transportation to/from the 

destination was too costly 18% 11%

Area was closed/road closure 9% 9%

Transportation to/from the 

destination was not available 9% 7%

Transportation to/from the 

destination was not frequent 

enough/convenient

0% 5%

Transportation related mechanical 

problems 9% 2%

Source: Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS): Results from Summer 2016 Alaska Survey, 

March 1, 2018, Table 43

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the User Experience goal area: 

● Traveler information: Coordinate with public and private 

partners to provide proactive information for all users via a 

range of media that travelers use.

● Access to resources: Provide a multiagency approach to 

guidance for access to subsistence resources, industry, and 

intervillage travel. 

● Visitor data: Periodically (every five years) administer a 

collaborative survey of Federal lands transportation users in 

Alaska. Analyze survey data and share with partners to inform 

future decision making.

● Develop Key Factors of Multimodal Access: Develop key 

factors and data collection for multimodal travel and active 

transportation (tie-in with safety database); this also includes 

consideration of concessionaires / private partners, such as 

shuttle operators. 

● Monitor Emerging Visitor Use Trends: Identify and research 

the emergence of new visitor transportation trends – such as 

fat bikes, electric bikes, and changing shoulder season and 

winter travel patterns – and their implications for Federal 

lands transportation and safety. 

Performance Management

Performance measures for the User Experience goal area include:

● Percentage of users surveyed who rate their transportation 

experience as good or excellent 

○ Baseline: 94% in 2016 CVTS

● Percentage of FLMA unit websites that provide essential 

traveler information 

● Number of projects to provide multimodal access options 

connecting communities to Federal lands
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

44

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

45

Safety and Mobility

Goal Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands.

Objectives • Coordinated planning: Strive for seamless multimodal connections to and across Federal lands in Alaska.

• User information: Provide a recognizable interagency multimodal transportation system and effective 

communication through outreach efforts.

• Safety: Transportation infrastructure will provide safe access for the public to and within Alaska’s Federal lands. 

Fat Bikes, Campbell Tract. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

46

Introduction

Each FLMA has specific needs for mobility based on transportation 

modes, terrain, and use of the land, but all strive to meet the mobility 

needs of transportation users in a safe and efficient way. Safety is a 

fundamental component of mobility; without a strong emphasis on 

safety, better mobility cannot be achieved. 

Baseline Conditions and Trends

Coordinated Planning

Coordinated planning for safety and mobility is essential in Alaska 

because travel in Alaska also requires connections across modes 

and jurisdictions. Infrastructure and communication systems whose 

operation and maintenance are well-coordinated can help to 

create a seamless and safe journey for visitors to Federal lands. The 

coordinated planning objective will help ensure FLMA units have 

adequate transportation options for all users, and where possible, 

have transportation alternatives that serve a diversity of travelers 

with a range of needs.

Season, geography, and activity all influence how users travel to and 

across Federal lands in Alaska. For example, a resident may travel 

by road in a private vehicle, then take a snow machine, and then 

travel by foot or snowshoe to access remote areas for recreation or 

subsistence uses. An out-of-state visitor may travel to Alaska on a 

cruise through the Inside Passage, and upon arrival in Alaska, use 

public transit, privately operated bus routes, plane, helicopter, or 

boat tours to visit multiple public lands. Where a fat tire bicycle or 

cross-country skis may be used in the winter, a mountain bike trail 

or footpath may be used in the summer. Other winter trails may 

be inaccessible in the summer. Multimodal trips are commonplace 

so transportation systems need to be planned appropriately. Modal 

connections – such as parking lots, transit stops and pedestrian 

routes – should be as seamless as possible for users.

User Information

Up-to-date user information is crucial to mobility and safety. It is 

important to provide information about the transportation network, 

such as which areas can be accessed by road, whether the road is 

paved, schedules and prices for buses and ferries, weather conditions, 

and other basic information. 

Because travelers may keep apprised of information through various 

channels, agencies should aim to convey information in a variety 

of ways, including agency websites, social media, and third party 

sources such as the Road Weather Information System. Staffed public 

land information centers are an important channel to disseminate 

real-time information as well as general local context. In addition, 

FLMAs coordinate the messages they disseminate through kiosks, 

brochures, third party applications, and other sources. 

Technological advancements, such as smart phones and applications, 

have made visitor information accessible in new ways and provide 

new ways for FLMAs to communicate with visitors. However, in 

many parts of Alaska there is no cell phone service, and the most 

frequently cited safety issue among CVTS respondents was lack 

of cell phone coverage. FLMAs in Alaska can improve safety by 

communicating appropriate expectations for visitors, preparing 

them to visit areas without cell phone coverage and providing them 

with the information they need to be safe via other media, such as 

paper maps or digital road and trail maps for visitors to download 

prior to leaving cell phone coverage areas. 

Education and outreach is an important component of transportation 

safety and mobility. Visitor information should serve two main 

purposes:

1. Communicate long-term conditions: Educate visitors about 

the transportation system and general conditions for their 

trip. This includes how to get to popular visitor destinations 

and general conditions, such as topography, wildlife, and 

other safety-related information.

2. Communicate short-term or real-time conditions: Inform 

visitors about current conditions that impact personal safety, 

such as inclement weather or wildfires resulting in road 

closures, organized outdoor events, and wildlife migration 

seasons.
Safety and Mobility Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

47

Preparation for visiting rural Alaska may seem daunting to some outof-state visitors, so FLMAs can help to promote smart travel rather 

than scare visitors away. Visitor information can educate visitors on 

what to expect when they travel in Alaska, help them prepare for areas 

of no cell coverage, and prevent visitors from getting lost or stuck 

in dangerous conditions. Visitor information can also help visitors 

look out for other types of road users or wildlife, reducing crash risk. 

Current information on weather or closures can also help visitors 

make more informed decisions about whether to visit an area or 

whether to use alternate routes to avoid specific conditions. FLMAs 

can ensure visitors to public lands are aware of all the resources 

available for weather conditions and hazards.

Currently, the majority of FLMAs publish detailed information on 

what to know before you go to Federal lands in Alaska and post 

information about travel conditions on their websites. In addition, 

Alaska DOT&PF shares up-to-date information on road, highway, 

and ferry service conditions and closures on their website.

The CVTS reported on several themes related to user information:

● 11 percent of respondents did not visit all sites they had 

originally planned, due to a variety of factors such as not 

fully understanding time needed to travel, transportation 

being too costly, and bad weather.

● To plan trips, respondents used non-Federal websites, 

Federal websites, word of mouth, maps, and travel 

guidebooks as the top five resources. Residents relied 

on knowledge based on previous trips more than nonresidents did.

● The top five information sources used during the trip were 

Federal or state websites, word of mouth, brochures, other 

websites, and travel guidebooks.

● Independent travelers are more likely to seek information 

than those on a package tour.

● 63 percent of respondents (both residents and nonresidents) reported problems with trying to obtain 

information on electronic devices.

● 95 percent of respondents reported adequate signage on 

state highways, while only 88 percent thought signage at 

ferry terminals was adequate.

● Non-residents in general are significantly more likely than 

residents to research safety issues prior to travel.

Many of these findings speak to the need for FLMAs to set expectations 

in terms of safety and mobility and clearly communicate both travel 

conditions and outlets for information to visitors. 

Pinnell Mountain National Recreation Trail. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

48

Figure 11. Alaska CLRTP Safety and Mobility: Fatal Vehicle Crashes 2008-2016
Safety and Mobility Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

49

Boating Safety 

The Kids Don’t Float program is sponsored by a coalition of partners including the FS, the Alaska 

Department of Health and Social Services, U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska Safe Kids, the Office of Boating 

Safety, Alaska Native Tribal organizations, private businesses, and community volunteers. 

Nearly 200 communities throughout the state participate, with 535 loaner sites for child-sized life 

jackets available at boat ramps, marinas, river launches, and other places where children may interact 

with the water. 

Alaska’s public lands host many of the lakes, rivers, and coastline areas that are popular places for 

subsistence and recreational fishing, boating, swimming, and other water sports. By offering life jackets 

for children on public lands, many of the most popular water-related recreational areas are made safer 

for public use and enjoyment.

Life Jacket Loaner Board. AK DNR photo.

Safety

Transportation planners and engineers use the following framework 

of “4E’s” when considering safety: Engineering, Education, 

Enforcement, and Emergency Management. Employing this holistic 

framework helps FLMAs and their partners consider a comprehensive 

range of opportunities to increase safety for transportation users.

Alaska DOT&PF’s Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan includes 

safety in three of its nine goal areas, illustrating the importance of 

this issue for the state. The policies stated aim at improving safety 

due to natural and man-made disasters, emergency preparedness, 

and partnering with other agencies to address safety and security. 

For a baseline on highway safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) maintains the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS). This database contains information on all motor 

vehicle crashes nationwide that resulted in at least one fatality. Fatal 

crashes in Alaska have risen since 2012, while crashes that resulted 

in serious or minor injuries have declined. Details on crash locations 

are also reported, which are helpful in addressing location-specific 

needs. Because Alaska’s unique environment demands many other 

modes of travel, the FARS data needs to be supplemented with 

multimodal data from other sources to gain a more comprehensive 

understanding of transportation safety.

Legislative Context

The FAST Act includes requirements for how FLMAs and state DOTs 

address safety in their planning and performance management. 

Planning: The FAST Act requires that state DOTs consider safety 

in their Long-Range Transportation Plans and develop a Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Following the 4E framework, SHSPs 

use a data driven approach to guide decisions about transportation 

investments that will improve safety. (The Alaska SHSP is available 

here19) The plan provides information on the system improvement, 

legislation, and financing needs necessary to implement a strong 

safety agenda for multimodal transportation in the state. States also 

receive Federal funds through the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP), through which they fund planning, project 

implementation, and reporting to achieve a significant reduction 

19 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Strategic Highway Safety Plan. http://dot.

alaska.gov/stwdplng/shsp/index.shtml
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

50

in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including 

non-state-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires 

a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all 

public roads with a focus on performance. 

Performance Management: In 2012, MAP-21 required the USDOT 

to develop a rulemaking for safety performance management. The 

HSIP and Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule, 

which became effective April 14, 2016, establishes five performance 

measures as the five-year rolling averages for: (1) Number of 

Fatalities, (2) Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT), (3) Number of Serious Injuries, (4) Rate of Serious Injuries 

per 100 million VMT, and (5) Number of Non-motorized Fatalities 

and Non-motorized Serious Injuries. The Safety Performance 

Management Final Rule also establishes the process for state DOTs 

and MPOs to establish and report their safety targets, and the 

process that FHWA will use to assess whether state DOTs have met 

or made significant progress toward meeting their safety targets. 

The Safety Performance Management Final Rule also establishes a 

common national definition for serious injuries.20 Alaska DOT&PF 

has begun to incorporate this and has established performance 

management systems to meet this requirement. As stated in Alaska 

DOT&PF’s FHWA Performance Measure Baseline Report in 2016, 

Alaska DOT&PF will adopt the five required safety performance 

measures and does not plan to develop additional performance 

measures.21 The Alaska DOT&PF Performance Dashboard provides 

updated performance data.22

MAP-21 and the FAST Act also require FLMAs to collect and report 

safety performance data. Although FHWA has not issued guidance 

on safety performance management for FLMAs, some FLMAs have 

already begun to develop Safety Management Systems. FLMAs 

also have the opportunity to collaborate with state DOTs as they 

implement their safety performance management systems.

20 USDOT Federal Highway Administration. March 15, 2016. Safety- Rulemaking. https://safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/hsip/rulemaking/.

21 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. October 1, 2016. Initial State of Alaska 

DOT&PF Performance Report. http://www.dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/asset_mgmt/assets/baseline_2016.

pdf.

22 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Alaska DOT&PF Performance Dashboard. 

http://dot.alaska.gov/performance-dash/index.shtml.

Transportation-Related Fatalities

Alaska boroughs for which automobiles are the leading cause of 

transportation-related fatalities. The smaller circles represent the 

next-most-common causes. 

Bethel

Nome

North Slope

Northwest Arctic

Southeast Fairbanks

Wade Hampton

Yukon-Koyukuk

Aleutians East*

Dillingham

Ketchikan Gateway

Prince of Wales 

Valdez-Cordova

Wrangell-Petersburg*

Aleutians West*

r

Aleutians West*

Anchorage

Bristol Bay*

Fairbanks Northstar

Haines

Juneau

Kenai Peninsula

Matanuska

Denali

Other

Motor vehicle accidents are the most common 

type of transportation fatality in 22 boroughs 

and census areas. Following motor vehicle 

accidents, the second most common type of 

accidents in these areas include:

*These boroughs or census areas have two accident types tied for 

the first or second most common type of transportation accident.
Safety and Mobility Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

51

Transportation Safety in Alaska Federal Lands

FLMAs face unique safety challenges on their transportation networks 

in Alaska. Due to the extensive land area that is wild or remote, 

numerous unpaved roads, reliance on air, water, and snow-based 

modes, safety hazards are varied and complex. When planning for 

Federal lands transportation safety in Alaska, FLMAs must consider 

the unique hazards and multimodal nature of their transportation 

systems.

One implementation action from the 2012 LRTP was to better 

understand multimodal transportation fatalities and injuries in Alaska. 

The multiagency team studied data from the Alaska Department 

of Health and Social Services Trauma Registry, Alaska Department 

of Health and Social Services Bureau of Vital Statistics, and Alaska 

DOT&PF crash records. Analysis from these sources combined 

provided a comprehensive look at injury and fatality data and made 

several key findings:

● Motor vehicles were involved in 67 percent of 

transportation fatalities statewide from 1999 through 

2012. This was influenced largely by the most urban and 

populated areas. Air transport, snow machines, and water 

transport fatalities each contributed about 10 percent of the 

total.

● Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of 

transportation fatalities in 20 out of 27 boroughs. 

● Transportation fatalities declined statewide roughly 2.6 

percent per year during the study period. Fatalities for all 

modes except ATVs decreased during the study period. 

● Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of 

transportation injuries statewide, accounting for 49 

percent from 2005 through 2011. All-terrain vehicle 

crashes were the second leading cause, representing 20 

percent transportation injuries statewide. Snow machines 

and bicycles accounted for 14 percent and 13 percent, 

respectively.

● Transportation injuries have declined roughly 3.1 percent 

per year during the study period. Injuries involving motor 

vehicles, ATVs, snow machines all declined, while injuries 

involving animal rides increased 1 percent.

● Although motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of 

injuries statewide, the leading cause by borough is more 

variable. Most urbanized boroughs follow the statewide 

trend, but several boroughs report leading cause of injury 

by ATVs, snow machines, and one borough (Sitka) by 

bicycles.

FLMAs, in partnership with the state, are using the information to 

target safety issues in specific locations, devise, and implement 

countermeasures. As shown in Figures 12 and 13, the safety concerns 

vary widely by borough because reliance on transportation modes 

is associated with the terrain of the region. Countermeasures may 

cover topics such as reducing vehicle / pedestrian congestion, 

reducing vehicle / wildlife collisions, improving trail marking and 

signs, publishing maps and brochures, providing flotation devices, or 

developing safety messages about wearing a helmet. Eventually, the 

baseline conditions will be used to measure the impacts of targeted 

safety improvements. For more information, an executive summary 

of this safety study can be accessed in Appendix D.

Bridge Inspection. Alaska DOT&PF photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

52

Figure 12: Most Common Type of Transportation Related Injuries by Borough

Yukon Koyukuk

 41

North Slope

 44

Bethel

 102

Nome

 76

Northwest Arctic

 95

Valdez Cordova

 67

Denali

 33

Dillingham

 39

Matanuska Susitna

 480

Southeast Fairbanks

 46

Wade Hampton

 64

Lake and Peninsula

 30

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula 3

342

Fairbanks Northstar

 307

Juneau

94

Aleutians East

 4

Sitka

 11

Kodiak Island

 37

Haines

15

Ketchikan Gateway

60

Anchorage

894

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

11

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

 32

Wrangell Petersburg

34

eutians West

 7

0 75 150 225 300

Miles  ́

Most Common Type of Incident

Source: Alaska Trauma Registry

Bicycle Incidents

ATV Related Incidents

Snow Machine Related Incidents

Motor Vehicle Incidents

Al
Safety and Mobility Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

53

Figure 13: Most Common Type of Transportation Related Fatalities by Borough

Yukon Koyukuk

 39

North Slope

 33

Bethel

 51

Nome

 45

Northwest Arctic

 34

Valdez Cordova

 26

Denali

 5

Dillingham

 19

Matanuska Susitna

 192

Wade Hampton

 27

Lake and Peninsula

 16

Southeast Fairbanks

 28

Yakutat

Kenai Peninsula 5

 146

Fairbanks Northstar

 170

Juneau

 29

Aleutians East

 1

Sitka

11

Kodiak Island

 10

Haines

 4

Ketchikan Gateway

 14

Anchorage

 382

Skagway Hoonah Angoon

 5

Prince of Wales Outer Ketchikan

 9

Wrangell Petersburg

 9

Aleutians West

 8

Source: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics

0 75 150 225 300

Miles  ́

Most Common Type of Incident

Air Transport Incidents

Water Transport Incidents

Motor Vehicle Incidents
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

54

Western Arctic Parklands: Place Critical Safety Winter Tripods from 

Shishmaref to Cape Espenberg and Reconstruct Safety Cabin

Partners: NPS and Native Village of Shishmaref

Year: Begun in June 2017 and completed in September 2017

Implementation: The project was completed by working with the Native Village 

of Shishmaref through an agreement for local hire to provide labor and a youth 

carpentry project.

Winter Markings Tripods and Adjacent Trail. NPS photo.

The winter trail between the native communities of Shishmaref, Cape Espenberg, and 

Kotzebue is used by rural residents as well as visitors traveling through the Bering Land 

Bridge National Preserve. Cape Espenberg is an important subsistence location, used by 

indigenous Inupiat people for millennia.

There are no roads out of Shishmaref; travel is by boat or snow machine and can be 

extremely dangerous due to increased inclement weather and storm events often 

occurring year-round. Flooding, high winds, whiteout conditions, and extremely low 

temperatures reaching -50°F with wind chill can make the journey perilous. After a 

storm in 2006 destroyed the Kividlo cabin, a shelter located at the half-way point, the 

passage lacked emergency infrastructure. 

The new project placed above ground winter trail tripods along the route to help users 

navigate in inclement weather, as well as a new coastal emergency shelter cabin of 

12x16 feet in size. The cabin serves as a shelter for users, and as a base for search and 

rescue operations by NPS personnel and local Search and Rescue (SAR) organizations. 

The cabin is equipped with a short-wave radio antenna and survival equipment, allowing 

SAR workers to respond to emergencies sooner, ensuring safety for Preserve staff and 

volunteers, and ultimately saving lives.

Western Arctic Parklands Safety Cabin. NPS photo.
Safety and Mobility Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

55

Emergency Management & Incident Response 

Transportation systems to and within Federal lands also play an 

important role in emergency management and incident response. 

Federal lands transportation systems are vulnerable to a variety 

of environmental hazards, but they also play an important role in 

incident response, serving as evacuation routes and providing access 

for emergency responders. This is especially true in Alaska, where 

many remote communities rely on travel across Federal lands to 

access nearby communities or transportation networks.

The state of Alaska maintains the Alaska State Hazard Mitigation 

Plan (SHMP), which analyzes a range of natural hazards and the 

populations and infrastructure that are vulnerable. The purpose of 

the plan is to identify and coordinate risk mitigation efforts with 

state, Federal, and local partners, and includes goals, objectives, 

and actions to reduce injury and damage from natural disasters. In 

Appendix E, the Natural Hazards Technical Report gives a summary 

of natural hazards in Alaska and corresponding resources.

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the Safety and Mobility goal area: 

● Traveler information: Coordinate with public and private 

partners to effectively disseminate travel planning and 

transportation safety information through a variety of media 

to provide general and location-specific information to users. 

● Create a Multimodal Transportation Safety Database:

Collaborate with FLMAs, state, and local partners to collect 

and analyze multimodal transportation safety data and 

monitor safety performance for travel to and through 

Federal lands in Alaska. Where appropriate, link this database 

with Alaska DOT&PF efforts to monitor and improve safety 

performance through the Highway Safety Improvement Plan 

and Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

● Transportation Safety Assessments:

○ Develop and train a multiagency Transportation 

Safety Assessment team that can conduct multimodal 

safety assessments of Federal lands transportation 

safety corridors in Alaska. 

○ Develop a clearinghouse for Transportation Safety 

Assessment reports and data. 

○ Conduct periodic evaluation of Transportation Safety 

Assessment implementation of recommendations.

Performance Management

Performance measures for the Safety and Mobility goal area include: 

● Progress towards creation of a multimodal transportation 

safety database

● Progress towards developing and conducting multiagency 

Transportation Safety Assessment training

● Number of Transportation Safety Assessments performed 

○ Target: one per agency over the next five years

● Funding spent on safety improvements / number of projects 

that improve safety
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

56

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

57

Environment

Goal Protect and enhance natural and cultural resources through comprehensive transportation planning 

and management.

Objectives • Planning at an appropriate ecosystem scale: Consider indirect effects on regional areas. 

• Water quality: Ensure protection of open water, wetlands, and aquifers across federal lands. 

• Air quality: Maintain or improve air quality.

• Habitat: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate transportation related impacts.

• Cultural: Avoid or minimize negative impacts to culturally sensitive human settlements, subsistence areas, 

cultural landscapes, and historic and archaeological sites while providing appropriate access consistent with 

protecting said resources. 

• Soils: Avoid or minimize impacts on permafrost and other at risk soil systems.

Gulkana Wild and Scenic River. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

58

Introduction

Natural and cultural resource management and preservation are 

key to the missions of FLMAs. Transportation systems are critical to 

promoting visitors access to these resources, but can also negatively 

impact them. In Alaska, FLMAs and state and local governments 

are working collaboratively to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

transportation impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

FLMAs also consider environmental factors during the project 

development process. NEPA requires Federal agencies to assess 

the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making 

decisions. As part of NEPA, agencies identify sensitive resources and 

strategies to address environmental impacts from transportation 

projects. FLMAs also comply with other national environmental 

laws and regulations, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, 

and laws governing cultural and historic resources (e.g., Antiquities 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, and Alaska Native Interest Lands 

Conservation Act). 

A key aspect of meeting this plan’s goal to “protect and enhance 

natural and cultural resources through comprehensive transportation 

planning and management” involves identifying natural and cultural 

resources and determining where they intersect with transportation 

systems. The NPS Transportation Resource Stewardship Planning 

Tool (TRSPT) identifies natural and cultural resources that may be 

affected by transportation. As part of the Alaska LRTP update this tool 

was piloted in 15 locations, including national parks, FWS refuges, 

national forests, and BLM sites. Additional data comes from the NPS 

Transportation Investment Needs Analysis (TINA) tool, a spatial tool 

that includes a number of data layers covering FLMAs in Alaska.

Baseline Conditions and Trends

The following sections describe current environmental conditions 

and trends affecting FLMAs in Alaska. It also briefly discusses actions 

that FLMAs are pursuing within the topics of wildlife and endangered 

species, cultural and historic resources, soils, air and water quality, 

and light and noise impacts. 

Wildlife and Endangered Species 

The variety of habitats present in Alaska, from tundra to boreal 

forest to marine and coastal environments, are home to countless 

plant and animal species. Alaska’s relative isolation from the lower 

48 states allows many species that are at risk or have gone locally 

extinct elsewhere in the world to thrive. For this reason, Alaska’s 

FLMA units provide a crucial refuge for Federally-listed threatened 

and endangered species23 as well as anadromous fish and migratory 

birds. Some of these species, such as salmon, steelhead and Stellar 

sea lions support ecosystem function as well as Alaskan fisheries and 

tourism. They are also integral to subsistence hunting and fishing, 

and cultural resources for Alaska’s indigenous people that the DOI is 

tasked with managing, protecting and ensuring access to.

23 TRSPT Executive Summary Draft, March 2018

Examples of Threatened and 

Endangered Species in Alaska

• Stellar’s eider (Polysticta stelleri)

• Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri)

• Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) 

• Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 

• Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) 

• Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum)

• Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis)

• Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) 

• Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)

• North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica)

• Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

• Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)

• Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

• Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

• Stellar Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

• Leatherback Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

59

Transportation features such as roads can have an adverse impact 

on fish and wildlife through loss of available habitat and habitat 

fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation occurs when transportation 

features break up a landscape into smaller habitat patches that 

decrease the range of movement and breeding population size of 

wild populations. Fragmented landscapes also create hazardous 

crossing conditions that can threaten wildlife and human safety by 

increasing the chances of wildlife-vehicle collisions.

In Alaska, the majority of recorded wildlife-vehicle collisions involve 

moose and other large mammals such as caribou, bear, and bison. 

Although there is no comprehensive data on wildlife-vehicle 

collisions on FLMA-owned or managed roads in Alaska, the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game estimates that an average of 800 

moose are killed annually by vehicles on all public roads throughout 

the state.24 The NPS and FWS are working together to develop a 

wildlife-vehicle collision detection smartphone application to fill this 

data gap and allow FLMA parks and refuges to identify problem 

24 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Driving in Moose Country.” http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

index.cfm?adfg=livewith.drivingmoosecountry.

areas to reduce collisions. Several FLMAs have enacted guidance 

on wildlife crossings to combat these safety and environmental 

concerns. Possible mitigation efforts include wildlife passage above 

or below transportation corridors, fencing, reflectors, warning signs, 

and reduced speed limits.

Transportation projects on FLMA lands are incorporating some of 

these strategies. For example, the Sterling Highway Milepost 58 to 

79 project at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge includes six underpasses 

for wildlife passage that will help increase safe passage of moose, 

caribou, bears, lynx, and other large mammals. In Alaska, winter 

can create additional maintenance requirements for mitigation 

structures, as snow and ice accumulation can impede these structures 

by blocking passages or obscuring reflectors and warning signs.

Another habitat-related issue facing Alaska’s FLMAs is the ability of 

fish and other aquatic organisms to move upstream or downstream 

under roads. Alaska has approximately 365,000 miles of rivers, of 

which 3,210 miles across 25 rivers are designated as wild and scenic.25

25 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. “Alaska.” https://www.rivers.gov/alaska.php.

Spectacled Eider, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo. Polar Bears Along Beaufort Sea. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

60

When transportation infrastructure bisects rivers it can disrupt fish 

migration and spawning. This disruption has a range of impacts on 

other wildlife as well as food and cultural resources that the people 

of Alaska depend on. 

Improving aquatic organism passage and ecological connectivity 

is a goal for FLMAs. To accomplish these goals, transportation 

projects can be planned to avoid stream crossings altogether, cross 

further upstream, or implement culverts and drainage structures 

that are designed with aquatic organism passage in mind. Stream 

simulation is an approach to culvert design that aims to improve 

waterway connections through wider culverts that maintain features 

of the existing stream bed. This creates infrastructure that increases 

habitat connectivity and is more resilient to both extreme events 

and normal wear-and-tear. Traditional culverts often clog over time, 

which can lead to flooded roadways, damage during storm events 

and expensive maintenance. Stream simulation culverts, on the 

other hand, accommodate larger flows and better handle sediment 

accretion leading to lowered maintenance and repair costs as well as 

improved environmental outcomes. 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

Alaska’s FLMAs are home to numerous cultural and historic resources; 

transportation systems both provide access to these resources and 

can negatively impact them. Several Federal laws guide the protection 

and preservation of cultural and historic resources in Alaska: 

● The American Antiquities Act of 1906 established that 

archaeological sites on public lands are important public 

resources. It obligates Federal agencies that manage public 

lands to preserve for present and future generations the 

historic, scientific, commemorative, and cultural values of 

the archaeological and historic sites and structures on these 

lands.26

● The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

aimed to preserve historical and archaeological sites by 

creating the National Register of Historic Places and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and by requiring 

states to have a historic preservation office and complete 

an inventory of important sites. Section 106 of the NHPA 

requires Federal agencies to take into account effects of 

their activities on historical and archaeological resources 

and to consult on the Section 106 process with State Historic 

Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and 

tribes. 

● The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA) provides a process for museums and Federal 

agencies to return certain Native American cultural items 

to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Indian tribes, and 

Native Hawaiian organizations. All Federal agencies are 

responsible for complying with NAGPRA. The law includes 

provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native 

American cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery 

of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, 

and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking.

26 National Park Service. June 22, 2017. “American Antiquities Act of 1906.” https://www.nps.gov/

subjects/legal/american-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm. Fort Egbert, Eagle National Historic District. BLM photo.
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

61

● The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) requires Federal land managers to balance the 

national interest in Alaska’s scenic and wildlife resources 

with recognition of Alaska’s economy, infrastructure, and its 

distinctive rural way of life. Over 100 specific provisions of 

ANILCA require some form of Federal agency consultation 

with the state of Alaska, including on the topics of continued 

public access for traditional activities; guaranteed access to 

inholdings; transportation and utility corridors; access for 

subsistence; and recognition of state authorities concerning 

fish, wildlife, navigable waterways, tidelands, and submerged 

lands.27 

Alaska is home to a variety of types of cultural resources, including 

historical sites, cultural landscapes, archaeological sites, and 

areas used for subsistence access. Alaska has 50 National Historic 

Landmarks28 and over 420 places listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places.29 There are numerous other historic and cultural 

resources across the state, but there is no comprehensive dataset 

documenting them. Many of these resources are undiscovered, 

and there are also sensitivities around sharing site locations due to 

concerns over looting and privacy.

FLMAs inventory cultural resources during project-level planning 

and environmental review to determine if transportation or other 

infrastructure projects are likely to affect cultural resources. They 

also consult with tribes and other local stakeholders about potential 

resources in an area, and determine how to minimize or mitigate 

impacts.

For example, in 2017 the NPS completed the reconstruction of two 

roads in the Dyea area of Klondike Gold Rush National Historical 

Park. This project was needed to increase the safety of road users and 

27 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. “State ANILCA Coordination.” http://dnr.alaska.gov/

commis/opmp/anilca/more.htm.

28 National Park Service. “List of NHLs by State.” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/

nationalhistoriclandmarks/list-of-nhls-by-state.htm#onthisPage-1.

29 Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. “Explore the National Register of 

Historic Places in Alaska.” http://soa-dnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.

html?appid=7f2e0da912f54f74a7448fbcb2cce655.

provide protection to natural and cultural resources in the Dyea area. 

The Dyea area is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and 

is within the Chilkoot Trail and Dyea Site National Historic Landmark. 

More intensive archaeological surveys were required along both road 

corridors once the area of potential effects was identified. During 

construction, archaeologists were on hand to monitor impacts and 

to assist in the identification of previously undocumented cultural 

resources. The project resulted in a safer and smoother roadway 

surface, and reduced degradation to cultural features and vegetation 

that was previously caused by users bypassing mud holes.

In addition to providing access to historic and cultural resources, 

some transportation facilities in Alaska are themselves historic 

resources. For example, Denali Park Road was built between 1922 

and 1938 by the Alaska Road Commission, and was nominated to 

the National Register of Historic Places in 2013.30 Denali Park staff 

work to both maintain the road as a historic resource and minimize 

its impact on the surrounding environment. 

30 National Park Service. April 2, 2019. “Maintaining the Character of the Denali Park Road Beyond Mile 

15.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/denali-character-of-park-road.htm.

Archaeologist, Noatak National Preserve. NPS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

62

Figure 14. Alaska CLRTP Environment: National Register of Historic Places Locations
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

63

Figure 15. Alaska CLRTP Environment: Permafrost Probability Map
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

64

Permafrost, Riverbank within Birch Creek Wild and Scenic River. BLM photo.

Soils

Alaska’s FLMAs work to ensure that transportation systems minimize 

impacts on permafrost and other at risk soil systems. Permafrost is 

found to some extent beneath nearly 85 percent of Alaska, and is 

thickest in the northern part of the state. As temperatures warm, 

permafrost thaw is expected to lead to uneven sinking of the ground 

and the disruption of infrastructure built on permafrost, including 

roads, airports, and buildings (see the Natural Hazards Technical 

Report in Appendix E for more information). As permafrost thaws, 

transportation infrastructure built on it will require more frequent 

maintenance and repair, and in some cases relocation. 

Slope instability may be caused or worsened by a number of factors, 

including heavy precipitation or snow melt, permafrost thaw, seismic 

activity, slope exposure and weathering, or overly steep construction. 

Unstable slopes can lead to landslides, erosion, or other damage 

to transportation infrastructure. The Unstable Slope Management 

Program (USMP) is a collaborative effort between FLMAs to develop 

an asset management approach for managing unstable rock and 

soil slopes. The project involves the development of a standardized 

rating tool, a database with searching and reporting capabilities, 

and a GIS-based map to display unstable slopes and rockfalls along 

transportation corridors.31

As part of the Denali National Park & Preserve Long-Range 

Transportation plan, completed in 2018, the NPS conducted a 

comprehensive risk analysis of geologic hazards along the Denali 

Park Road, which traverses a highly active geologic landscape. The 

risk assessment used the rating criteria from the USMP to identify 

the spatial distribution of geologic hazards, their severity, and the 

associated risk. It resulted in a preliminary identification of the areas 

with the highest relative risk, which will be used to inform future 

infrastructure plans.

Air and Water Quality

Vehicle emissions from transportation to and within Federal lands 

can impact local air quality by producing nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulphur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) pollutants. Other mobile sources such as cruise ships, aviation, 

and freight also contribute to air pollution. Currently, a portion of 

the Fairbanks North Star Borough, including the City of Fairbanks 

and the City of North Pole, is in nonattainment for PM2.5, meaning 

that it does not meet the air quality standards established by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This poor air quality may be 

caused or worsened by a number of sources, including emissions 

from wood stoves, burning distillate oil, industrial sources, and 

mobile emissions. Smoke from wildfires can also contribute to air 

pollution and impact health.32 Many roads in and providing access 

to FLMA units in Alaska have a gravel surface, and the way that dust 

is managed on gravel roads can impact air quality, health, and the 

viewshed.

Transportation activities can also impact water quality. Stormwater 

and snowmelt can increase runoff and erosion that are detrimental 

to Alaska’s waterways. Chemical runoff in the form of oils, grease, 

31 “Unstable Slope Management Program.” http://usmp.info/client/credits.php.

32 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. “Fairbanks Particulate Matter PM2.5.” http://

dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/communities/fbks-particulate-matter.
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

65

heavy metals, road salt and antifreeze contain substances that 

are toxic to fish and humans. These pollutants, which collect on 

roadways, parking lots and airport tarmacs, permeate groundwater 

and are deposited into watersheds by precipitation and thaw events. 

Siltation, caused by dust generated from travel and construction 

activities as well as improperly draining roadways, creates turbid 

water and changes sediment accretion rates. This results in cloudy 

water, clogged culverts and reduced flow which degrades water 

quality, stresses aquatic plants and animals and disrupts ecological 

passage. 

With increasing tourism to Alaska’s coastline, pollutants in 

discharge from cruise ships has the potential to impact marine 

parks and watersheds. Cruise ships in Alaskan ports are monitored 

for compliance with discharge regulations, but treatment and 

containment failures can result in elevated bacterial counts and 

pollution levels that are hazardous to humans as well as Alaska’s 

abundant natural resources.

Light and Noise Impacts 

Artificial lights can disrupt animals’ natural rhythms and systems 

such as feeding, sleep, and reproduction. Preserving and promoting 

dark skies can help protect the natural habitat for many animals. In 

Alaska, dark skies also support tourism as visitors come for viewing 

the aurora borealis. 

The transportation system contributes to light pollution through 

street lights and other lighting that supports transportation facilities. 

In Alaska, impacts from outdoor lighting primary occur around 

Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as in oil and gas development 

Artificial brightness in Alaska is concentrated around Anchorage and 

Fairbanks as well as oil development areas along the North Slope 

Source: Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). 

https://cires.colorado.edu/artificial-sky
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Environment

66

areas in the North Slope. FLMAs are taking steps to reduce visual 

impacts from lighting and protect dark skies. For example, strategies 

to minimize impacts from lighting may include using lighting fixtures 

that are fully shielded and point downwards, minimizing blue light 

emission and using lighting types that mimic natural light, and 

only using lights where necessary and no brighter than necessary.33

BLM and NPS have visual resource management programs that are 

working to minimize light pollution impacts in Alaska FLMAs. BLM 

and FWS are coordinating on visual resource management related to 

aurora borealis viewing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Noise impacts can also negatively affect both wildlife and FLMA 

visitors. Efforts are underway to document baseline natural 

noise levels as well as noise impacts from particular projects or 

transportation modes (such as aviation noise). For example, BLM is 

working to understand the noise impacts of oil and gas development 

north of the Arctic Circle. They are looking at noise from aircraft, 

generators, and other sources related to energy development, and 

documenting impacts on wildlife. 

The Denali National Park & Preserve Long-Range Transportation Plan 

includes a report on acoustic resources.34 The NPS has been working 

on acoustic measurement at Denali since the 1990s in response to an 

increase in aviation and snowmobile noise. The Denali Soundscape 

Inventory describes the park’s acoustic environment at a landscape 

scale, and can be used to make management decisions about 

how to address competing priorities (e.g., transportation access 

and a noise-free environment). For example, one noise mitigation 

strategy suggested by the project is to direct air traffic over areas 

that backcountry user groups are less likely to frequent. Therefore, 

areas that already have air traffic would continue to bear the brunt of 

resource damage, allowing the most pristine acoustic environments 

of the park to remain intact.

33 International Dark Sky Association. “Outdoor Lighting Basics.” http://darksky.org/lighting/lightingbasics/.

34 National Park Service. 2018. “Denali NP&P Long Range Transportation 2018 (final).” https://

parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=9&projectID=49953&documentID=88019

Invasive Species Monitoring, Buskin Lake. FWS photo.

Invasive Species

Although Alaska is isolated from the lower 48 states it is not immune 

to the presence and detrimental effect of invasive species to Alaskan 

ecosystems. Invasive species in Alaska can reduce opportunities for 

hunting, fishing, subsistence, and recreational activities, displace 

threatened and endangered species, impact flight patterns and 

nesting locations for migratory birds, and generate high costs for 

removal and eradication. 

Transportation is a primary vector for the introduction of invasive 

or non-native species. Increasing access to FLMA lands in Alaska 

increases the risk that invasive species will be introduced to an area. 

Invasive species hitchhike on planes, boats, cars, trains and even on 

clothing of tourists and visitors. They are also transported through 

soil or firewood, and can be introduced through materials used in 

routine transportation maintenance and construction projects, such 

as gravel.
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

67

Invasive Species Threats to Alaska

• Northern Pike (Esox lucius)

• Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)

• Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar)

Invasive Plants

• Green Crab (Carcinus maenus)

• Pond weed (Elodea)

• Invasive Tunicates (Didemnum and Botrylloide

Agencies involved with management on public lands may follow 

these best practices to help prevent the introduction and spread of 

invasive species throughout Alaska’s FLMA lands:

● Develop information campaigns to increase public awareness 

of both the threat that invasive species pose to cultural, 

financial and recreational resources as well as strategies to 

help prevent their both their introduction and spread.

● Provide washing stations for road vehicles and OHVs before 

entering the backcountry and in between trips to prevent the 

spread of invasive plant seeds.

● Encourage washing of float plane pontoons between trips to 

prevent the spread of Elodea to remote lakes.

● Wash fire vehicles before heading into burn areas.

● Require cleaning road maintenance equipment between 

locations.

● Source certified weed free or locally-sourced gravel before 

hauling and spreading along roadways (see the Risk and 

Resilience goal area for more information on gravel sourcing).

● Require dog mushers to use certified weed free straw for 

dog bedding during competitive events (BLM has noticed 

invasive plants growing at remote check points along the 

Iditarod Dog Sled Race route).

● Prohibit fishers from using felt-soled waders to prevent 

invasive species introduction in waterways.

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the Environment goal area: 

● Use data and spatial analysis to better understand where 

transportation infrastructure interacts with the natural 

environment, in particular wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, 

migratory routes, steep slopes, wetlands, permafrost, and 

historical, archaeological, and cultural resources. 

● Continue to implement best management practices to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to natural and 

cultural resources from transportation systems.

● Enhance multiagency understanding of vehicle / wildlife 

collisions and wildlife interactions, and develop a strategy to 

reduce collisions and impacts on wildlife migration areas. 

● Develop an inventory of historic transportation features.

Performance Management

Performance measures for the Environment goal area include: 

● Number of reported vehicle / wildlife collisions on roads 

traveling through Federal lands.

○ Target: reduce the number of incidents

● Completion of culvert / Aquatic Organism Passage 

inventory

● Number of aquatic organism passage enhancements or 

wildlife connectivity enhancements completed per year on 

Federal lands.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

68

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

69

Risk and Resilience

Goal Develop a long-term transportation system that addresses environmental, social, and economic risks.

Objectives • Risk identification: Evaluate major risks to transportation systems. 

• Adaptation: Adapt transportation systems and practices to address extreme weather, environmental hazards, 

and other risks where appropriate.

• Mitigation: Identify and alter transportation practices and activities that contribute to increased risks while 

continuing to provide for and encourage compatible uses.

Dalton Highway. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

70

Introduction

Risks to FLMA transportation systems in Alaska stem from geophysical 

hazards and changes to social, economic, and environmental factors. 

An evaluation of risk considers both the likelihood or impact of an 

event occurring, and the expected impact or consequence from 

that event. In December 2017, the agencies involved in the Alaska 

LRTP Update participated in a Risk Assessment Workshop to identify 

the top risks to FLMA transportation systems in Alaska, determine 

the impact of these risks and potential responses, and discuss how 

the risk assessment results could inform the LRTP Update. The top 

risks identified in the workshop included environmental risks such 

as permafrost subsidence and river and stream flooding; risks due 

to changes in operations and maintenance practices for drainage 

structures and gravel production, processing, or purchase; and risks 

due to changes in FLMA management, such as system resilience, 

resource management, and safety management. 

A closely related concept to risk is resilience, which the FHWA 

defines as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to 

changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly 

from disruptions.”35 In Alaska, many of these changing conditions 

and disruptions are caused by natural hazards, including thawing 

permafrost, erosion, flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanoes. 

FLMAs are working to build resilience to these and other disruptive 

events and trends. The Natural Hazard Vulnerability Technical Report 

(see Appendix E) provides additional details on the impact of these 

hazards on FLMA transportation systems and actions that these 

agencies are taking to respond. 

Baseline Conditions and Trends

Climate and Extreme Weather

Many of the risks that affect FLMA transportation systems in Alaska 

are caused by extreme weather and climate change. Alaska’s climate 

has warmed about twice as rapidly as the rest of the country over 

35 FHWA Order 5520

the past half century, and average temperatures have increased by 

approximately 0.7°F per decade since the late 1970s.36 These trends 

are expected to continue into the future, and the state is expected 

to see higher high temperatures in the summer (4°-8°F), higher low 

temperatures in the winter (12°F), and fewer nights below freezing 

by mid-century.37 In addition, sea ice melt is expected to continue 

across the Arctic, and late summers are expected to become nearly 

ice-free this century.38

Impacts of this changing climate that are likely to affect transportation 

infrastructure include: 

● Thawing permafrost. In areas where soils below the surface 

remain frozen for all or most of the year, permafrost forms 

the foundation for structures and infrastructure. Permafrost 

is thickest in northern Alaska, but is found to some extent 

beneath about half the state (Figure 15). As temperatures 

warm, permafrost thaw is occurring. Permafrost is expected 

to disappear from 16 to 24 percent of its current extent by 

the end of the century.39 Permafrost thaw causes uneven 

sinking of the ground and the disruption of infrastructure 

built on permafrost, including roads, airports, and buildings.

● Erosion. Sea ice melt and permafrost thaw are leading to 

increased erosion in coastal and riverine areas of Alaska. 

Transportation infrastructure in close proximity to coastal and 

riverine areas is likely to experience increased risks due to 

erosion. Erosion may cause damage to the structural integrity 

of roads or an accelerated degradation of infrastructure.

36 Markon, C., S. Gray, M. Berman, L. Eerkes-Medrano, T. Hennessy, H. Huntington, J. Littell, M. 

McCammon, R. Thoman, and S. Trainor, 2018: Alaska. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United 

States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. 

Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1185–1241. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH26

37 Markon et al, 2018

38 USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I 

[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

39 USGCRP, 2017
Risk and Resilience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

71

● Flooding. Coastal and riverine flooding – whether caused by 

heavy precipitation, sea level rise, storm surge, or snowmelt 

– can cause temporary disruption or long-term damage 

to transportation infrastructure through road washouts 

and overtopping of bridges and culverts. The cumulative 

effect of smaller, more frequent precipitation events can 

also cause increased structural vulnerability and damage 

to transportation infrastructure. Changes in precipitation 

patterns can also lead to shifting alluvial fans and stream 

beds, which can cause road washouts and other types of 

flooding and infrastructure damage. 

● Wildfires. Wildfire activity in Alaska has increased in recent 

decades in both boreal forest and Arctic tundra environments. 

Wildfires are expected to increase through the end of the 

century due to warmer and drier conditions in interior Alaska 

and thawing permafrost. The thick smoke from wildfires is a 

risk to human health, and also temporarily disrupts visibility 

for vehicles and airplanes. Extensive wildfires can also change 

ecosystems and habitats.

Dalton Highway (Roadway Vulnerable to Permafrost Thaw). BLM photo.

Kenail National Wildlife Refuge, 2014 Funny River Fire. FWS photo.

To understand the impact of extreme weather on transportation 

assets, agencies are conducting vulnerability assessments to identify 

the likelihood of both temporary closure and permanent damage 

to existing assets and systems. For example, Alaska DOT&PF and 

Alaska FLMAs partnered on a vulnerability assessment funded by 

FHWA to look at the vulnerability of three transportation projects 

to climate risks: thawing permafrost on the Dalton Highway, storm 

damage at an airport in Kivalina, and landslide risk along Denali Park 

road. Building off of this effort, FLH is partnering with NPS and FWS 

to conduct a statewide, asset-level vulnerability assessment.

Once agencies have identified their vulnerabilities, they can begin 

to design and implement strategies to address them. For example, 

agencies could identify adaptation strategies to harden existing 

infrastructure, such as shoreline protection infrastructure or changing 

pavement types. They could also identify alternate routes or 

alternate modes of transportation if access routes become damaged 

and temporarily or permanently unusable. To address future 

vulnerabilities, agencies can take expected extreme weather impacts 

into account when planning new transportation infrastructure to 

ensure that the infrastructure is built to last.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

72

Agencies can also integrate extreme weather and expected future 

conditions into their asset management programs, which Alaska 

DOT&PF aims to do. A risk-based asset management system can 

help agencies anticipate and effectively respond to extreme weather 

events and climate threats.40 Such a system helps transportation 

agencies evaluate the costs of managing an asset over its entire life 

cycle, with the goal of minimizing costs while preserving or improving 

the condition of the asset. 

Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes also pose risks 

to FLMA transportation systems in Alaska. The state has over 50 

active volcanoes and experiences an average of one to two volcanic 

eruptions per year. Volcanoes in Alaska have the potential to 

temporarily or permanently displace entire communities and disrupt 

all modes of travel. Specific to transportation infrastructure, volcanic 

ash can damage or collapse structures and can be a significant 

hazard to aircraft and maritime vessels. Volcanoes can also lead to 

debris avalanches, mudflows (lahars), and debris flows, all of which 

can damage transportation infrastructure.41 In addition, volcanic ash 

can damage aircraft engines, and as a result a volcanic eruption can 

ground flights and lead to major travel and tourism impacts.

Alaska is one of the most seismically active regions in the world, 

and 11 percent of the world’s earthquakes occur in the state. The 

majority of earthquakes in Alaska are low consequence events, with 

minimal damage to communities and infrastructure. However, low 

probability, high consequence earthquakes may cause significant 

damage to infrastructure and structures, as well as loss of life. 

Damage to transportation infrastructure due to earthquakes can be 

caused by surface faulting, liquefaction, or landslides.42 In addition, 

permafrost melt increases liquefaction potential, so these hazards 

are interrelated. Pacific earthquakes can also cause tsunamis, which 

can impact coastal areas.

40 USDOT Federal Highway Administration. Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd 

Edition. 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/adaptation_framework/

index.cfm.

41 Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013

42 ibid.

Vine Road 2018 Earthquake Damage. Alaska DOT&PF photo.

Mount Veniaminof, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.
Risk and Resilience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

73

Figure 16. Alaska CLRTP Risk and Resilience: Seismic and Volcanic Hazards Map
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

74

Gravel Processing at Toklat River, Denali National Park & Preserve. NPS photo.

Culverts at Nome Creek, White Mountain National Recreation Area. BLM photo.

Changes in Operations and Maintenance 

Changes in operations and maintenance practices can lead to changes 

in infrastructure condition. If assets are maintained less frequently, 

their condition may worsen and their overall lifespan may decrease. 

Two of the top risk related to operations and maintenance identified 

by Alaska FLMAs include 1) maintenance of drainage structures and 

culverts, and 2) gravel production, processing, and purchase.

When drainage structures or culverts become blocked by debris or 

ice, or are otherwise damaged, water is unable to pass through and 

the roadway may flood. This may disrupt travel on the road and limit 

access to adjacent FLMA sites. In the future, culverts may need to 

accommodate larger flows due to increasing severe precipitation 

events and quicker spring snowmelt in parts of the state. This 

may necessitate either the construction of larger culverts or more 

frequent maintenance of existing culverts. Additionally, there is no 

comprehensive data on the location and condition of culverts across 

FLMAs, making an analysis of the status of maintenance difficult. A 

related issue is that culverts and road drainage structures can block 

aquatic organism passage, limiting fish migration and spawning. The 

Environment goal area provides information about FLMA efforts to 

promote aquatic organism passage through culvert design.

Many roads in and providing access to FLMA units in Alaska have 

a gravel surface, and obtaining gravel is critical to maintaining the 

road in good condition. The cost, availability, and quality of gravel 

greatly depends on the source an FLMA uses for raw or processed 

gravel. For example, if FLMAs have to bring in gravel from offsite 

this will add to the costs of maintenance and construction projects. 

Gravel imported from offsite may also contain invasive species or 

asbestos, which will impact natural resources. The way that dust is 

managed on gravel roads can also impact air quality, the viewshed, 

health, and the natural environment. Agencies can reduce some of 

the risks related to gravel by coordinating on gravel production and 

sourcing for projects in the same geographic area. 

For example, Denali National Park & Preserve processes native 

mineral materials from the Toklat River area for construction projects 

and cyclic maintenance of the unpaved portion of the Denali Park 
Risk and Resilience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

75

Road. The gravel source and processing occurs in a centrally located 

area that the park identified in its Development Concept Plan and 

Gravel Acquisition Plan. Cyclic excavation and processing of material 

at Toklat will provide the material needed for a steady renewal of the 

park road’s structural integrity and bearing capacity, while providing 

a smooth well-drained, solid driving platform. Utilizing native 

resources and processing within the park allows for compatibility 

of materials on construction projects, avoids the need for importing 

materials that may include invasive plant seeds and non-native 

material, and minimizes the cost and need for transporting materials 

on the park road to project sites.

FLMA Management 

Risk assessment workshop participants identified risks related to 

FLMA management, including resource management and safety 

management, as top risks for Alaska FLMA transportation systems. 

As resource and safety management underlie much of the work that 

FLMAs do, these concepts are integrated throughout this plan. Goals 

and strategies related to resource management are discussed in more 

detail in this plan’s Environment goal area, and safety management 

is discussed under the Safety and Mobility goal area. Being aware of 

the risks related to these topic areas can help FLMAs plan for and 

succeed under a range of future conditions. For example, changes 

in resource management or safety management may be required 

due to shifting Federal budget levels, bureau policy, regulations, and 

guidance, turnover and retirement of personnel, or the development 

of new practices and techniques.

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the Risk and Resilience goal area: 

● Conduct vulnerability assessments and scenario planning 

to identify and rank vulnerabilities to natural hazards and 

extreme weather.

● Incorporate expected future conditions into the planning 

of operations and maintenance strategies and new 

transportation infrastructure. 

● Examine where permafrost is coming into contact with 

infrastructure using geospatial analysis and begin planning 

for long-term contingencies of roads impacted by permafrost 

subsidence. 

● Improve gravel sourcing by developing a program to identify 

and appropriately treat gravel sources and a set of best 

practices and memorandums of agreement to facilitate 

coordinated contracting of gravel sources to meet project 

and maintenance needs. 

Performance Management

Performance measures for the Risk and Resilience goal area include: 

● FLMA units that have completed an agency-appropriate 

vulnerability assessment

● Percent of assets that have been removed, improved, or 

altered to reduce vulnerability

● Percent of new assets that consider future conditions at the 

planning stage

● Completion of an inventory of culverts (percent of roads 

inventoried)
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

76

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

77

Partnerships

Goal Maintain existing mutually beneficial relationships and build future opportunities for collaboration 

with tribal, Federal, state, local, and other external partners.

Objectives • Partner Coordination: Coordinate with partners to share resources, data, and expertise.

• Project Champions: Coordinate with project champions to support mutually beneficial programs, initiatives, 

projects, and goal area working group activities.

Slate Creek Cove, Tongass National Forest. FS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

78

Introduction

Partnerships cut across all of the other goal areas in this LRTP, 

focusing on how agencies can work together to address common 

priorities. As such, the Partnership goal touches on the processes and 

shared resources that can help FLMAs and their partners improve 

conditions related to System Management, User Experience, Safety 

and Mobility, Environment, and Risk and Resilience. It is important 

for FLMAs to understand their partners’ missions, needs, and 

planning and programming processes. Collaborative partnerships 

have multiple benefits:

● Recognizing the unique context of a place and its value to 

diverse partners;

● Developing shared strategies for working toward stated 

goals on a landscape scale;

● Developing a coherent, seamless transportation network 

appropriate to its context;

● Identifying opportunities for mutual benefit or increased 

efficiency; and

● Identifying funding opportunities or efficiency gains 

available through partnerships.

Baseline Conditions and Trends

Partner Coordination

Through development of the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP in 2012, 

the FLMAs, Alaska DOT&PF, FHWA, and AML recognized the value 

of regular coordination and developed an implementation action 

to meet regularly. Since then, the Core Team has held monthly 

teleconferences to advance the implementation of the LRTP and 

to share project information. The group also meets annually for a 

project coordination meeting to review projects on the STIP and 

each agency’s program of projects that may provide an opportunity 

for multiagency collaboration. At these meetings, the agencies also 

discuss data-focused efforts and other relevant planning topics. 

The annual project coordination meeting ends with a list of both 

accomplishments and action items for each agency to continue to 

pursue. 

Collaboration for Access to Steese National 

Conservation Area

The BLM is working with the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources and the Alaska DOT&PF to improve access into the 

Steese National Conservation Area (NCA) in Interior Alaska. 

The 175-mile Steese Highway connects Fairbanks with the town of 

Circle. The proposed 35-mile road through the southern unit of the 

Steese NCA would follow a state right-of-way that would connect 

the Circle Hot Springs Road to the Independence Creek / Harrison 

Creek mining roads before linking back to the Steese Highway. 

Currently only four-wheel drive vehicles using an unmaintained 

mining road can access the area. Improving the road will provide 

access and opportunities for hunters and fishers, tour guides, float 

trips on Birch Creek Wild River, and even for goldmining.

Hut along Steese Highway. BLM photo.
Partnerships Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

79

West Glacier Trail Extension

The West Glacier Trail Extension was a collaborative effort that utilized FLAP funds, TAP funds, and FS 

commercial fees for a total of $1,055,124. The West Glacier area of the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation 

Area is at the end the Skater’s Cabin Road, accessed by streets maintained by the City and Borough of 

Juneau. The West Glacier area serves as a starting point for various recreation activities accessing Tongass 

National Forest. Alaska DOT&PF applied for and was awarded a FLAP grant in 2016 and partnered with 

FHWA WFL and the FS to implement it. Alaska DOT&PF served in transferring the TAP funds to FHWA 

WFL. Local commercial tour companies donated materials, as did the construction company who was 

awarded the job. Many agencies and groups were involved in the effort, including:

• FS - Tongass National Forest 

• FHWA WFL – FLAP funds

• State of Alaska DOT&PF - TAP funds

• City and Borough of Juneau – Access Road

• Cycle Alaska – Bike Racks

• Juneau Nordic Ski Club – Winter Trail Grooming 

• Liquid Alaska, Alaska Travel Adventures, and Above and Beyond Alaska – Commercial and NonCommercial launch locations

Outcomes of the successful collaboration 

addressed multiple issues that resulted in a better 

guided experience while enhancing year-round 

recreation for residents in:

• Safety: Moved pedestrians and bicyclists 

off the roadway and increased parking for 

motorized traffic.

• Accessibility: Facilitated easier access to 

public facilities, viewing points, and use of 

the trails for physically challenged as well 

as individuals of all fitness levels. 

• Capacity: Increased parking and public 

facilities and enhanced day use areas.

• Reduced conflict: between guide / 

outfitter operations and residents.

West Glacier Trail Extension. Alaska DOT&PF photo.

West Glacier Trail Extension. Source: Alaska DOT&PF.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

80

Federal Lands Access Program

The initial Alaska Collaborative LRTP of 2012 was crucial in enabling 

the FLMAs and their partners to better leverage funding to meet their 

shared transportation goals. The FLAP, administered by the FHWA is 

a formula-based program that provides funding for transportation 

planning, construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance for facilities 

located on or providing access to Federal lands. The program 

supplements state and local resources for public roads, bridges, trails, 

transit systems, multimodal, and other transportation facilities that 

are owned and/or maintained by the state, county, town, township, 

tribal, municipal, or local government. Federally-owned facilities are 

not eligible and for this reason, it is essential that FLMAs collaborate 

with state and local partners on developing applications for FLAP 

funds.

Collaborative Partners in Alaska

Collaboration among partners and disciplines is essential to an 

effective transportation system. To successfully plan for the various 

modes, geographies, and communities in Alaska, agencies need to 

coordinate across ownership boundaries and disciplines to meet 

context-sensitive transportation needs. It is important for FLMAs 

to recognize which partners to collaborate with based on context 

and to build this collaboration into planning and decision-making 

processes.

Federal Land Management Agencies

FLMAs collaborate with each other on issues that cut across land 

ownership boundaries, such as ecosystem, wildlife, and watershed 

management. In addition, users may pass through multiple FLMA 

lands in a trip. In many cases, the FLMAs’ transportation systems 

are interconnected, requiring coordination on transportation data, 

maintenance, and incident management. Collaboration between 

FLMAs may take place via formal Memoranda of Understanding 

(MOUs), Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), or Interagency 

Agreements (IAAs). FLMAs also may collaborate as stakeholders in 

other agencies’ land use and transportation planning processes.

U.S. Department of Transportation

The USDOT is an important partner for Federal lands transportation. 

The FHWA’s Federal Lands Highway WFL administers USDOT funds 

for Federal lands transportation programs, including FLTP, FLAP, and 

the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) Program. 

FLMA Collaboration: Arctic Interagency Visitor Center

The Arctic Interagency Visitor Center (AIVC) provides information and educational 

presentations and materials on the Arctic to the traveling public. The AIVC also 

disseminates important safety information related to driving the Dalton Highway, 

which has very limited services, and hiking in the remote Arctic. 

The AIVC is operated as a partnership between three federal agencies that manage 

the public lands along the Dalton Highway: the BLM, the NPS (Gates of the Arctic 

National Park & Preserve), and the FWS (Yukon Flats, Kanuti and Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuges). The Alaska Geographic Association is a not-for-profit cooperating 

partner and operates the bookstore.

There is an IAA between the federal agencies to operate the AIVC. BLM, FWS, and 

NPS all contribute towards the operations, maintenance, and staffing of the AIVC. Arctic Interagency Visitor Center. BLM photo.
Partnerships Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

81

WFL also provides planning support, technical assistance, and project 

delivery services for FLMAs. Because WFL works with all FLMAs in 

Alaska, WFL also can act as a convener to facilitate collaboration 

between FLMAs. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is also 

an important partner for FLMAs and their partners, because it 

administers grant funds for rural transit projects that may provide 

access to Federal lands. The FTA’s Rural Transit Assistance Program 

also provides technical assistance, peer resources, and other tools to 

support rural transit.43

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

The Alaska DOT&PF is a key partner for transportation planning to 

and within public lands. With a statewide, multimodal perspective, 

Alaska DOT&PF provides the link to other state agencies that require 

additional coordination. Alaska DOT&PF also collects and maintains 

statewide transportation datasets and monitors transportation 

system performance on the statewide transportation network, 

and they have strong relationships with local governments. They 

are a valuable resource and partner to FLMAs. Since travel to and 

through Federal lands is crucial to the state economy in Alaska 

and often provides key transportation connections between 

remote communities, it is likewise important for Alaska DOT&PF 

to collaborate with FLMAs. Table 6 depicts key statewide and area 

transportation plans. In addition, Alaska DOT&PF is involved in plans 

specific to particular modes as well as other transportation-related 

issues and these can be found on ADOT&PDF’s Statewide and Area 

Transportation Plans website.

Local Governments (MPOs, Boroughs, and Municipalities)

Boroughs, local governments, and MPOs are important partners for 

FLMAs in Alaska, since they own and maintain many of the local routes 

that access or pass through Federal land. Federal lands are often 

important economic development drivers for local communities, 

and FLMA-managed roads and trails are important routes for 

intracommunity access. For this reason, it is important for FLMAs to 

coordinate transportation plans, communicate, and share data with 

boroughs and local governments to meet the transportation needs 

of the FLMA and surrounding communities.

43 USDOT Federal Transit Administration. “National Rural Transit Assistance Program.” http://

nationalrtap.org/.

Table 6: Alaska DOT&PF Statewide and Area Plans

Area Document Date

State of Alaska Alaska Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan 

Let’s Keep Moving 2036: Policy Plan 2016

State of Alaska Alaska DOT&PF Strategic Plan 2008

State of Alaska Alaska DOT&PF Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP) 2017

Southeast Alaska Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan 2014 (draft)

Prince William Sound Prince William Sound Area Transportation Plan 2001

Southwest Alaska Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan 2016

Northwest Alaska Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan 2004

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta Transportation Plan 2018

Interior Alaska Interior Alaska Transportation Plan 2010
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

82

NPS and Alaska DOT&PF: Collaborating at Denali National Park & Preserve Nenana River Wayside - Milepost 231

Source: NPS and Alaska DOT&PF

A partnership between NPS and Alaska DOT&PF will result in a new bridge over the Nenana 

River. It includes a separated pedestrian / bicycle connection that moves them safely off 

the George Parks Highway, a new vehicular bridge, and a wayside with parking, shelter, 

seating, and signage. The new bridge creates a safe pedestrian route to two separate 

trailheads, for the Oxbow and Triple Lakes Trail, as well as the future Nenana River Trail. 

The laydown area for the construction of the new bridge is on park land and beneficial to 

Alaska DOT&PF for ease of construction. It also benefits Denali National Park & Preserve, 

because it creates a safe wayside where trail connections occur, safe access into the park, 

a potential shuttle stop area, and a safe photo opportunity for visitors at the entrance sign 

into the park. Improving multimodal safety connections in Denali Park Village, the gateway 

to the park will also be realized.

Partners:

• NPS Alaska Region

• Alaska DOT&PF

• Denali National Park & Preserve

Funding:

• FLAP funds

• NPS funds

• Alaska DOT&PF funds

MPOs are Federally mandated and Federally funded organizations 

that carry out metropolitan transportation planning for censusdefined urbanized areas with a population above 50,000. MPOs 

consist of representatives from local governments and transportation 

authorities. They develop Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs), 

which are LRTPs for their metropolitan planning areas, and develop 

annual Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). FLMAs should 

coordinate with MPOs on their MTPs and TIPs as well as other plans 

where relevant, such as safety, congestion, or active transportation 

plans.

FLMAs should consult with MPOs when developing LRTPs, unit-level 

transportation plans, and other project plans. In addition, FLMAs 

should coordinate with MPOs to provide input on their plans and 

programs. 

The Anchorage Metropolitan Area, due to its population greater than 

200,000, falls under the Transportation Management Area (TMA) 

rules. This means that Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Solutions (AMATS), the MPO for the Anchorage Bowl and ChugiakEagle River areas, is empowered to determine its own priority for 

projects and prepare its own TIP based on funding allocated to 
Partnerships Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

83

AMATS within the STIP. Alaska is unique compared to the other 49 

states in that the allocation of funds for Alaska TMAs is determined 

by Alaska DOT&PF within the STIP, rather than a statutory formula.

The two MPOs in Alaska are important partners for FLMA 

collaboration around urban areas. Though most Federal land is 

not within MPO boundaries, those lands that do fall within likely 

have high visitation by Alaska residents. Likewise, much of the local 

population that visits Federal lands originate from within the MPO 

areas. During the timeframe of this LRTP update, Matanuska-Susitna 

Valley may also become an MPO. This development would require 

further partnerships in the region.

Each MPO is required to create its own LRTP to guide regional 

transportation planning. Their current plans are listed in Table 8 

below. Coordinating with FLMAs is particularly important for those 

Federal lands in the same region.

Tribal Governments

Native Alaskan tribes are sovereign governments and receive 

Federal transportation funding through the Tribal Transportation 

Program (TTP) “to contribute to the economic development, selfdetermination, and employment of Indians and Native Americans.”44

The TTP is administered through the BIA or FHWA but also requires 

partner coordination for successful implementation. Partnerships 

between tribes and all U.S. government agencies are subject to 

Executive Order 13175, under which all FLMAs and Federal agencies 

are required to consult with tribes in a government-to-government 

relationship when considering policies that would impact tribal 

communities. Many Federal lands are adjacent to tribal lands, so it 

is important to coordinate with tribes on routes of mutual interest. 

Some tribes also include FLMA-owned roads on the National Tribal 

Transportation Facility Inventory. In addition, tribes are important 

stakeholders in FLMA transportation plans, because Federal lands 

44 USDOT Office of Federal Lands Highway. “Office of Tribal Transportation.” http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/

programs/ttp/. 

Table 7: Alaska MPOs

Major City MPO Population 

(2017 estimate) FLMA units near MPOs

Fairbanks Fairbanks Metropolitan Area 

Transportation System (FMATS) 97,738 Steese NCA, Denali NP&P, Yukon-Charley Rivers NP, White Mountains NRA, Nowitna NWR

Anchorage Anchorage Metropolitan Area 

Transportation Solutions (AMATS) 401,469 Chugash NF, Wrangell-Saint Elias NP&P, Kenai NWR, Lake Clark NP

Table 8: Alaska MPO Transportation Plans

Location Long-Range Transportation Plans Planned Updates

Anchorage Metropolitan Area 

Transportation Solutions (AMATS) 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2040 Update for 

Anchorage and Chugiak-Eagle River

2040 MTP Approved August 

2017 (Currently being updated)

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area 

Transportation System (FMATS) 

2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Envision 2045: 

Investing In Our Transportation Future 2045 MTP Approved
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Partnerships

84

Table 9: Agency Tribal Liaison Plans

Agency Tribal Liaison Plan

BLM https://www.blm.gov/services/tribal-consultation

NPS https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Tribal_Historic_Preservation_Officers_Program.htm

FWS https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/tribal-secretarial-order.html

FS http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/strategicplan.shtml

are important for their heritage, subsistence use, and community 

access. All FLMAs have tribal liaison plans to guide coordination with 

tribes, as shown in Table 9.

The ANCSA of 1971 and the ANILCA of 1980 have important 

applications to Federal lands transportation planning. ANCSA 

Section 17(b) describes how FLMAs must provide easements to 

allow access between ANCSA lands and Federal / state lands and 

waterways. ANILCA Title XI describes how FLMAs must consider 

special access and access to inholdings. FLMAs must permit use of 

snow machines, motorboats, airplanes, and other means of nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities, 

including subsistence uses by local residents and access to villages 

and homesites. These transportation uses however must be under 

reasonable regulation in order to protect the natural and cultural 

resources. ANCSA Corporation lands and private parcels that are 

Native allotments are in many cases adjacent to or even surrounded 

by Federal and state lands. In such settings, the law requires access to 

and through the public lands for ANCSA land owners and occupiers, 

as well as their successors. ANILCA Title VIII describes subsistence 

use on public lands. It requires that FLMAs cooperate with adjacent 

land owners and land managers, including Federal, state, and local 

agencies, as well as Native Corporations on routes that provide 

access to subsistence resources. In addition, the FLMAs must take 

into account negative impacts to subsistence resources that any 

transportation route would have, and seek to avoid detrimental 

effects to fish, wildlife, habitat, cultural resources, and on traditional 

and rural lifestyles in general.

Non-Governmental Partners

FLMAs partner with a wide range of non-governmental organizations, 

both non-profits and for-profit companies. All of these relationships 

are guided by FLMAs’ policies for partnering with non-governmental 

organizations.

Many non-profit partners have compatible missions to FLMAs and 

collaborate with FLMAs on shared goals. For example, “Friends of” 

groups tend to be locally based groups that care for and raise funds 

to support a particular FLMA unit of interest to a community. Other 

non-profits—for example, Alaska Trails—provide technical assistance 

and volunteer labor to help public lands build and maintain trails. 

Recreational groups—for example, the International Mountain Bike 

Association—often develop partnerships with FLMAs to support 

particular recreational activities. Associations may also provide a 

forum for exchange of information and are tuned in to issues that 

impact particular modes. The Alaska Aviation Coordination Council 

for example, works to share and exchange information, as well as 

provide accurate data to government agencies and the general 

public, and study and report on matters that impact the aviation 

community. FLMAs also partner with academic institutions on 

research projects, design, and implementation. The North and West 

Alaska Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit based at the University 

of Alaska Fairbanks brings together ten Federal agencies and ten 

research and technical representatives to provide research, technical 

assistance, and education to Federal FLMAs and environment and 

research agencies. One main objective is to “develop a program 

of research, technical assistance and education that involves 
Partnerships Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

85

the biological, physical, social, and cultural sciences needed to 

address resources issues and interdisciplinary problem-solving at 

multiple scales and in an ecosystem context at the local, regional, 

and national level.” In addition, special emphasis is placed on the 

working collaboration among Federal agencies and universities and 

their related partner institutions.45

It is also important for FLMAs to collaborate with for-profit 

companies on transportation plans and projects. For-profit partners 

include concessionaires, transit, air, and marine-based operators, 

and recreational outfitters. In addition, the for-profit companies that 

develop economic uses on Federal lands, such as logging, mining, oil 

and gas, and fishing companies, are important transportation system 

users. In many cases, private companies also build and maintain 

roads on or adjacent to Federal lands, working closely with FLMAs to 

plan, design, and build coordinated transportation systems.

45 University of Alaska Fairbanks. “About NWA-CESU.” http://www.uaf.edu/snre/cesu/about-nwa-cesu/. 

Looking Ahead

Alaska’s FLMAs identified the following actions that they will pursue 

to meet the objectives of the Partnerships goal area:

● Maintain Collaborative Multiagency Working Group

focusing on Federal lands transportation needs:

○ Maintain and update coordinated GIS systems

○ Participate in annual Project Coordination Meetings 

and regular teleconferences

○ Document collaborative accomplishments

● Tribal and Municipal Relations: Reach out to tribes, 

Alaska Native Corporations, and municipalities on LRTP 

implementation and update.

● Access to Subsistence Resources: Provide multiagency 

approach to guidance for access to subsistence.

● Pursue Collaborative Funding Opportunities such as 

FLAP, FLTP, and other applicable funding sources to support 

transportation projects, plans, and research.

● Coordinate Training Efforts: Organize annual multiagency 

training on topics of mutual interest, such as conducting 

Transportation Safety Assessments. In addition, each agency 

should invite other agency staff to attend applicable trainings 

they are organizing, as appropriate. 

Performance Management

Performance measures for the Risk and Resilience goal area include: 

● Percent of projects that leverage multiple funding sources 

and contribution to FLMA goals.

● Number of transportation plans or studies completed with 

interagency coordination or participation.

Rainbow Falls Trail Collaborative Project Between the Forest Service and Wrangell 

Cooperative Association. FS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

86

This page intentionally left blank.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

87

Funding Sources for Federal Lands 

Transportation Systems

Stony Overlook, Denali National Park & Preserve. NPS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

88

Funding Sources for Federal Lands 

Transportation Systems

FLMA transportation systems are funded through a variety of 

Federal, state, and local programs. At this time, the funding levels for 

these programs are not anticipated to increase significantly over the 

next 20 years. In the current fiscally constrained environment, a welldefined funding and investment strategy built on defensible project 

selection processes and a wide-ranging pool of funding programs 

is critical to ensure continued maintenance and improvement of 

transportation assets. Federal, state, and local jurisdictions continue 

to look for innovative funding mechanisms to span growing gaps 

between projected needs and anticipated available funds.

This chapter identifies a broad range of Federal and non-Federal 

funding programs that are available to FLMAs. It is also important to 

note that, in a geographically large and complex area such as Alaska, 

many of the principal access routes to and from individual FLMA 

units are facilities owned and operated by either Alaska DOT&PF or 

local partners. These partners use a variety of transportation funding 

programs with monies generated at the Federal, state, and local 

levels. These programs emphasize the importance of partnering with 

other Federal, state, and local agencies to overcome funding gaps.

FHWA Role

The FHWA WFL provides stewardship and oversight to FLMAs 

in the form of financial resources and technical assistance for 

transportation activities. These activities include transportation 

planning, environmental studies, preliminary and final design, 

construction, and rehabilitation of the highways and bridges that 

provide access to and within Federally owned lands.

Project coordination meetings among key stakeholders can result 

in development of an interagency menu of projects (a TIP of sorts) 

where agencies agree that follow-up between interested parties 

is warranted to explore partnership opportunities for one or more 

specific projects. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to optimize 

the utility of transportation investments that support LRTP goals and 

objectives, leverage partnerships to access diverse funding streams, 

and ultimately create cost-efficient construction scenarios.

As an agency, FHWA serves two primary roles in supporting the 

Alaska Federal lands transportation systems. First, Alaska DOT&PF 

receives Federal transportation funds to support their state and 

Interstate highway systems. The FHWA Federal-Aid Division offices 

in each state also provide stewardship, oversight, and support to 

Alaska DOT&PF, and to the MPOs and Regional Transportation 

Planning Organizations (RTPOs) in each state, through the entire 

project development cycle.

Common Federal Lands Transportation 

Funding Programs

As noted previously, many of the principal access routes to and from 

individual FLMA units are facilities owned and operated by either 

Alaska DOT&PF or local government agencies. These state and 

local governments use a variety of transportation funding programs 

with monies generated at the Federal, state, and local levels. At the 

Federal level, most funds are provided through either the Title 23 

program for surface transportation or the Title 49 program for urban 

and rural public transportation services. (Please refer to http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/summary.cfm for a summary of the major 

provisions of the FAST Act.) While the funding associated with these 

Federal transportation programs benefits all users of the surface 

transportation systems in Alaska to some degree, these programs 

are not specifically focused on the needs of visitors to the various 

FLMA units.

Numerous transportation funding programs are available to all 

FLMAs. These programs are described in the following sections and 

target specific transportation-related project types and purposes. 

A common theme for many of these programs is local partnership. 

These programs emphasize the importance of partnering by FLMA 

units with other Federal, state, and local agencies to overcome 

funding gaps. Many of these funding sources were authorized initially 

through MAP-21, enacted in July 2013, and were reauthorized in the 

FAST Act, which was enacted in December 2015.
Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

89

Table 10: Federal Lands Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total

NPS $268 M $276 M $284 M $292 M $300 M $1.42 B

FWS $30 M $30 M $30 M $30 M $30 M $150 M

FS $15 M $16 M $17 M $ 18 M $19 M $85 M

BLM, USACE, BOR, and IFAs $22 M $23 M $24 M $25 M $26 M $120 M

Total $335 M $345 M $355 M $365 M $ 375 M $1.78 B

*M = millions of dollars, B = billions of dollars

Federal Lands Transportation Program

The FLTP was established under MAP-21 and continued under the 

FAST Act (23 USC §203). The stated legislative purpose of the program 

is to improve those transportation facilities that are owned and 

operated by the NPS, FWS, FS, BLM, USACE, BOR, and Independent 

Federal Agencies (IFAs) with natural resource and land management 

responsibilities. (Please refer to the FLTP implementation guidance 

presented at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/fltp/documents/

FLTP%20Guidance%20-%20CLEARED.pdf on the FHWA public 

website for additional program details.)

By statute, NPS, FWS, and FS receive a defined annual allocation 

of the total nationally authorized and appropriated funding 

amount for this program. The remaining FLTP funding each year 

is made available to the other defined recipient agencies based 

on competitive application submissions from each agency. On the 

basis of these competitive investment strategies, the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation (OST) will determine allocations by using 

a performance management model. Table 10 shows the annual FLTP 

national funding authorizations and the defined suballocations 

through fiscal year (FY) 2020.

The Federal share for FLTP projects is 100 percent. Funds made 

available under FLTP will be available for obligation during the 

current Federal fiscal year in which they were appropriated plus 

three additional Federal fiscal years.

As described in the enabling Federal legislation, the FLTP provides 

funding for the following activities:

● Program administration, transportation planning, research, 

preventive maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation, 

restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal 

lands transportation facilities

● Capital, operations, and maintenance of transit facilities

● Transportation projects, eligible under Title 23, that are on 

the public network that provides access to, is adjacent to, or 

travels through Federal lands

● Up to $10 million per fiscal year for environmental 

mitigation activities
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

90

Table 11: Historical and Anticipated FLAP Funding for Alaska, FY13-FY18

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Total

Alaska $7.1 M $7.2 $7.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $7.5 M $44.8 M

Sources: USDOT Federal Highway Administration. September 30, 2015. “FLAP Funding Amounts by State, FY13-FY15.” https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/

flap/documents/2015-funding.pdf.

USDOT Federal Highway Administration. June 7, 2017. “FLAP Funding Amounts by State, FY16.” https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/documents/FAST_

Public_FundingTABLE_FY2016.pdf.

Federal Lands Access Program

FLAP was established in 23 USC §204 by MAP-21 and has been 

continued by the FAST Act. The primary focus of the program is to 

improve those non-Federally owned transportation facilities that 

provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal 

lands. The FLAP supplements state and local resources for public 

roads, transit systems, and other transportation facilities, with an 

emphasis on the improvement of access opportunities to FLMAs 

with units that are cited as being high-use recreation sites and local 

economic generators. (Please refer to the following FHWA program 

implementation guidance document for additional information 

on the FLAP program: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

documents/FLAP%20Implem%20Guidance.docx.)

Projects are selected by a Programming Decision Committee (PDC) 

established in each state. The PDC members in each state must 

include: a representative of the FLH division responsible for that 

state (in this case, the WFL), a representative of the state DOT in 

that state, and a representative of some organization representing 

the views of local governments in that state. In Alaska the latter 

PDC member is represented by the AML. The PDCs request project 

applications through a call for projects. The frequency of the calls is 

established by the PDCs in each state, and typically varies from no 

more frequently than once each year to an average of once every 

two to three years.

Funds available to each state are determined by a legislatively 

mandated formula based on public land acreage, visitation, public 

road miles, and public bridges. The historically observed FLAP 

funding amounts over the FY13 to FY15 time period, and the 

anticipated future annual funding over the FY16 to FY18 time period, 

in Alaska are illustrated on Table 11.

Table 12 presents the national FLAP authorizations defined in the 

FAST Act for the period of FY2016 through FY2020. In total, the 

national authorized funding for this program is $1.3 billion.

Table 12: FLAP Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount $250 M $255 M $260 M $265 M $270 M

*M = millions of dollars

Source: USDOT Federal Highway Administration. “FLAP FAST Act Fact Sheet.” https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/

programs/flap/documents/FAST%20FLAP%20fact%20sheet.pdf.

Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal 

Projects

The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects 

(NSFLTP) Program is a new program established by the FAST Act for 

application to FLMA major projects. All FLTP, FLAP, and TTP eligible 

agencies can apply. States and localities may be co-applicants. This 

program is designed to provide additional financial assistance for 

the implementation of those “major” projects with total estimated 

costs of at least $25 million, with priority consideration given to 

projects with an estimated cost of more than $50 million. The NSFLTP 

Program requires that at least 10 percent of the total estimated 

project cost funding come from non-NSFLTP sources. Projects must 
Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

91

have completed the NEPA process, as demonstrated by a completed 

record of decision, finding of no significant impact, or categorical 

exclusion determination. This program is authorized in the FAST Act 

for up to $100 million per year. 

In reviewing applications for the NSFLTP program, the Secretary of 

Transportation will consider the extent to which the project:

● Furthers the Department’s goals, including state of good 

repair, economic competitiveness, quality of life, and safety;

● Improves the condition of critical transportation facilities, 

including multimodal transportation facilities;

● Needs construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation;

● Has matching funds (projects with a greater percentage 

of matching funds rank higher than projects with a lesser 

percentage of matching funds);

● Is included on or eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places;

● Uses new technologies and innovations to increase project 

efficiency;

● Is supported (whether for construction or for operation and 

maintenance) by funds other than those received under this 

program;

● Spans two or more states; and

● Serves land owned by multiple Federal agencies or Indian 

tribes. [FAST Act § 1123(f)]

Tribal Transportation Program

As defined in MAP-21, and as continued by the FAST Act, the 

purpose of the TTP is to provide safe and adequate transportation 

and public access to, within, and through Indian reservations for 

Native Americans, visitors, recreational users, resource users, and 

others. A prime objective of the TTP is to contribute to the health, 

safety, economic development, self-determination, and employment 

of Indians and Native Americans. (For additional details on this 

program, please refer to: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/guidance.

cfm.)

The FAST Act continues the TTP, with a Federal share of 100 percent. 

Table 13 presents the annual authorization amounts over the period 

FY16 to FY20 for this program as defined in the FAST Act.

Prior to distributing these funds, nominal amounts may be deducted 

for program administration, tribal planning, tribal bridges, tribal safety 

projects, and tribal supplemental funding. When the aforementioned 

set-asides are removed, the remainder of the annually appropriated 

funds are allocated to tribes according to a statutory formula based 

on tribal population, road mileage, and average tribal shares under 

the predecessor Indian Reservation Road program.

Table 13: Tribal Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, 

FY16-FY20

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

National 

Amount $465 M $475 M $485 M $495 M $505 M

Alaska State 

Share $45.3 M $45.3 M $45.7 M $46.3 M $47.3 M

*M = millions of dollars

Source: USDOT Federal Highway Administration. February 2016. “Tribal Transportation Program FAST Act 

Fact Sheet.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Fastact/factsheets/tribaltransportationfs.cfm.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

92

Transportation Alternatives Set-aside of the 

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

The Transportation Alternatives set-aside of the Surface Transportation 

Block Grant (STBG) Program (previously Transportation Alternatives 

Program, or TAP) offers funding to help state and local governments 

expand transportation choices and enhance the built and natural 

environment. To be eligible for funding, a transportation enhancement 

project must fit into one or more of 12 eligible transportation 

enhancement activities specified in 23 USC §104 related to surface 

transportation, which include:

● Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs;

● Scenic and historic highway programs;

● Landscaping and scenic beautification;

● Preservation of historic transportation facilities; and

● Environmental mitigation and habitat connectivity 

enhancements associated with transportation facilities.

FLMAs are eligible recipients, or they can work with partners, such as 

gateway communities, to submit applications.

The program will continue to operate essentially as it did previously. 

This includes all projects and activities that were previously eligible 

under TAP. Table 14 illustrates the annual authorization amounts for 

the Transportation Alternatives Set-aside of the STBG Program over 

the period FY16-FY20 as described in the FAST Act.

The FAST Act requires all projects to be funded through a competitive 

process, administered by state DOTs and, in some cases, MPOs. To 

pursue TAP funding, FLMAs should reach out to their states and 

communities, develop partnerships, and make the case for how their 

projects meet state and local goals.

Table 14: Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside of the STBG Program Annual 

Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount $250 M $255 M $260 M $265 M $270 M

*M = millions of dollars

Source: USDOT Federal Highway Administration. February 2016. “Transportation Alternatives Program 

FAST Act Fact Sheet.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/transportationalternativesfs.cfm.

Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to states for the 

purpose of developing and maintaining recreational trails and trailrelated facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational 

uses (23 USC §206). Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, 

in-line skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, 

off-road motorcycling, ATV riding, or using other off-road motorized 

vehicles.

Eligible projects include:

● Maintenance and restoration of existing recreational trails;

● Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead 

facilities and trail linkages for recreational trails;

● Purchase and lease of recreational trail construction and 

maintenance equipment;

● Construction of new recreational trails (with specific 

requirements when Federal land is involved);

● Acquisition of easements and fee simple title for 

recreational trail corridors; and

● Assessment of trail conditions.

The FAST Act consolidates the RTP, among other programs, into the 

STBG Program. However, the RTP will continue to operate essentially 

as it did previously. RTP provides a total of $85 million annually to 
Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

93

states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related 

facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail 

uses. Alaska is apportioned roughly $1.5 million for RTP annually, 

which is administered by the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources.46 

Of the RTP funds, 30 percent are to be spent for uses relating to 

motorized recreation and 30 percent are to be spent for uses relating 

to non-motorized recreation. In addition, up to 40 percent is to be 

used for projects that facilitate diverse recreational trail use within a 

recreational trail corridor, trailside, or trailhead.

Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

The ERFO Program assists Federal agencies with the repair or 

reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, Federal lands 

transportation facilities, and other Federally owned roads that are 

open to public travel, which are found to have suffered serious 

damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic 

failure.47 The intent of the ERFO Program is to pay the unusually 

heavy expenses for the repair and reconstruction of eligible facilities.

Repairs are classified as either emergency or permanent repairs. 

Emergency repairs are those repairs undertaken during or immediately 

after a disaster to restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent 

of damage, or to protect the remaining facilities. Permanent repairs 

are those repairs undertaken after the occurrence of the disaster to 

restore facilities to their pre-disaster conditions. Emergency repairs 

do not require prior approval, while permanent repairs do.

This program is not intended to cover all repair costs but rather 

to supplement FLMA repair programs to help pay unusually high 

expenses resulting from the effects of extreme weather conditions. 

Funds are provided from the Highway Trust Fund. No funding match 

is required by the program; the Federal share is 100 percent.

46 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. “Recreational Trails Program.” http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/

grants/trails.htm

47 USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 2016. Summary of Changes by the FAST Act to the 

Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) Program. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/

documents/fast-changes-summary.pdf.

Emergency Relief (ER) for Federal-Aid Highways 

and Roads

The ER Program assists state DOTs and local governments with 

the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and roads 

on Federal lands which have suffered serious damage as a result 

of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause. 

This program supplements the commitment of resources by states, 

their political subdivisions, or other Federal agencies to help pay for 

unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.48

Like ERFO, this program is not intended to cover all repair costs but 

rather to supplement FLMA repair programs to help pay unusually 

high expenses resulting from the effects of extreme weather 

conditions. Funds are provided from the Highway Trust Fund. 

Approved ER funds are available at the pro-rata share that would 

normally apply to the Federal-aid facility damaged. For Interstate 

highways, the Federal share is 90 percent. For all other highways, 

48 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/erelief.cfm

Dalton Highway Flooding. Alaska DOT&PF photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

94

the Federal share is 80 percent. The Federal share for permanent 

ER repairs may amount to 90 percent if the combined eligible ER 

expenses incurred by the state in a Federal fiscal year exceeds the 

annual apportionment of the state under 23 USC section 104 for the 

fiscal year in which the disasters or failures occurred.

Emergency repair work to restore essential travel, minimize the 

extent of damage, or protect the remaining facilities, accomplished 

in the first 180 days after the disaster occurs, may be reimbursed at 

100 percent Federal share. The 180 day time period for 100 percent 

eligibility of emergency repairs may be extended if a state cannot 

access a site to evaluate damages and the cost of repair.

Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 

Projects

The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program 

(NSFHP) is newly authorized in the FAST Act. This is a nationally 

competitive program created to allow for states, MPOs, and local 

agencies to address major investment needs. FLMAs are eligible to 

be co-applicants with states.

To be eligible for the receipt of these funds, any proposed projects 

must be categorized as meeting one or more of the following:

1. Highway freight projects on the National Highway Freight 

Network

2. Highway or bridge projects on the National Highway System 

or a project that would improve mobility or is located in a 

national scenic area

3. Freight intermodal projects

4. Railway-highway grade crossing or separation projects

NSFHP projects require a 40 percent match from non-NSFHP sources. 

Up to 20 percent can be from other programs such as FLTP; however, 

the remaining 20 percent must be from non-Federal sources.

The focus of this program is on projects with a total cost of greater 

than $100 million. However, it is anticipated that there will be setasides for smaller projects and rural areas.

Non-Federal Sources

Although not a formally defined funding source, volunteer work can 

be an important source for labor and other talent. There are many 

different types and sizes of public land volunteer organizations 

in Alaska. FLMA staff should work with their agency procurement 

and contracting staff to ensure volunteer agreements meet agency 

requirements. In addition to the use of volunteer civilian personnel, 

a variety of other public and private agency staff and/or individuals 

may have an interest in the contribution of labor, materials, or funding 

to assist an FLMA with a specific transportation asset improvement 

action.

Alaska State Funding Opportunities

Alaska Transportation Alternatives Program 

The Alaska Transportation Alternatives Program (ATAP) was 

authorized by MAP-21 and largely maintained by the FAST ACT to 

Dalton Highway Crossing the Yukon River. BLM photo.
Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

95

Table 15: Historical and Anticipated ATAP Funding, FY16, FY19

Rural Urban Statewide Total

2016 $3,731,000 $ 2,083,000 $ 9,892,000 $15,706,000

2018 - 2019 $2,640,000 $2,040,000 $7,320,000 $12,000,000

Sources: Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. July 27, 2016. “Alaska Transportation 

Alternatives Program (ATAP). 2016 Awarded Projects.” http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/atap/2016-grant.

shtml.

Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. August 8, 2019. “Alaska Transportation 

Alternatives Program (ATAP)” http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/atap/index.shtml.

Table 16: Recreational Trails Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20

2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount $1.146 M $1.283 M $1.291 M $1.410 M

Number of Projects 31 32 22 26

*M = millions of dollars

Iditarod National Historic Trail. BLM photo.

provide funding for programs and projects defined as transportation 

alternatives.49 Funding was apportioned to MPOs with greater than 

200,000 urbanized area populations, and apportioned to rural 

(defined as areas with populations 5,000 and under), urban (defined as 

areas with populations between 5,000 and 200,000), and a statewide 

program (covering all areas, including those that may also qualify 

as rural or urban). The Alaska DOT&PF requests project applications 

through a call for projects on a two-three year cycle, depending on 

funding availability. Projects are checked for eligibility by Alaska 

DOT&PF staff and then chosen by the ATAP Project Evaluation Board 

during a public meeting, and scored according to a 12-part rubric 

that examines health and quality of life, public support, capital costs, 

and more.50

The historically observed ATAP funding amounts from the FY16, 

and the anticipated future annual funding over the FY18 to FY19 

time period are illustrated on Table 15. The table shows total project 

49 http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/atap/index.shtml

50 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. 2018. TAP (TRAAK) Projects Criteria 2018

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/atap/documents/TAP-(TRAAK)-Projects-Criteria-2018.pdf

funds, including both awarded and matching funds. ATAP requires at 

least 9.03% matching funds from applicant governments, although 

additional scoring points are awarded for greater contributions; 

ultimately, match funds tended to comprise between 10% and half 

of project funds.

Community Transportation Program

The Community Transportation Program (CTP)51 is a component of the 

Alaska STIP. The Alaska STIP is scored according to separate criteria 

for a) urban and rural communities and b) remote communities, 

those not connected to the Alaska road system by road or ferry.52

Federal Lands Access Program

As previously described in this document, the FLAP is intended to 

improve those non-Federally owned transportation facilities that 

provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands.

51 http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/cip/stip/projects/2023_ctp_peb.shtml

52 http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/cip/stip/projects/Assets/2023_CTP_Criteria_Final.pdf
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Funding Sources for Federal Lands Transportation Systems

96

Alaska Recreational Trails Program

The Alaska RTP provides reimbursable, matching funds from the 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources to develop and repair 

recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized 

and motorized recreational trail uses.53 The RTP program also 

provides funds for trail related environmental protection, safety and 

educational projects.

Agreements in General

In certain situations, and with the appropriate legal authority, 

FLMAs can enter into partnership agreements with cooperators for 

road maintenance and construction activities. Road maintenance 

agreements are more common than agreements for construction 

improvements. Several elements are common to all types of 

partnerships, such as:

● Mutual interest in some goal or value;

● A state of participation or sharing;

● No conflict of interest;

● Agreement must be executed before costs are incurred or 

work commences;

● A specific relationship between the parties (written 

agreement); and

● Voluntary participation.

Cost Share Agreements

The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1992 

authorizes DOI agencies to cooperate with other parties to develop, 

plan, and implement projects that are mutually beneficial to 

parties that enhance activities. This includes financing projects with 

matching funds from cooperators. Cooperators may be public and 

private agencies, organizations, institutions, and/or individuals.

53 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. 2019. “Recreational 

Trails Program” http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/grants/trails.htm

Funding Gaps

Each FLMA is experiencing decreases in the availability of 

transportation funds, while needs for routine maintenance and 

new projects remain constant or are increasing. Lack of funding 

contributes to increasing levels of deferred maintenance. Assets 

degrade over time and as maintenance continues to be deferred, 

the magnitude of the costs required to bring assets back to proper 

condition (i.e., to a “state of good repair”) will only continue to grow.

FLMAs are challenged in how transportation funds are allocated. 

If yearly operation and maintenance costs exceed available funds, 

agencies must choose which assets receive funding, and to what 

level they are to be maintained. New projects are impacted by lower 

funding levels and increasing funding competition from the demands 

of deferred maintenance to ensure that existing assets can continue 

to be operated safely. There is a growing necessity to show that 

new projects are critical to the mission of each FLMA. Establishing 

frameworks for identifying the critical projects and making the very 

best use of available funds is one of the primary purposes of this Plan 

and accompanying agency profiles. The project selection processes, 

performance measures, actions, and recommendations ensure that 

transportation funds continue to support those efforts that are most 

effective in furthering FLMA missions.

More specific information on each agency’s funding needs is 

available in the agency drop-down plans.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Outreach Plan

97

Outreach Plan

Katlian Bay Road Construction Kick-Off. Alaska DOT&PF photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Outreach Plan

98

Outreach Plan

The LRTP multiagency planning team designed outreach for this 

LRTP to inform and solicit input from interested stakeholders 

and the public. The intent of outreach is to help the public and 

stakeholders understand and influence how LRTP strategies could 

eventually translate into specific projects, and how the LRTP does 

not itself select projects. The LRTP’s multiagency team used various 

outreach methods to communicate plan intent, garner agreement to 

the plan’s approach and assumptions, solicit input that furthers the 

intent and/or effectiveness of the plan, and provide opportunities 

to comment on a draft document. Because this LRTP update is a 

pre-decisional policy document, it does not require a NEPA review. 

Although the level of outreach conducted on behalf of this plan is 

not intended to meet the levels required of NEPA projects, it can be 

used as a springboard for subsequent NEPA efforts for projects that 

may be influenced by the LRTP. 

The goals of Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 2020-2040 outreach efforts 

include:

● Inform and educate external stakeholders about Federal 

Land Management Agency (FLMA) transportation planning 

processes

● Provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify their 

concerns, values, ideas, and interests with regard to access 

to and within Federal public lands

● Allow agency management and external stakeholders the 

opportunity to provide input on this LRTP

● Build support for the transportation planning process

● Strengthen existing partnerships while forging new ones

In general, the outreach strategy for the Alaska LRTP update 

strategically leveraged existing events rather than creating new 

ones. The Core Team members sought out and attended relevant 

workshops, meetings, and conferences that were already planned 

by groups that may have an interest in the FLMA transportation 

planning process. By researching and keeping apprised of events 

planned with relevant stakeholders, attendance maximized the value 

of an already captured audience that should be reached. The Core 

Team also sent team members to attend events near where they 

were already located in order to minimize travel costs.

Since the first Alaska Federal Lands LRTP was published in 2012, 

outreach has led to some noteworthy accomplishments. In the years 

leading up to this LRTP update, some of the major achievements in 

ongoing outreach are:

● Monthly coordination calls among representatives of the 

FLMAs, Alaska DOT&PF, and AML

● Annual project coordination meetings 

As an example, the annual project coordination meetings are inperson events that include representatives from each FLMA, Alaska 

DOT&PF, and AML. The project coordination meetings serve to 

identify projects of mutual interest and possible partnerships. They 

support the development of an interagency menu of projects (a 

Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) of sorts) where agencies 

agree that follow-up between interested parties is warranted to 

further explore and implement partnership opportunities.

Specific efforts that were developed or advanced through outreach 

and continued relationship-building activities are:

● Unpaved roads pilot with gravel road inventory and condition 

assessment

● TINA workshop, advancing GIS and use of geospatial data in 

public lands

● Coordination on new TTP funding requirements

● Coordinating and implementing common performance 

metrics 
Outreach Plan Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

99

● Climate change planning

● CVTS and Visitation Trends Report

● Alaska Transportation Safety Study—coordinated data 

collection and analysis for injury and fatality statistics 

throughout all transportation modes; subsequent drafting of 

safety performance measures

● Animal / vehicle collision app

● TIPs, STIPs, FLAPs, FLTPs

Outreach Levels and Context

This LRTP built upon other FLMA and partner agencies’ planning 

and outreach activities, thereby providing multiple opportunities for 

internal and external parties to become aware and/or involved in the 

LRTP planning process. Outreach can be categorized into three basic 

levels, listed in order of most to least involved: 

● Involved

● Informed 

● Aware

In transportation planning for public lands, these levels of outreach 

are useful for different audiences depending on whether the 

opportunities are project level, plan level, or policy level. 

Project-level outreach occurs when specific projects are being 

developed through the evaluation and assessment process used 

under NEPA. Plan-level outreach occurs during development 

of medium-range or long-range plans that analyze specific 

transportation needs and identify potential project solutions such 

as land use management plans, comprehensive conservation 

plans, area long-range transportation plans, MPO LRTPs, borough 

transportation plans, corridor studies for specific highways or local 

transit development plans. Policy-level outreach occurs during the 

development of a LRTP, such as this Alaska Federal Lands LRTP 

update, regional transportation plans, and Alaska DOT&PF’s Let’s 

Keep Moving 2036. Such long-range policy plans provide guidance 

and direction for transportation programs. In short, they address 

“big picture” topics. 

As this Alaska Federal Lands LRTP update is a policy-level document, 

it will not develop a list of selected projects, such as those developed 

in agency specific TIPs. Outreach activities associated with specific 

projects are conducted at the appropriate level of planning by 

individual FLMAs. 

Collecting Wind Data at Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Outreach Plan

100

The public has further opportunity to provide input on specific 

proposed projects through the NEPA project evaluation and 

assessment process. All projects that include Federal funding 

must comply with the NEPA process. The NEPA process requires 

public outreach at several stages: project scoping (to present the 

proposed project and identify potential issues), public review of 

the draft environmental document (environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement), and public review of the final 

environmental impact statement. Additional public involvement 

opportunities, such as public meetings are often provided at various 

stages of project development.

Figure 17: Spheres of Outreach

• Concessionaires

• Stakeholder Organizations

• Professional Organizations

• Federal Aviation 

 Administration

• Non-governmental 

 Organizations

• Municipal and Regional 

 Government Entities

 • Citizen’s Advisory 

 Commission on 

 Federal Areas

• Borough Agencies

• Denali Commission

• Alaska Railroads

• Tribal Nations

• Bureau of Indian Affairs

• Other relevant 

 government 

 agencies outside 

 of the Core Team

• Core Team

• FLMA Management

• U.S. DOT

• Other delegations

• Alaska residents

• Visitors to Alaska

• Interested groups 

 outside of Alaska

• The general public

INVOLVED

INFORMED

AWARE

Recognizing that not all potential stakeholders are interested 

in participating in every outreach activity, three categories of 

stakeholders have been identified for this LRTP Update, as illustrated 

by the three spheres shown in Figure 17. The planning team 

tailored outreach content to the interests of each specific audience 

represented in the spheres. The innermost sphere represents the 

most involved stakeholders, with involvement intensity and level of 

information and detail regarding the LRTP decreasing through the 

middle and outer spheres.

The participants listed in the inner sphere, or “Involved,” of Figure 

17 received the most outreach interaction as the LRTP’s results 

could potentially influence project-related activities from the unit to 

the agency levels. These participants were briefed throughout the 

LRTP development process to foster widespread buy-in and ensure 

agency-specific concerns are adequately addressed by the plan. 

During the development of this LRTP, FLMA senior management 

were briefed routinely on LRTP purpose, goals, objectives, and status 

to ensure agency concurrence with the plan and its outcomes. Buy-in 

from senior management is important for this multiagency LRTP as 

the plan reflects elements of each agency’s national transportation 

policy goals.

The participants listed in the middle sphere of Figure 17 tend to 

have a greater stake in the LRTP because their own efforts may 

have some degree of overlap with plan goals, objectives, analysis, 

or conclusions. At this level, examples of cooperative interests 

range from concessionaire business plans, to non-vehicular access 

concerns, and ideally, coordination and consistency with similarlyrelated local or other governmental agency transportation plans. 

In many states, LRTP development may not typically generate 

considerable interest from the general public given their non-project 

specific emphasis and policy level goals, objectives, and analysis. In 

most cases, the general public and other participants listed in the 

outermost sphere of Figure 17 are interested in the basic themes of 

a plan like this Alaska Federal Lands LRTP update and understanding 

how the process may result in specific projects of further interest to 

them.
Outreach Plan Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

101

Outreach Events

Outreach activities involve diverse audiences in a wide range of 

forums. Sequencing of outreach events varies by audience. Internal 

FLMA outreach to senior management occurred throughout the 

planning process to brief decision makers regarding topics such as 

goals, objectives, and strategies, and availability of technical drafts. 

External outreach will continue to occur as opportunities present 

themselves. Opportunities for external outreach include conferences 

and meetings where groups represented are most likely to have 

an interest in this LRTP and a presentation would complement 

conference proceedings. 

External outreach events to date include the following: 

● TRB Annual Meeting, January 2016, Washington, DC

● Alaska Federation of Natives Conference, November 2016, 

Fairbanks, AK

● TRB Annual Meeting, January 2017, Washington, DC

● Alaska Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, March 2017, 

Anchorage, AK

● Alaska Tribal Transportation Working Group Symposium, 

March 2017, Anchorage, AK

● Southeast Alaska Tribal Transportation Workshop, April 

2017, Ketchikan, AK

● TRB Symposium on the Transportation Needs of National 

Parks and Public Lands, September 2017, Washington, DC

● Alaska Tribal Conference on Environmental Management, 

November 2017, Anchorage, AK

● BIA Annual Providers Conference, December 2017, 

Anchorage, AK

● TRB Annual Meeting, January 2018, Washington, DC

● Alaska Forum on the Environment, February 2018, 

Anchorage, AK

● Alaska Tribal Transportation Working Group Symposium, 

April 2018, Anchorage, AK

● BIA Providers Conference, November 2018, Anchorage, AK

Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. FWS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Outreach Plan

102

Outreach Delivery Tools

Numerous outreach tools were used during the development of 

the LRTP update and will continue during LRTP implementation. 

Outreach tools range from passive informational resources such 

as handouts and websites, to meetings and formal briefings and 

presentations. Planning team members encourage participation 

through the following methods:

Briefings

Briefings will be used most extensively for participants listed in 

the inner sphere of Figure 17. These briefings will provide senior 

management and other agency leaders with updates on LRTP update 

progress and findings. Participants will be engaged throughout the 

planning process and will be provided concise newsletter-level 

hardcopy information, supplemented by in-person discussions with 

Core Team representatives. Briefings will accompany key project 

milestones. 

Presentations

In-person presentations will be conducted for both inner and middle 

sphere (Figure 17) participants as they provide a comprehensive 

basis for understanding the LRTP update effort through direct faceto-face interaction. Presentations will be tailored specifically to 

audience interests. Presenters will be apprised beforehand of any 

specific issues important to a particular audience.

Handouts

Handouts alerting stakeholders of project purpose, goals, and 

schedule will be provided to all three spheres represented in Figure 

17 as a way of introducing the LRTP effort and building ongoing 

interest. Handout content will be concise and suitable for all outreach 

participants. Frequency of distribution will be in coordination with 

events and accompanying project milestones.

Website

The project website is intended for all outreach participants as a way 

to build interest and as a source of general information, updates, 

draft plans, links to relevant websites and documents, contact 

information, and gateway to public comment. The Core Team will 

work with in-house contractors to create a new website, and in the 

agreement with the website developers, consideration will be given to 

funding for duration of website maintenance and periodic updating 

to an agreed-upon degree. This could range from an infrequent but 

necessary change to fix a broken link to periodic news updates on 

the project. The video may also be present on the website.

Video

The Alaska LRTP update video will be intended for all outreach 

participants in order to both inform and build interest. It will be 

short in length (approximately 3 1⁄2 minutes) and give an overview of 

the project and lead interested parties to more information on the 

website. The video may be played at conferences and workshops, 

posted on the Alaska LRTP update website, and may accessible from 

the various public land agency websites, social media pages, and 

YouTube channels.

E-blast

E-blasts combine the advantages of printed and electronic resources 

through the use of an email listserv. The e-blast will reach all 

participants who register via the project website, by request during 

in-person events, or are added to the listserv by the Core Team. 

E-blasts will be sent out accompanying project milestones.

Social Media

A variety of media channels will be used to dispense information 

regarding the LRTP effort, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. 

The agencies involved in the Core Team will be responsible for 

updating their respective social media feeds that reach relevant 

audiences at the state and unit levels. The project team will ensure 

coordination of content on the various social media outlets.
Outreach Plan Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

103

Outreach Audiences

Alaska DOT&PF

Alaska DOT&PF plans and initiatives help to influence FLMA longrange transportation planning. In addition, the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP efforts include Alaska DOT&PF planning staff as Core Team 

members. The team relies on them to reach out to other state level 

agencies as needed. While the state of Alaska conducts outreach 

for their own planning processes, it is an opportunity for the Alaska 

Federal Lands LRTP team to disseminate materials and communicate 

with relevant groups statewide. It is also an opportunity to reach a 

greater variety of geographic areas. Alaska DOT&PF is engaged in 

many planning activities and areas of interest that overlap with the 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, such as the recent statewide bicycle and 

pedestrian master plan. Alaska DOT&PF staff can bring handouts 

to events and provide an overview of how the LRTP effort aligns 

with other state transportation planning efforts. Alaska DOT&PF 

staff members are key in bridging this communication. Statewide 

transportation-related studies and policies help inform aspects of 

the LRTP and are central to informing Alaska transportation needs 

over all. The following Alaska DOT&PF plans and programs are of 

particular interest to FLMA transportation planning as they embody 

the results of Alaska DOT&PF outreach efforts, portray the state’s 

vision for the statewide transportation system, suggest areas of 

potential partnership, and provide valuable data about statewide 

travel.

● Alaska Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan

● Alaska Statewide Long Range Transportation Policy Plan

● Area Long Range Transportation Plans

○ Southeast Alaska LRTP 

○ Southwest Alaska LRTP

○ Prince William Sound LRTP

○ Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta LRTP

○ Northwest-Arctic Alaska LRTP

○ Interior Alaska LRTP

● Metropolitan Transportation Plans

○ Anchorage MTP

○ Chugiak-Eagle River LRTP

○ Fairbanks MTP

● Modal Plans

○ Alaska Aviation System Plan

○ Alaska Strategic Traffic Safety Plan

○ Alaska Regional Ports Study (precursor to a ports and 

harbors LRTP)

○ Alaska Marine Highways System Plan (outdated, but 

addressed in current area plans)

○ Alaska National Highway System (no current plan, but 

addressed in MPO LRTPs and other plans)

○ Alaska Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

● Alaska Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Decisions regarding transportation projects on Federal lands 

necessitate participation with the BIA. BIA is considered a significant 

stakeholder, but not a FLMA Core Team member because BIA 

is not a land management agency. As a significant stakeholder, 

BIA is considered an interested party for all levels described in 

Outreach Levels and Context Section of this plan. BIA will also be 

engaged through several outreach events such as the BIA Provider’s 

Conference.

Tribal Nations

Tribal nations are critical partners on the Alaska LRTP, but not a 

Core Team members because tribal lands are not public. Tribal lands 

throughout the state share borders with public lands, and road, trail, 

marine, and air transportation modes that serve tribal lands need to 

make seamless transitions over borders. Tribal planning processes 

and funding are important for the LRTP to align with. As such, tribal 

outreach will include attending events where tribal representatives 
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Implementation Plan

104

are present and potentially holding a webinar or workshop. Alaska 

Forum on the Environment, Tribal Transportation Symposium, BIA 

Provider’s Conference, and others listed in the Outreach Events 

Section of this plan draw a large representation of tribal members and 

these events will be used to disseminate relevant LRTP information. 

Partners

The planning process being used to develop this LRTP will help to 

engage FLMAs in how they might partner with each other to meet 

statewide transportation priorities and leverage funds to address 

transportation needs for Alaska’s Federally managed public lands. 

Other potential partners may use this LRTP to identify FLMA goals 

and initiatives of mutual interest as a basis for initiating future 

partnerships. State level agencies as mentioned above, boroughs, 

municipalities, and non-governmental organizations are all possible 

partners for projects and initiatives that may arise from this LRTP. 

For example, the AML sends a representative to LRTP Core Team 

meetings and the representative may then act as a liaison to 

municipalities throughout Alaska. Through this representative and 

others acting likewise on behalf of other groups, they can facilitate 

outreach and raise comments and concerns from their respective 

audiences. FLMAs recognize the value of cooperative transportation 

partnerships and seek to leverage their funds with other agencies 

and organizations. The objective is to achieve the greatest benefit to 

the largest number of goals and objectives held by multiple agencies 

and organizations.

Tongass National Forest, Mitchell Creek Fishpass Rebuild. FS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Implementation Plan

105

Implementation Plan

Root Glacier, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve. NPS photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Implementation Plan

106

Implementation Plan 

This Implementation Plan lists the following for each goal area: 

● Goal: a broad statement that describes a desired end state. 

● Objective: a specific, measurable statements that supports 

achievement of a goal.

● Implementation action: a specific action for FLMAs and 

their partners to make progress in achieving their goals and 

objectives.

● Performance measure: an indicator that agencies can use 

to assess progress toward an objective.54 

This implementation plan relates to the multiagency goals and 

objectives in this LRTP and focuses on actions and performance 

measures that require multiagency collaboration. Each agency will 

participate in these actions as appropriate given agency missions 

and available resources. 

54 FHWA, Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook, September 2013.

Short Term Implementation Actions

The multiagency LRTP team selected the following implementation 

actions as high-priority actions to work towards in the first one to 

two years after plan update completion: 

1. Create a Multimodal Transportation Safety Database: 

Collaborate with FLMAs, state, and local partners to collect 

and analyze multimodal transportation safety data and 

monitor safety performance for travel to and through 

Federal lands in Alaska. Where appropriate, link this database 

with Alaska DOT&PF efforts to monitor and improve safety 

performance through the Highway Safety Improvement Plan 

and Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

2. Collaborate to Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at a 

Watershed Level through completing a culvert inventory 

and compiling existing watershed documentation. Conduct 

an inventory of culverts across FLMA units to identify 

locations and conditions, where culverts are not properly 

sized to accommodate expected flow levels, and where 

culverts and other transportation infrastructure poses fish 

passage barriers. Create a set of best practices for culvert 

management and maintenance.

3. Maintain Collaborative Multiagency Working Group

focusing on Federal lands transportation needs:

○ Maintain and update coordinated GIS systems

○ Participate in annual Project Coordination Meetings 

and regular teleconferences

○ Document collaborative accomplishments

4. Pursue Collaborative Funding Opportunities such as 

FLAP, FLTP, and other applicable funding sources to support 

transportation projects, plans, and research.

5. Coordinate Training Efforts: Organize annual multiagency 

training on topics of mutual interest, such as conducting 

Transportation Safety Assessments. In addition, each agency 

should invite other agency staff to attend applicable trainings 

they are organizing, as appropriate. Alaska Railroad Glacier Discovery Train, Chugach National Forest. FS photo.
Implementation Plan Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

107

Medium Term Implementation Actions

The LRTP team identified the following as second tier implementation 

actions: 

1. Complete Gravel Roads Condition Assessment for Federal 

lands in Alaska that generates actions to improve condition 

and contribute to performance management.

2. Develop Key Factors of Multimodal Access: Develop key 

factors and data collection for multimodal travel and active 

transportation (tie-in with safety database); this also includes 

consideration of concessionaires / private partners, such as 

shuttle operators. 

3. Monitor Emerging Visitor Use Trends: Identify and research 

the emergence of new visitor transportation trends – such as 

fat bikes, electric bikes, and changing shoulder season and 

winter travel patterns – and their implications for Federal 

lands transportation and safety. 

4. Tribal and Municipal Relations: Reach out to tribes, 

Alaska Native Corporations, and municipalities on LRTP 

implementation and update.

5. Visitor Data: Periodically (every five years) administer a 

collaborative survey of Federal lands transportation users in 

Alaska. Analyze survey data and share with partners to inform 

future decision making.

Implementation Actions by Goal Area

The following tables summarize the goals, objectives, implementation 

actions, and performance measures for each goal area.

Denali Highway. BLM photo.
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan System Management

108

System Management

Goal: Provide a long-term transportation system to address current and future land management needs.

Objectives:

● Asset Management: Use asset priority and facility condition information as a guide when considering transportation investments 

that benefit multiple FLMAs. 

● Interagency coordination: Accomplish annual interagency coordination by setting priorities for needs, exchanging data, and 

discussing mutual policies to facilitate shared execution and potential economic savings for projects of mutual interest. 

● Asset investment planning: Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new assets in the planning process.

● Hazard avoidance: Recognize and avoid conditions that jeopardize asset management or creation of new assets. 

Implementation Actions:

● Asset Data Coordination: 

○ Share asset definitions across agencies to facilitate greater understanding of partner transportation systems. 

○ Coordinate for increased compatibility of asset data.

● Collaborate to Evaluate Fish Passage Barriers at a Watershed Level through completing a culvert inventory and compiling 

existing watershed documentation. Conduct an inventory of culverts across FLMA units to identify locations and conditions, where 

culverts are not properly sized to accommodate expected flow levels, and where culverts and other transportation infrastructure 

poses fish passage barriers. Create a set of best practices for culvert management and maintenance.

● Complete Gravel Roads Condition Assessment for Federal lands in Alaska that generates actions to improve condition and 

contribute to performance management.

Performance Measures: 

● Percent of paved road miles in good / fair / poor condition

● Percent of bridges in good condition or better

● Percentage of bridges in poor condition

● Completion of pilot gravel roads condition assessment

● FLMA units with agency-appropriate asset-level vulnerability assessments completed
User Experience Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

109

User Experience

Goal: Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal transportation system experience and connectivity.

Objectives:

● User profile: Collect and analyze user information on an ongoing basis to determine which experiences are most important, 

relevant to transportation access. 

● Multimodal transportation: Establish a seamless interagency multimodal transportation system that emphasizes the journey as 

part of the Alaskan experience.

● Mobility: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands for all users. 

Implementation Actions:

● Traveler information: Coordinate with public and private partners to provide proactive information for all users via a range of 

media that travelers use.

● Access to resources: Provide a multiagency approach to guidance for access to subsistence resources, industry, and intervillage 

travel. 

● Visitor data: Periodically (every five years) administer a collaborative survey of Federal lands transportation users in Alaska. Analyze 

survey data and share with partners to inform future decision making.

● Develop Key Factors of Multimodal Access: Develop key factors and data collection for multimodal travel and active 

transportation (tie-in with safety database); this also includes consideration of concessionaires / private partners, such as shuttle 

operators. 

● Monitor Emerging Visitor Use Trends: Identify and research the emergence of new visitor transportation trends – such as fat bikes, 

electric bikes, and changing shoulder season and winter travel patterns – and their implications for Federal lands transportation and 

safety.

Performance Measures: 

● Percentage of users surveyed who rate their transportation experience as good or excellent 

○ Baseline: 94% in 2016 CVTS

● Percentage of FLMA unit websites that provide essential traveler information 

● Number of projects to provide multimodal access options connecting communities to Federal lands 
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Safety and Mobility

110

Safety and Mobility

Goal: Provide users with safe, efficient, affordable, and agency-appropriate access to and through Federal lands.

Objectives:

● Coordinated planning: Strive for seamless multimodal connections to and across Federal lands in Alaska.

● User information: Provide a recognizable interagency multimodal transportation system and effective communication through 

outreach efforts.

● Safety: Transportation infrastructure will provide safe access for the public to and within Alaska’s Federal lands. 

Implementation Actions:

● Traveler information: Coordinate with public and private partners to effectively disseminate travel planning and transportation 

safety information through a variety of media to provide general and location-specific information to users. 

● Create a Multimodal Transportation Safety Database: Collaborate with FLMAs, state, and local partners to collect and analyze 

multimodal transportation safety data and monitor safety performance for travel to and through Federal lands in Alaska. Where 

appropriate, link this database with Alaska DOT&PF efforts to monitor and improve safety performance through the Highway Safety 

Improvement Plan and Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

● Transportation Safety Assessments: 

○ Develop and train a multiagency Transportation Safety Assessment team that can conduct multimodal safety assessments of 

Federal lands transportation safety corridors in Alaska. 

○ Develop a clearinghouse for Transportation Safety Assessment reports and data. 

○ Conduct periodic evaluation of Transportation Safety Assessment implementation of recommendations.

Performance Measures: 

● Progress towards creation of a multimodal transportation safety database

● Progress towards developing and conducting multiagency Transportation Safety Assessment training

● Number of Transportation Safety Assessments performed 

○ Target: one per agency over the next five years

● Funding spent on safety improvements / number of projects that improve safety
Environment Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

111

Environment

Goal: Protect and enhance natural and cultural resources through comprehensive transportation planning and management.

Objectives:

● Planning at an appropriate ecosystem scale: Consider indirect effects on regional areas. 

● Water quality: Ensure protection of open water, wetlands, and aquifers across Federal lands. 

● Air quality: Maintain or improve air quality.

● Habitat: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate transportation related impacts.

● Cultural: Avoid or minimize negative impacts to culturally sensitive human settlements, subsistence areas, cultural landscapes, and 

historic and archaeological sites while providing appropriate access consistent with protecting said resources.

● Soils: Avoid or minimize impacts on permafrost and other at risk soil systems. 

Implementation Actions:

● Use data and spatial analysis to better understand where transportation infrastructure interacts with the natural environment, in 

particular wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, migratory routes, steep slopes, wetlands, permafrost, and historical, archaeological, and 

cultural resources. 

● Continue to implement best management practices to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to natural and cultural 

resources from transportation systems.

● Enhance multiagency understanding of vehicle / wildlife collisions and wildlife interactions, and develop a strategy to reduce 

collisions and impacts on wildlife migration areas. 

● Develop an inventory of historic transportation features.

Performance Measures: 

● Number of reported vehicle / wildlife collisions on roads traveling through Federal lands.

○ Target: reduce the number of incidents

● Completion of culvert / Aquatic Organism Passage inventory

● Number of aquatic organism passage enhancements or wildlife connectivity enhancements completed per year on Federal lands. 
Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan Risk and Resilience

112

Risk and Resilience

Goal: Develop a long-term transportation system that addresses environmental, social, and economic risks.

Objectives:

● Risk identification: Evaluate major risks to transportation systems. 

● Adaptation: Adapt transportation systems and practices to address extreme weather, environmental hazards, and other risks where 

appropriate.

● Mitigation: Identify and alter transportation practices and activities that contribute to increased risks while continuing to provide 

for and encourage compatible uses.

Implementation Actions:

● Conduct vulnerability assessments and scenario planning to identify and rank vulnerabilities to natural hazards and extreme 

weather.

● Incorporate expected future conditions into the planning of operations and maintenance strategies and new transportation 

infrastructure. 

● Examine where permafrost is coming into contact with infrastructure using geospatial analysis and begin planning for long-term 

contingencies of roads impacted by permafrost subsidence. 

● Improve gravel sourcing by developing a program to identify and appropriately treat gravel sources and a set of best practices and 

memorandums of agreement to facilitate coordinated contracting of gravel sources to meet project and maintenance needs. 

Performance Measures: 

● FLMA units that have completed an agency-appropriate vulnerability assessment

● Percent of assets that have been removed, improved, or altered to reduce vulnerability

● Percent of new assets that consider future conditions at the planning stage

● Completion of an inventory of culverts (percent of roads inventoried)
Partnerships Alaska Collaborative Long Range Transportation Plan

113

Partnerships

Goal: Maintain existing mutually beneficial relationships and build future opportunities for collaboration with tribal, Federal, state, 

local, and other external partners.

Objectives:

● Partner Coordination: Coordinate with partners to share resources, data, and expertise.

● Project Champions: Coordinate with project champions to support mutually beneficial programs, initiatives, projects, and goal area 

working group activities.

Implementation Actions:

● Maintain Collaborative Multiagency Working Group focusing on Federal lands transportation needs:

○ Maintain and update coordinated GIS systems

○ Participate in annual Project Coordination Meetings and regular teleconferences

○ Document collaborative accomplishments

● Tribal and Municipal Relations: Reach out to tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and municipalities on LRTP implementation and 

update.

● Access to Subsistence Resources: Provide multiagency approach to guidance for access to subsistence.

● Pursue Collaborative Funding Opportunities such as FLAP, FLTP, and other applicable funding sources to support transportation 

projects, plans, and research.

● Coordinate Training Efforts: Organize annual multiagency training on topics of mutual interest, such as conducting Transportation 

Safety Assessments. In addition, each agency should invite other agency staff to attend applicable trainings they are organizing, as 

appropriate. 

Performance Measures: 

● Percent of projects that leverage multiple funding sources and contribution to FLMA goals.

● Number of transportation plans or studies completed with interagency coordination or participation.
Canning River Study Area. FWS photo.