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

National Park Service

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

FINAL

September 2012 
Cover Photo

Winter Trail Markings, NPS

INSIDE COVER 

Cruise Ship at Sitka National Historical Park, NP
National Park Service

Alaska Region Long Range 

Transportation Plan 

A Drop-Down Plan to the 

Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

FINAL

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act 

As the final version of the National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range 

Transportation Plan was completed, the two-year highway authorization, 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), was signed 

into law. Effective October 1, 2012, the National Park Service, Park Roads 

Program is joined by transportation programs of other Federal land 

management agencies in the Federal Lands Transportation Program. 

Discretionary funding programs available to the National Park Service 

and other Federal land management agencies under the previous Federal 

highway authorization also change under MAP-21. For example, MAP-21 

alters or eliminates programs, such as Public Lands Highway Discretionary 

Program, Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks, Transportation Enhancements, 

Recreational Trails Program, and National Scenic Byways, and creates the 

Federal Lands Access Program—a formula-based program that provides 

funding for transportation planning, construction, rehabilitation, and 

maintenance for facilities located on or providing access to Federal lands.

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

recommendations, and actions presented in this long range transportation 

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

the Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan will further document 

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

remain relevant under MAP-21 in the context of highway authorization law in 

effect at that time.
F A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table of Contents

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

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

1.1 Relationship to Other Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1.2 Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1.2.1 Alaska Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2.2 NPS Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2.3 The Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2.4 Potential Partners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3 Mission, Goals, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1.4 Plan Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Conditions and Needs Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.1 System Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.1.1 Existing Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.2 Alaska Region Transportation Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1.3 Needs and Gaps. .

2.1.4 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

2.2.1 Project Management Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2.2 Park Unit Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2.3 Planning and Management Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2.4 Safety Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2.5 Conditions Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

2.2.6 Needs and Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.2.7 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3 User Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

2.3.1 Remote North Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3.2 Remote South Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3.3 Road Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3.4 Cruise Ship Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3.5 Needs Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.3.6 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.4 Resource Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

2.4.1 Project Management Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

2.4.2 Park Unit Surveys and Planning Documents by Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.4.3 Needs and Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.4.4 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.5 Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

2.5.1 Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.5.2 Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.5.3 Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.5.4 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

2.5.5 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
II A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix A: System Management Technical Report

Appendix B: Mobility Technical Report

Appendix C: Visitor/User Experience Technical Report

Appendix D: Resource Protection Technical Report

Appendix E: Climate Change Technical Report

Appendix F: Financial Analysis Technical Report

3. Transportation Funding and Project Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.1 Funding Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

3.1.1 Common FLMA Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.1.2 NPS Funding Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

3.2 Project Selection Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

3.2.1 Category I (Roads and Bridges). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.2.2 Category III (Alternative Transportation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.3 Historic FundingTrends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

3.3.1 Federal Lands Highway Program Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.3.2 Alternative Transportation in Parks, Public Lands Program, and National Scenic Byways 

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.3.3 Project Management Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

3.4 Future ofTransportation Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

4. Prioritized Funding Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.1 Strategies and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

4.2 Funding Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

4.2.1 System Management Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.2.2 Mobility Funding Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.2.3 User Experience Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

4.2.4 Resource Protection/Climate Change Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

5. Actions and Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.1 Performance Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

5.2 Needs and Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan III

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1 Needs and Gaps (in millions).                                                                                                 .

Figure 2 Alaska Federal Lands LRTPs.                                                                                                   .

Figure 3 Alaska Region Park Clusters.                                                                                                 . 

Figure 4 Transportation Assets by Park.                                                                                               . 

Figure 5 Reading API and FCI Charts.                                                                                                   . 

Figure 6 Average Alaska RegionTransportation Assets.                                                                   . 

Figure 7 Alaska Region Assets, Current Replacement Value, and Deferred Maintenance.           . 

Figure 8 Remote North Park Assets.                                                                                                     . 

Figure 9 Remote North Parks API and FCI

Figure 10 Remote South Park Assets.                                                                                                   . 

Figure 11 Remote South Park API and FCI.                                                                                         . 

Figure 12 Cruise Ship Park Assets.                                                                                                       . 

Figure 13 Cruise Ship Park API and FCI.                                                                                               . 

Figure 14 Road Park Assets.                                                                                                                   . 

Figure 15 Road Park API and FCI .                                                                                                         . 

Figure 16 Alaska NPS Mobility Related Projects.                                                                               . 

Figure 17 Transportation Funding Sources (2006 to 2010).                                                               . 

Figure 18 Category I Project Selection Process.                                                                                 . 

Figure 19 Category III Project Selection Process.                                                                               . 

Figure 20 FLHP Funding .                                                                                                                       . 

Figure 21 FundedTransportation Projects Reported in PMIS (2006 to 2010).                                 . 

Figure 22 2006 to 2010 MedianTransportation Funds in PMIS by Park Cluster .                           . 

Figure 23 Funded, Formulated, and Requested Project by Goal Area.                                           . 

Figure 24 Goal Area Funding History by Park Cluster .                                                                     . 

Figure 25 FiveYear Funding History and Projections.                                                                       . 

Figure 26 Cost Estimates by Goal Area.                                                                                               . 

Figure 27 SevenYear Funding Gaps (Millions).                                                                                   . 

Figure 28 System Management Funding Scenario Allocation .                                                       . 

Figure 29 Mobility Funding Scenario Allocation.                                                                               . 

Figure 30 User Experience Funding Scenario Allocation.                                                                 . 

Figure 31 Resource Protection / Climate Change Funding Scenario Allocation.                           . 
IV A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1.. Alaska Parks by Cluster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 2.. Alaska RegionTransportation Asset Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3.. Transportation Assets by Park Cluster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 4.. Remote NorthTransportation Asset Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 5.. Remote South Funding Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 6.. Remote SouthTransportation Asset Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 7.. Cruise Ship ParkTransportation Asset Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 8.. Road ParkTransportation Asset Portfolio. .

Table 9.. Road Park Funding Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 10.. Annual Funding Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 11.. Mobility Condition Survey Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 12.. Planning and Management Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Table 13.. Mobility Needs and Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Table 14.. User Experience Needs Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Table 15.. Natural Resource Issues in PMIS Requested and Formulated Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 16.. Climate Change Risks toTransportation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 17.. ADOT&PF Adaptation Best Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 18.. National Park Service InternalTransportation Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Table 19.. Transportation Funding Sources (2006 to 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 20.. FLHP Funding (2006 to 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 21.. ATPPL and Scenic Byway Funding History, FY 2006 through 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Table 22.. Transportation Funds in PMIS by Park Cluster (2006 to 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 23.. Prioritized Needs, Strategies, and Cost Estimations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 24.. System Management Funding Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 25.. Mobility Funding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 26.. User Experience Funding Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Table 27.. Resource Protection/Climate Change Funding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Table 28.. Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan V

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADOT&PF Alaska Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

API Asset priority index

ATPPL AlternativeTransportation in Parks and Public Land Program

ATV All-terrain vehicle

FCI Facility condition index

FHWA Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department ofTransportati

FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program

FLMA Federal Land Management Agency

FLREA Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement

FMSS Facility Management Software System

GMP General Management Plan

LRTP Long RangeTransportation Plan

NPS National Park Service

NPP National Park and Preserve

ORV Off-road vehicle

PAMP Park Asset Management Plan

PMIS Project Management Information System

PTATS ParkTransportation Allocation andTracking System

RMP Resource Management Plan

RTPM RegionalTransportation Program Manager

STARS Service-wideTraffic Accident Reporting System

SNAP Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning

TRB Transportation Research Board

WFL Western Federal Lands Division (of Federal Highway Administration)
Exit Glacier Road, NP
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 1

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This National Park Service (NPS) Alaska 

Region long range transportation plan 

(LRTP) is intended to guide long-term 

transportation planning and decisions 

to support efforts that are the most 

beneficial to the core vision and mission 

of the agency over the next 20 years and 

beyond. This is accomplished by defining 

long range transportation goals that 

respond to NPS agency-wide vision and 

mission. LRTP goals serve as the basis 

for determining transportation conditions, 

needs, and gaps. Funding scenarios that 

emphasize each goal area are devised for 

addressing needs and gaps. This LRTP 

is also a means to track progress or 

performance in addressing the needs and 

gaps identified in this plan, over time.

Each component of this plan has been 

developed for the purpose of creating 

a useful and usable document to guide 

transportation decision-makers at multiple 

levels within the agency. The guiding 

LRTP mission developed to meet this 

end is:

Implement an overarching 

transportation strategy 

that is compatible with the 

missions of the National 

Park Service and individual 

Alaska National Parks

Through analysis of existing conditions, 

needs and gaps, funding processes 

and availability, this LRTP offers the 

subsequent key findings:

Participating in the joint actions 

identified in the Alaska Federal Lands 

LRTP will benefit all Alaska Federal 

land management agencies (FLMA), 

including the NPS.

Planning and management documents 

indicate that known future events and 

opportunities could change access to 

Federal public lands, but these factors 

are being monitored and planned for 

accordingly.

 Needs and strategies associated 

with the goal of system management 

account for 78 percent of total projected 

transportation costs.

Projected funding levels may be 

significantly lower than is necessary to 

satisfy anticipated need. As illustrated 

in Figure 1, the gap between needs and 

available funding is as high as $16.7 

million less than the identified need. 

The preferred funding scenario 

(which emphasizes the LRTP goal of 

user experience) funds operation and 

maintenance for all high priority assets 

over seven years and a cost of $63 

million. The remaining $27 million is 

applied to other goal areas, and ensures 

that user experience related needs are 

address such as collecting baseline park 

visitation information and transportation 

planning data, addressing user safety, 

improving wayfinding and traveler 

information, addressing crowding and 

congestion, and mitigating negative 

wilderness experience impacts.

NPS Alaska Region LRTP Goals

System Management: Develop a long-term transportation 

system to satisfy Resource Protection: Protect parks’ 

natural, cultural, and subsistence resources.

Mobility: Provide safe, efficient, and appropriate access to 

and through NPS lands

User Experience: Proactively enhance the Alaskan 

multimodal experience.

Resource Protection: Protect parks’ natural, cultural, and 

subsistence resources.

Climate Change: Plan for impacts of climate change to park 

transportation systems and impacts of park transportation 

systems on climate through science, adaptation, mitigation, 

and communication.

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 1 

Needs and Gaps (in millions)

0 50 100 150

$16.7 gap

$5.7 gap

Need (high estimate) $106.7 

Average of Need Estimates $95.7

Funding Available $90

Need (low estimate) $84.9

This plan is implemented over the longterm as projects which address long range 

LRTP goals are selected and completed 

over the next 20 years. Once public 

comments are received on this public draft 

of the LRTP, Chapter 5 will summarize 

the actions and other recommendations 

that will assist the Alaska Region advance 

the long range transportation goals 

and objectives established in Chapter 

1. Actions and recommendations are 

based on the needs and gaps identified 

in Chapter 2 as they relate to each goal 

area. Scenarios for Implementation 

these actions and recommendations are 

presented in Chapter 4. The resulting 

actions fall within two categories: first, 

actions that address needs and gaps by 

achieving outcome-based performance 

measures; and second, actions that 

resolve needs and gaps, but are not 

directly quantified in LRTP performance 

measures. Performance measures embody 

outcomes that, once fully achieved, 

represent major milestones in meeting the 

long range goals and objectives expressed 

in this LRTP. The intent is to report 

progress in meeting these performance 

measures each year to national leaders 

and other interested parties.

Plan Benefits

This plan was developed to provide 

multiple benefits, including:

Illustrate the unique nature and role of 

transportation in the Alaska Region.

 Establish Alaska Region specific 

mission, goals, and objectives for 

transportation planning as it pertains 

to system management, mobility, user 

experience, resource protection, and 

climate change. 

 Strengthen the ability to partner 

with other agencies and organizations 

to improve NPS transportation 

infrastructure.

 Define transportation assets in NPS 

asset databases or management plans.

Provide direction on long-term issues 

like climate change and sustainability.

Identify possible transportation funding 

sources.

Provide an understanding of 

transportation assets and how to 

determine and illustrate need.

 Strengthen the Alaska Region’s 

defensible structure for sound 

transportation planning and decision 

making.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 3

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

 Develop performance measures to 

monitor transportation improvements 

on NPS lands.

 Enable leaders to synchronize 

transportation planning with General 

Management Plans (GMP), Park Asset 

Management Plans (PAMP), and 

Resource Management Plans (RMP).

Provide a platform for individual parks 

to communicate needs and gaps to 

regional and national decision makers.

 Equip leaders with the needed 

information to make informed decisions 

based on the long-term transportation 

mission, goals, and objectives. 

 Enable decision-makers to direct 

funding to the highest priority and most 

beneficial transportation projects. 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

In addition to being a LRTP for the 

Alaska Region of the NPS, this plan is a 

“drop-down plan” to the Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP (as illustrated in Figure 2). 

As a drop-down plan, this document 

elaborates upon topics discussed in the 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP with NPSspecific details regarding existing baseline 

conditions, identified transportation 

deficiencies and system needs, projections 

for desired improvements, and a 

summary of possible funding sources. 

This information allows the NPS and 

other FLMAs participating in the Alaska 

Federal Lands LRTP to identify gaps 

in the statewide transportation network 

that serves Federal public lands and to 

develop better interagency coordination in 

leveraging project funds and addressing 

high-level priorities. The Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP is a unique opportunity 

afforded Federal lands management 

agencies in Alaska because of the shared 

regional boundaries of the state. Like this 

NPS Alaska Region LRTP, the Alaska 

Federal Lands LRTP plan is also a firstof-a-kind effort.

Alaska

Federal

Lands

LRTP

NPS FS BLM FWS

Figure 2 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTPs
Denali NPP, NPS
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 5

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

The National Park Service (NPS) strives 

to protect resources and provide visitor 

access to nearly 400 park units nationwide 

receiving more than 300 million visits 

each year. The NPS manages more 

than 84 million acres of land, of which 

approximately 65 percent is located in 

the agency’s Alaska Region. Alaska’s 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve (NPP) alone represents 16 

percent of NPS lands. Due to its great 

expanse and the remoteness of many park 

units, the Alaska Region faces challenges 

unlike any other region in the country. 

Pursuant to Federal legislation, the 

Alaska Region prepared this long range 

transportation plan (LRTP) to consider 

existing transportation conditions and 

forecast transportation needs within a 

planning horizon of 20 years. This LRTP 

projects transportation needs through 

examinations of existing facility and 

asset conditions, trends in funding, costs, 

visitation, and other factors. Furthermore, 

this LRTP ensures that available funding 

is wisely used to meet stated Alaska 

Region mission, goals, and objectives.

Among the Alaska Region’s 16 park units, 

the NPS administers approximately 55 

million surface acres of public land and 

serves nearly 2.4 million visitors (in 2008). 

Most of this land is remote and only 

accessible by means other than roads, 

such as trails, air, and water. Access to 

and within NPS-managed public land is 

necessary for a wide range of uses, such 

as:

 Recreational activities 

 Administrative uses, such as fire 

management

Permitted uses, such as rights-of-way 

and guides

 Access to private inholdings and intervillage travel

 Access to traditional subsistence areas 

Transportation and utility system 

corridors as prescribed in Title XI of 

ANILCA

This LRTP also serves as the NPS’s 

drop-down plan to the Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP. As a drop-down plan, this 

document provides NPS-specific details 

regarding existing baseline conditions, 

identified transportation deficiencies and 

system needs, projections for strategic 

desired improvements, and a summary of 

possible funding sources. This information 

allows other Federal land management 

agencies (FLMA) participating in the 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP to identify 

gaps in the statewide transportation 

network that serves Federal public 

lands and to develop better interagency 

coordination in leveraging project funds 

and addressing high-level priorities.

1. Introduction Alaska is home to 16 national parks, preserves, monuments, 

and national historical parks. The NPS Alaska Region 

administers 13 national wild rivers, 2 affiliated areas, and 1 

national heritage area. Alaska is also home to 49 national 

historic landmarks and 16 national natural landmarks. Travel 

to and across these NPS-managed public lands is important 

for recreation, subsistence, and other activities consistent 

with the agency’s mission. 

The NPS serves residents and visitors who seek inspiration, 

recreation, and education, as well as those who come 

for traditional activities, subsistence, and scientific study. 

Through cooperation with local communities, Alaska Native 

groups, and others, natural and cultural resources are 

protected in these special places for current and future 

generations to experience and enjoy. 

White Pass, NPS
6 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

The Alaska Federal Lands LRTP

was established because of Alaska’s 

unique reliance on a truly multimodal 

transportation system. More than 

anywhere else in the United States, 

Alaska depends on a combination of 

highway, trail, marine, river, and air 

connections to meet its transportation 

needs. Unlike other regional or state 

LRTPs developed for Federal public 

lands in the lower 48 states, this plan 

focuses on addressing planning issues 

related to interconnectivity of various 

modes of travel and providing a unique 

and seamless experience across multiple 

land jurisdictions for local residents, 

out-of-state visitors, administrative staff, 

commercial operators, and subsistence 

users. 

This Alaska Region drop-down plan 

describes the agency’s process for 

transportation planning and its 

consistency with other forms of NPS 

planning. LRTP planning ensures that 

the NPS vision and mission is furthered 

through transportation projects over the 

next 20 years and beyond. This plan also 

establishes and strengthens the Alaska 

Region decision-making process, and 

funding decisions by targeting established 

goals and objectives.

1.1 Relationship to Other Plans

This LRTP is consistent with, and builds 

upon, other NPS plans. NPS conducts 

several types and levels of planning, all of 

which are integral to this LRTP, such as:

 Unit level land-use planning, resulting in 

General Management Plans (GMP)

 Unit level asset management planning, 

resulting in Park Asset Management 

Plans (PAMP)

 Stewardship of cultural and natural 

resources, resulting in Resource 

Management Plans (RMP)

Wilderness and backcountry area 

planning

 Action and activity planning, resulting in 

Implementation Plans

 Special Resource Studies

 Commercial Services Plans

GMP decisions establish resource 

management goals and objectives (such as 

desired future conditions), the measures 

needed to achieve these goals and 

objectives, and the parameters for using 

NPS-managed lands. GMPs document 

land-use planning decisions related to 

transportation infrastructure and travel 

management, resource protection, and 

land-use designations. GMPs currently 

being developed include Gates of 

the Arctic NPP, Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve, and Katmai NPP. The 

transportation infrastructure and travel 

management decisions included in GMPs 

accomplish several things, including:

 Designation of appropriate modes 

of access in response to the regional 

setting, resources to be protected, 

locations for all transportation 

infrastructure, and the level of allowed 

use

Identification of existing or proposed 

Congressionally designated 

transportation routes

 Assessment of wilderness and 

backcountry limitations on 

transportation-related development

These plans address a wide range of 

transportation and access needs in some 

manner. Travel management planning 

helps identify and prioritize construction 

and maintenance of developed roads, 

primitive roads, trails, rail, watercraft 

and aircraft facilities that provide access 

to and within public lands. These plans 

also consider restrictions and closures 

to protect sensitive resources and meet 

management concerns. While GMPs 

and other plans are developed for 

localized planning areas and specific 

delineated travel management areas, this 

LRTP is inclusive of all transportation 

facilities and access to land managed 

by the NPS throughout Alaska. The 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 7

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

issues addressed in this LRTP are very 

similar to those addressed in GMPs. 

This LRTP links the work completed 

in the NPS Alaska planning documents 

and the transportation planning efforts 

of the other FLMAs without creating 

redundancy with other plans. 

Implementation of GMPs and other 

plans involving transportation and travel 

management decisions are achieved 

through project plans completed for 

specific on-the-ground actions, which 

are not the focus of this LRTP. These 

plans will address exact route and facility 

locations and construction methods 

proposed to complete the project.

1.2 Audience

This LRTP is written for several 

audiences including unit level managers, 

regional program management, nationallevel decision makers, and potential local 

and regional partners from governmental 

or non-governmental organizations. This 

plan supports these audiences in different 

ways, as discussed in Sections 1.2.1 

through 1.2.4.

1.2.1 Alaska Region

At the regional level, this LRTP provides 

guidance for park superintendents and 

their staffs to make transportation 

decisions that are based on long range 

vision, mission, goals, and strategies. 

The plan also enables the Regional 

Transportation Program Manager 

(RTPM) to affirm LRTP strategies with 

individual parks to collectively decide 

on funding the most beneficial and 

highest priority transportation projects. 

Furthermore, the LRTP enables the 

RTPM and parks to find alternative 

funding from sources external to the NPS. 

The LRTP is used to guide and coordinate 

transportation planning with unit level 

plans; regional and statewide plans outside 

NPS managed lands; and metropolitan 

planning organization, borough, and 

Native LRTPs.

1.2.2 NPS Programs

Agency program managers may use the 

LRTP to determine how transportation 

affects program level goals, project level 

funding opportunities, and specific project 

outcomes throughout the region and 

within each park. The LRTP also serves 

as a springboard for program managers 

to incorporate transportation into their 

respective strategies for managing assets, 

facilitating protection of resources, and 

providing visitor services. Other programs 

may use transportation as a catalyst to 

partner with outside agencies and discuss 

project needs of mutual interest, such as 

sharing resources, safety improvements, 

alternative transportation systems, and 

addressing climate change.

The NPS manages lands in Alaska that in many cases 

are accessed through gateway communities served by 

public transportation. Access by tourists, residents, and 

administrative staff is often enhanced when the NPS, the 

State of Alaska, and local communities collaborate on the 

funding, design, and construction of transportation systems 

and facilities.

Partnering in this way can lead to the creation of mutually 

beneficial facilities such as Gustavus dock. The NPS, 

State of Alaska, and community of Gustavus all secured 

funding in 2009 to once again link Gustavus and Glacier Bay 

NPP to the Alaska Marine Highway. Public ferry service, 

private boats, and commercial barges once again support 

the operation of the park and improve the economic 

development of the community.
8 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

1.2.3 The Nation

This LRTP supplements the development 

of national-level plans and programs 

by outlining long-range transportation 

goals, objectives, and proposed strategies 

in Alaska while also documenting the 

relevance of this regional vision in 

furthering NPS-wide mission and goals. 

This and other national-level planning 

efforts help communicate mission critical 

transportation needs to Congress, 

the White House, the Department 

of the Interior, and Department of 

Transportation, and the general public. 

This plan also helps communicate the 

region’s unique access and transportation 

challenges resulting from multiple 

uses and dramatic seasonal variation in 

transportation modes. Ultimately, the 

LRTP illustrates the NPS’s foresight 

and commitment to mission critical goals 

that are dependent upon or enhanced 

by transportation while jointly pursuing 

transportation improvements with other 

agencies and organizations.

1.2.4 Potential Partners

Potential partners may use this LRTP to 

identify improvement strategies of mutual 

interest. The NPS recognizes the value of 

cooperative transportation partnerships 

and seeks to leverage available funding by 

actively working with its stakeholders and 

user groups. The objective is to achieve 

the greatest benefit to the shared goals 

and objectives held by multiple agencies 

and organizations on common projects.

For example, the NPS recognizes the 

importance of gateway communities and 

seeks partnerships with relevant agencies 

to encourage opportunities of mutual 

benefit. This LRTP is a tool for fostering 

partnerships with gateway communities 

and other parties. Common partners 

include local governments, boroughs, 

metropolitan planning organizations, 

Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), Federal 

Aviation Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration, Federal Rail Authority, 

and other FLMAs.

1.3 Mission, Goals, and 

Objectives

The Alaska Region LRTP responds to a 

mission and a set of goals developed for 

the purpose of creating a useful and usable 

plan to guide transportation decisionmakers at multiple levels within the 

agency. The mission of the Alaska Region 

LRTP is:

To implement an overarching 

transportation strategy that is 

compatible with the missions 

of the National Park Service and 

individual Alaska National Parks

There are five goals and sixteen objectives 

developed to accomplish this mission.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 9

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

System Management: Develop a long-term transportation system to satisfy current and 

future land management needs

1. Asset Management: Apply available financial resources to essential transportation infrastructure.

2. Asset Investment Planning: Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new and existing 

assets in the planning process.

3. Coordination: Coordinate among parks, regions, and agencies to set priorities for needs, to exchange 

data, and to discuss mutual policies to share execution of projects. 

Mobility: Provide safe, efficient, and appropriate access to and through NPS lands

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

5. Access: Provide access for recreation, subsistence, and other uses as provided for in ANILCA, all consistent 

with the purposes of the parks using appropriate modes and seamless connections to and through NPS 

lands.

6. User Information: Provide accurate and accessible information through a variety of means about how to 

travel to and through Alaska parks.

User Experience: Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal experience

7. User Data: Collect and analyze user information to determine which experiences and expectations are most 

relevant to transportation access.

8. Multimodal Transportation: Establish a multimodal transportation system that emphasizes the journey as 

integral to the Alaska experience.

Resource Protection: Protect parks’ natural, cultural, and subsistence resources

9. Protect Wildlife at an Ecosystem Scale: Coordinate with neighboring land and transportation managers 

to ensure that transportation system impacts on wildlife are understood and mitigated across borders.

10. Physical Environment: Protect the physical environment from adverse effects of the transportation 

system.

11. Cultural Resources: Mitigate negative impacts and provide appropriate access to cultural resources.

12. Subsistence Resources: Consider impacts and access to subsistence resources in transportation 

planning and policy development.

Climate Change: Plan for impacts of climate change to park transportation systems and 

impacts of park transportation systems on climate through science, adaptation, mitigation, 

and communication

13. Science: Initiate, support, and participate in scientific research and assessments needed to understand and 

respond to the relationship between transportation and climate change in Alaska.

14. Adaptation: Manage transportation assets and conduct transportation planning for climate change.

15. Mitigation: Reduce the carbon footprint of NPS by reducing the impact of transportation associated with 

park operations, visitation, and associated operations.

16. Communication: Share the compelling story of climate change impacts in Alaska to the public as it 

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

1.4 Plan Structure

Several performance and scoring 

measures determine the current and 

future success in achieving the aspirations 

represented by the LRTP goals and 

objectives. Performance measures 

(discussed in Chapter 5) reflect the goal 

and objectives statements and are scored 

based on the region’s existing conditions. 

Accordingly, Chapter 2 summarizes 

the existing conditions that are used to 

evaluate goal area performance measures. 

In determining existing conditions, 

numerous needs and gaps related to each 

goal area are uncovered and documented. 

Financial gaps—the differences between 

needs and available funding—are 

determined in Chapter 4, as well as 

actions necessary to address these needs 

and gaps. 

Fixed wing aircraft lands on airstrip at Serpentine Hot Springs, Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, NP
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 11

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Condition and need determinations are 

ultimately based on the results of five 

technical reports—one for each LRTP 

goal area. These technical reports are 

available in Appendices A through E. This 

chapter highlights key findings and draws 

conclusions from the analysis conducted 

within the reports. This chapter translates 

report findings into conditions, needs 

and gaps, and performance measures. 

Details about specific data, analyses, and 

other findings that are not included in this 

chapter can be referenced in the technical 

reports.

Condition and need determinations do 

not target specific park units. This plan 

is not intended to prescribe direction 

to parks on individual transportation 

projects. Rather, determinations are 

made for “park clusters” or parks sharing 

common attributes. Alaska’s national 

parks are grouped into four categories—

“remote north,” “remote south,” “cruise 

ship,” and “road”—–based on the 

characteristics of access mode, visitation 

type, and geography. Even though 

these categories represent important 

clustering characteristics, it is important to 

remember that certain parks rely on access 

other than by road or water only. In some 

clusters there is a predominant reliance on 

state airport facilities for park access (for 

example, King Salmon for Katmai National 

Park and Preserve, Port Heiden for 

Aniakchak Monument and Preserve, Nome 

for Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, 

Coldfoot for Gates of the Arctic National 

Park and Preserve, Gulkana for WrangellSt. Elias National Park and Preserve, and 

Skagway for Klondike Gold Rush National 

Historical Park). Some locations inside and 

outside NPS lands have helicopter fuel 

caches for the necessary administrative 

purposes by Federal and state agencies. 

NPS also leases lots at many facilities 

outside park units for hangars and ranger 

pilot headquarters, thereby enabling NPS 

to play key roles in the aviation system 

in some areas. Within the NPS lands, 

designated airstrips can provide important 

public service. At the north end of Broad 

Pass, McKinley Park airstrip is a “port 

in the storm” on one end of a heavily 

traveled mountain pass. Similarly, Chisana, 

May Creek and Kantishna airports 

provide potential landing sites for aircraft 

transiting large undeveloped areas. Other 

backcountry airstrips exist in national 

parks and preserves such as Wrangell St. 

Elias, Bering Land Bridge, and Katmai, all 

serving equally important roles.

Park clusters are illustrated in Figure 3 

and listed in Table 1. The four Park 

clusters have the following characteristics:

 Remote North Parks. These parks are 

characterized by their northern 

geography, lack of connectivity to the 

statewide road system, and isolation 

from frequently used commercial modes 

of transportation. The primary modes 

of access to these parks are diverse and 

can include aircraft, ship, boat, snow 

machine, off-highway vehicle, or foot. 

Access to Remote North Parks is also 

unique in that the access modes may 

vary by season. The primary mode of 

access may be motor vehicles, but the 

volume of trips is low enough as not to be 

considered a “Road Park,” as described 

below. Remote North Parks generally 

have low levels of visitation.

 Remote South Parks. Like Remote 

North Parks, Remote South Parks are 

characterized by their geography, lack 

of connectivity, low visitation levels, and 

varied primary modes of access. Remote 

South Parks have slightly less seasonal 

variation in the primary modes of access 

than experienced in Remote North 

Parks.

 Road Parks. Road Parks are characterized 

by high volumes of visitor and user 

access by automobiles and busses. These 

parks are generally located near major 

ADOT&PF roads. Visitation levels are 

generally high in these parks. 

2. Conditions and Needs Assessments
12 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 3 

Alaska Region Park Clusters

Table 1

Alaska Parks by Cluster

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks Road Parks Cruise Ship Parks

Bering Land Bridge National 

Preserve

Cape Krusenstern National 

Monument

Gates of the Arctic NPP

Kobuk Valley National Park 

Noatak National Preserve

Alagnak Wild River

Aniakchak National 

Monument and Preserve

Katmai NPP

Lake Clark NPP

Denali NPP

Kenai Fjords National Park

Wrangell-St. Elias NPP

Yukon-Charley Rivers 

National Preserve

Glacier Bay NPP

Klondike Gold Rush 

National Historical Park

Sitka National 

Historical Park

 Cruise Ship Parks. These parks are 

characterized by high visitation levels 

and users whose access originates 

from cruise ships or ferries. Visitation 

levels are generally high in these parks, 

although in some cases travelers on 

cruise ships may never actually step foot 

on land within a park unit.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 13

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.1 System Management

The LRTP system management goal is 

to “develop a long-term transportation system 

to satisfy current and future land management 

needs.” The following objectives clarify 

how the system management goal shall be 

achieved:

Asset Management: Apply available financial 

resources to essential transportation 

infrastructure. 

Asset Investment Planning: Consider 

sustainability of operation and 

maintenance of new and existing assets in 

the planning process.

Coordination: Coordinate among parks, 

regions, and agencies to set priorities for 

needs, to exchange data, and to discuss 

mutual policies in order to share execution 

of projects. 

2.1.1 Existing Conditions

Transportation assets are not currently 

defined in NPS asset databases or 

management plans. In order to examine 

the condition of the transportation system, 

NPS-owned transportation assets had to 

be defined by individual Alaska Region 

park units. Each unit identified the 

assets that contribute to moving 

people to and through a park 

or serve as necessary support 

to this transportation system. 

These assets are summarized 

in Figure 4. Identified assets 

were also analyzed through four 

Transportation Asset Management 

Plans, one for each park cluster 

category. The Transportation Asset 

Management Plans are available in 

Appendix A, System Management 

Technical Report. The plans 

provide a meaningful regional look 

at the costs and conditions of the 

transportation system in Alaska.

Figure 4 

Transportation Assets by Park

Source: FMSS, January 2011

A number of Alaska Region parks are only accessible 

by aircraft or watercraft and yet, there are roads within 

these parks that allow vehicular access between visitor 

attractions.

Such is the case with Katmai National Park and Preserve, 

where visitors arrive at Brooks Camp by small float plane 

or tour boat and are then able to board a bus that takes 

them to the Three Forks Overlook via the 23 mile Road 

to 10,000 Smokes. The road is unpaved, narrower than 

standard two-lane roads, and includes a number of at-grade 

river crossings which makes the entire journey a rustic 

adventure.

Denali

Bering Land Bridge

Gates of the Arctic

Glacier Bay

Katmai

Kenai Fjords

Klondike Gold Rush

Lake Clark

Sitka

Western Arctic Parks

Wrangell-St. Elias

Yukon-Charley Rivers

Building

Aviation System

Marina/Waterfront 

System

Fuel System

Trail Bridge

Trail

Road Bridge

Parking Area

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.1.2 Alaska Region Transportation 

Snapshot 

As of January 2011, the list of 

transportation assets identified in 

NPS’ facility management software 

system (FMSS) by Alaska Region 

parks accounted for 39 percent of assets 

within their respective asset categories. 

For example, 64 of 154 assets with 

the FMSS asset code “trails” were 

identified as transportation assets. The 

current replacement value and deferred 

maintenance amounts for identified 

transportation assets both account for 

55 percent of total current replacement 

value and deferred maintenance in 

transportation-related FMSS asset codes. 

Table 2 summarizes these region-wide 

current replacement value and deferred 

maintenance totals by transportation asset 

category.

FMSS uses an asset priority index 

(API) to rank how critical assets are in 

accomplishing NPS mission and goals. 

API is used to ensure that maintenance 

activities focus on the most important 

assets. Conversely, API is used to identify 

very low priority assets for possible 

decommissioning. FMSS also contains 

a measure of facility condition index 

(FCI), which is an index of the deferred 

maintenance costs to current replacement 

value. A larger FCI value indicates higher 

costs to bring an asset back to full repair, 

and lower values indicate that less cost 

is required to bring an asset back to full 

repair. Charting transportation assets 

by API and FCI therefore provides a 

measure of condition versus priority, as 

illustrated in Figure 5. 

As illustrated in Figure 6, Alaska Region 

transportation assets are generally 

considered to be in good condition, with 

the exception of the roads, which are 

considered to be in poor condition. 

Table 2

Alaska Region Transportation Asset Portfolio 

Asset Number of 

Assets

Total Current 

Replacement Value

Total Deferred 

Maintenance FCI Average API

Road 72 $149,969,265 $30,472,440 0.20 59

Parking Area 117 $32,215,209 $3,228,778 0.10 52

Road Bridge 16 $80,996,139 $2,758,607 0.03 76

Trail 64 $67,844,578 $3,195,011 0.05 64

Trail Bridge 22 $22,902,237 $1,035,679 0.05 62

Building 208 $173,684,022 $5, 408,014 0.03 63

Fuel System 72 $8,636,054 $565,619 0.07 55

Marina/Waterfront System 20 $12,837,968 $823,315 0.06 74

Aviation System 30 $28,980,762 $1,096,378 0.04 63

Total 621 $578,066,234 $48,583,841

Source: FMSS, January 2011. Note: Fleet inventory was excluded from the analyses
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 15

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 5 

Reading API and FCI Charts

Better

Condition

Higher

Priority

Asset

Lower

Priority

Asset

Worse

Condition

Regular, Recurring Maintenance Preventive

Maintenance Component Renewal

Priority for

O&M Funding

Priority for

Project Funding Stabilize, Restore, 

or Replace

Deferred Maintenance

Component Renewal

Transfer or desingate

for beneficial use

by other parties

Minimal investment

Candidate for

demolition 

or disposal

0

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

88

75

21

0.15 0.30 0.75 1.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Priority

Band 1

Priority Band 2

Priority Band 3

Priority Band 4

Priority Band 5

Figure 6 

Average Alaska Region Transportation Assets

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Road

Parking Area

Road Bridge

Trail

Trail Bridge

Building

Fuel System

Marina/

Waterfront

System

Aviation 

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Cluster Transportation Asset Management 

Plan Summaries

In order to thoroughly examine the 

Region’s diverse transportation system, 

cluster Transportation Asset Management 

Plans were developed using benchmark, 

current replacement value, and operation 

and maintenance data for identified 

transportation assets documented in 

unit-level Park Asset Management 

Plans (PAMPs). These source PAMPs 

are available in Appendix A. The plans 

provide a detailed record of how park level 

conditions aggregate to the regional level. 

PAMPs also prioritize assets based on 

the API and FCI concepts summarized 

in Figure 5, but with greater detail. This 

prioritization, termed “priority bands,” 

is used in management decision making 

described in Chapter 4 of this LRTP. As 

illustrated in Figure 5, PAMPs priority 

bands use API and FCI values to classify 

assets into five categories. Assets in these 

priority bands are characterized by the 

following:

 Priority Band 1: Highest Priority Assets. 

Assets are highly important to park 

mission, have high visitor use, and/or 

are critical systems. API is 88 or greater 

and FCI is 0.15 or less.

 Priority Band 2: High Priority Assets. Assets 

are important to the park mission. API 

is 75 or greater and FCI of 0.30 or less. 

 Priority Band 3: Medium Priority Assets. 

Assets where only some essential 

operations are important. API is 50 or 

greater and FCI is 0.75 or less.

 Priority Band 4: Low Priority Assets. Assets 

are important but not critical to park 

operations or do not require much 

maintenance funding. API is 21 or 

greater and FCI is 1.0 or less.

 Priority Band 5: Lowest Priority Assets. 

These assets may not be required for the 

operations and mission of a park. API is 

less than 21 and FCI is greater than 1.

Table 3 illustrates the Alaska Region 

transportation asset current replacement 

value, deferred maintenance, and average 

FCI as reported by the PAMPs.

The Transportation Asset Management 

Plans also indicate that Denali NPP 

accounts for 65 percent and Glacier Bay 

NPP accounts for 16 percent of total 

transportation asset deferred maintenance 

in the Alaska Region. When examined at 

the cluster level, Road Parks account for 

73 percent of the total transportation asset 

deferred maintenance, whereas Cruise 

Ship Parks account for 21 percent, Remote 

South Parks are 6 percent, and Remote 

North Park are less than 1 percent. The 

overall FCI of Road Parks is considered 

“high,” at 0.1, while Remote North Park 

assets are ranked “excellent” with an 

FCI of 0.01. Figure 7 illustrates the 

number of transportation assets by cluster 

category versus percent of region-wide 

current replacement value and deferred 

maintenance. 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 17

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 3

Transportation Assets by Park Cluster

Park Cluster

Number of 

Assets

Current 

Replacement Value

Deferred 

Maintenance

Average 

FCI

Remote North Parks 21 $21,746,642 $191,261 0.01

Remote South Parks 110 $71,347,569 $2,735,878 0.04

Cruise Ship Parks 135 $122,362,780 $10,314,756 0.08

Road Parks 355 $362,609,422 $35,341,947 0.10

Total 621 $578,066,413 $48,583,842

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Figure 7 

Alaska Region Assets, Current Replacement Value, and Deferred Maintenance

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

Remote North

Parks

Remote South

Parks

Cruise Ship

Parks

Road

Parks

100

300

400

50

250

200

150

350

Number of Transportation Assets

Assets: 3%

CRV: 4%

DM: 0.4%

Assets: 18%

CRV: 12%

DM: 6%

Assets: 22%

CRV: 21%

DM: 21%

Assets: 57%

CRV: 63%

DM: 73%
18 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 8 

Remote North Park Assets

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Figure 9 

Remote North Parks API and FCI

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Remote North Parks

Due to their remoteness and general lack 

of infrastructure (illustrated in Figure 8 

and Figure 9), Remote North Parks have 

very few transportation assets when 

compared to other clusters in the Alaska 

Region. Planning for and management 

of transportation assets has traditionally 

not been perceived as a significant need 

for these parks. Data on the financial 

requirements of Remote North Park 

transportation assets is sparse and likely 

incomplete. The actual financial needs of 

these parks for operation and maintenance 

and project funding is potentially much 

higher than reported in this analysis.

0

Bering Land 

Bridge

Gates of the 

Arctic

Western Arctic

Parklands

4

12

14

2

10

8

6

Number of Transportation Assets

Other

Concession

NPS

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Building

Fuel System

Aviation 

System
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 19

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

With the recent addition of several visitor 

centers, Remote North Parks have had a 

significant increase in the value of their 

transportation asset portfolio. While 

current Remote North Park operation 

and maintenance and component renewal 

needs are relatively modest, as indicated 

in Table 4, operation and maintenance for 

these new assets will eventually require 

more resources than these parks have 

needed historically. Remote North Parks 

should look towards additional funding 

mechanisms to help fund operations 

as well as additional project needs. 

Developing new partnership agreements, 

for example, could help to alleviate 

or reduce this cluster’s maintenance 

responsibilities. 

Remote South Parks

FMSS indicates that 69 percent, or 76 

of the 110 assets, of the Remote South 

Park transportation assets have an FCI 

under 0.15 and an API of 50 or above. 

This indicates that 69 percent of Remote 

South Park assets are high priority and 

are in “good” condition. As illustrated in 

Figure 10, Alagnak NPP and Aniakchak 

NPP have no transportation assets. As 

illustrated in Figure 11, Remote South 

Parks also contain transportation assets 

with lower API values and an FCI of 0 

(43 percent of Remote South Park assets 

have an FCI of 0). It is possible that some 

of these assets have incomplete FCI 

records in FMSS and, once examined for 

condition, could be good candidates for 

disposal.

Although the identified funding gap 

between operation and maintenance 

base allocations and benchmarks 

is approximately $1.2 million, the 

funding gap for the highest priority 

transportation assets (priority bands 1 

through 3 as identified in the PAMPs) 

is only approximately $700 thousand. 

This number more closely approximates 

additional operation and maintenance 

needs. As summarized in Table 5, the 

annual project funding gap is just above 

$150 thousand. This gap could be reduced 

or eliminated by lowering the annual 

deferred maintenance requirements 

documented in Table 6.

Approximately 15 percent of funding 

from previous years was provided by the 

Recreation Fee 20 Percent and Recreation 

Fee Demonstration 20 Percent funds. 

These funds will no longer be available in 

future years and the Remote South Parks 

should look towards additional funding 

mechanisms to help fund operations and 

project needs. 

Table 4

Remote North Transportation Asset Portfolio

Asset Number of 

Assets

Deferred 

Maintenance

Current 

Replacement Value

Average 

FCI

Road - - - -

Trail 1 $0 $18,417 0.00

Building 14 $169,445 $21,569,606 0.01

Fuel System 5 $21,816 $59,637 0.37

Aviation System 1 $0 $98,803 0.00

Total 21 $191,261 $21,746,463

Source: FMSS, January 2011
20 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 10 

Remote South Park Assets

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Figure 11 

Remote South Park API and FCI

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

20

60

70

10

50

40

30

Number of Transportation Assets

Katmai Lake Clark Alagnak Aniakchak

Other

Concession

NPS

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Road

Parking Area

Trail

Trail Bridge

Building

Fuel System

Marina/

Waterfront

System

Aviation 

System

Table 5

Remote South Funding Gap

 Projected Funding Gap

Deferred Maintenance Annualized Requirement $273,588

Component Renewal Annualized Requirement $20,844

Total Deferred Maintenance and Component Renewal Annualized Requirement $294,432

Annual Project Funding Available ($141,571)

Total Project Funding Gap $152,861

Source: FMSS, January 2011
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 21

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Cruise Ship Parks

As illustrated in Figure 12, The number 

of transportation assets contained within 

Cruise Ship Parks varies. As charted in 

Figure 13, the majority of Cruise Ship 

Park priority transportation assets are 

in good condition. That is, 65 percent, or 

88 of the total 135 assets, have an FCI 

below 0.15 and an API of 50 or greater. 

Cruise Ship Parks consider more trails 

to be transportation assets compared to 

other park cluster. Cruise Ship Parks also 

have many transportation assets that have 

lower API values and an FCI of 0. It is 

possible that some of these assets have 

incomplete FCI records in FMSS and, 

once examined for condition, could be good 

candidates for disposal.

Although the identified funding gap 

between operation and maintenance 

base allocations and benchmarks is 

approximately $1.8 million, the gap the 

highest priority transportation assets 

(priority bands 1 through 3 as identified in 

the PAMPs) is $1.1 million. This number 

more closely approximates additional 

operation and maintenance needs. The 

future component renewal requirements 

for the Cruise Ship Parks are significantly 

influenced by projected trail maintenance 

requirements in 2021. This requirement 

occurring in Glacier Bay should be 

anticipated and perhaps measures could 

be taken in earlier years to reduce the 

projected costs. As illustrated in Table 7, 

trail assets account for a considerable level 

of current replacement value. 

Cruise Ship Parks rely on fewer funding 

sources than Road Parks to fund their 

transportation assets. Their largest 

funding source comes from the Federal 

Lands Highway Program (FLHP), 

which has historically accounted for 

approximately 60 percent of funding. 

Although exact levels of Federal funding 

from this source are uncertain, it is 

reasonable to assume that these funding 

levels will remain at historical levels. 

Cruise Ship Parks should look towards 

additional funding mechanisms to help 

fund operations and project needs. 

Table 6

Remote South Transportation Asset Portfolio

Asset Number of Assets Deferred Maintenance Current Replacement Value FCI

Road 13 $381,666 $17,940,789 0.02

Parking Area 16 $155,553 $860,975 0.18

Trail 8 $239,424 $1,985,848 0.12

Trail Bridge 2 $664,359 $20,807,054 0.03

Building 36 $463,277 $24,279,568 0.02

Fuel System 17 $273,255 $992,968 0.28

Marina/Waterfront System 16 $558,344 $3,272,606 0.17

Aviation System 2 $0 $1,207,760 0.00

Total 110 $2,735,878 $71,347,568

Source: FMSS, January 2011
22 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 12 

Cruise Ship Park Assets

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Figure 13 

Cruise Ship Park API and FCI

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

20

70

90

60

80

10

50

40

30

Number of Transportation Assets

Glacier Bay Klondike Gold Rush Sitka

Other

Concession

NPS

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Road

Parking Area

Trail

Trail Bridge

Building

Fuel System

Marina/

Waterfront

System

Aviation 

System
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 23

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 7

Cruise Ship Park Transportation Asset Portfolio

Asset Number of 

Assets

Deferred 

Maintenance

Current Replacement 

Value

Average

FCI

Road 7 $3,837,851 $19,097,855 0.20

Parking Area 15 $858,127 $4,849,778 0.18

Trail 36 $1,236,988 $33,111,392 0.04

Trail Bridge 18 $371,320 $1,784,480 0.21

Building 50 $3,177,251 $41,248,221 0.08

Fuel System 2 $127,556 $4,191,040 0.03

Marina/Waterfront System 4 $264,972 $9,565,362 0.03

Aviation System 3 $440,691 $8,514,654 0.05

Total 135 $10,314,756 $122,362,782

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Road Parks

As illustrated in Figure 14, the number 

of transportation assets contained within 

Road Parks vary. Fifty-two percent, 

or 184 of 355, of Road Parks priority 

transportation assets have an FCI below 

0.15 and an API of 50 or higher. This 

indicates that these 184 assets are in good 

condition or better. Road Parks also have 

several transportation assets with higher 

FCI values with lower API rankings as 

indicated in Figure 15. These low priority 

and poor condition assets are candidates 

for disposal or decommissioning. This 

strategy can be used to reduce operation 

and maintenance on unnecessary 

assets and lowering the Road Park 

transportation asset deferred maintenance 

requirements summarized in Table 8.

Road Park transportation assets are 

prominent in that their road deferred 

maintenance ($26.3 million) accounts for 54 

percent of all deferred maintenance in the 

region. Denali Park Road is the primary 

factor for this need, as documented in the 

Denali NPP PAMP. Table 8 illustrates 

the significant deferred maintenance and 

current replacement value for road assets. 

Figure 14 

Road Park Assets

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

200

250

150

100

50

Number of Transportation Assets

Other

Concession

NPS

Denali Kenai Fjords Wrangell-St. Elias Yukon-Charley
24 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 15 

Road Park API and FCI

Source: FMSS, January 2011

Table 8

Road Park Transportation Asset Portfolio

Asset Number of 

Assets

Deferred 

Maintenance

Current 

Replacement Value

Average 

FCI

Road 52 $26,252,923 $112,930,621 0.23

Parking Area 86 $2,215,098 $26,504,456 0.08

Bridge 16 $2,758,607 $80,996,139 0.03

Trail 19 $1,718,599 $32,728,922 0.05

Trail Bridge 2 $0 $310,703 0.00

Building 108 $1,598,042 $86,586,627 0.02

Fuel System 48 $142,992 $3,392,410 0.04

Aviation System 24 $655,686 $19,159,545 0.03

Total 355 $35,341,947 $362,609,423

Source: FMSS, January 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Road

Parking Area

Road Bridge

Trail

Trail Bridge

Building

Fuel System

Aviation 

System
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 25

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Although the identified funding gap 

between operation and maintenance 

base allocations and benchmarks is 

approximately $2 million, the funding gap 

for the highest priority transportation 

assets (priority bands 1 through 3 as 

identified in the PAMPs) is only $680 

thousand. This number more closely 

approximates additional operation and 

maintenance needs. The approximate 

annual project funding gap is $722 

thousand as summarized in Table 9. This 

gap could be greatly reduced or eliminated 

by reducing the annual deferred 

maintenance requirements. 

Future funding for Road Parks is 

uncertain. Historically, these parks have 

relied upon a diverse set of funding 

sources, several of which will no longer be 

available in the future or were only one 

time occurrences. Road Parks should look 

towards additional funding mechanisms to 

help fund operations and project needs. 

2.1.3 Needs and Gaps

All parks have ongoing needs in the areas 

of deferred maintenance, operation and 

maintenance, and upcoming component 

renewal for transportation assets of all 

priority ratings. System management 

gaps are calculated by determining 

the cost for proper operation and 

maintenance, deferred maintenance, and 

component renewal subtracting the funds 

available. As such gaps persist through 

time, conditions will continue to degrade. 

Table 10 summarizes the funding gaps 

between operation and maintenance.

Table 9

Road Park Funding Gaps

 Projected Funding Gap

Deferred Maintenance Annualized Requirement $3,534,195

Component Renewal Annualized Requirement $584,819

Total Deferred Maintenance and Component Renewal Annualized Requirement $4,119,014

Annual Project Funding Available ($3,397,119)

Total Project Funding Gap $721,895

Table 10

Annual Funding Gaps

Need Remote 

North Parks

Remote 

South Parks

Cruise Ship 

Parks Road Parks

Operations and 

Maintenance 

(Allocations 

– industry 

standard 

benchmarks)

Band 1: Highest Priority Assets $89,239 $282,583 $652,436 $42,143

Band 2: High Priority Assets $64,123 $159,318 $399,357 $250,212

Band 3: Medium Priority Assets $161,830 $260,168 $61,856 $387,863

Band 4: Lower Priority Assets $3,217 $147,805 $569,669 $724,431

Band 5: Lowest Priority Assets $235 $395,850 $79,580 $574,385

Total: Assets Medium Priority or Higher $315,192 $702,069 $1,113,649 $680,218

Total: All Assets $318,644 $1,245,724 $1,762,898 $1,979,034

Projects* (Deferred maintenance + 

component renewal - project funding) $7,732 $152,861 $559,207 $721,895

Gap meaning: (Funding need) – (funding available) = funding gap 

*Annualized (20 years for component renewal and 10 years for deferred maintenance) costs for projects planned through 2030.
26 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.1.4 Strategies

Based on the system management 

needs identified in the previous section, 

strategies were devised to address 

them. The strategies resulted from an 

NPS prioritization and funding scenario 

workshop conducted in Anchorage in July 

2011, and include: 

Invest operation and maintenance funds 

only in high priority assets (Priority 

bands 1 and 2, and a portion of band 3)

Meet annual component renewal 

requirements and decrease overall 

deferred maintenance backlog

By concentrating funding on high priority 

assets, the region can ensure that the 

assets critical to Alaska transportation 

systems are maintained over time. 

By addressing the Alaska Region’s 

$50 million deferred maintenance backlog 

for transportation assets, the region can 

avert further degradation of these assets. 

Once the deferred maintenance is at an 

acceptable level, much of the funding 

currently spent on backlog can be diverted 

to more proactive transportation projects 

and programs. Concentrated spending on 

deferred maintenance will improve road 

assets, which overall, have the lowest FCI 

rating.

 The NPS often finds that options for mobility to and within 

Alaska’s national parks result in the need to address 

conflicting modes of transportation. Partnering with user 

groups and other agencies is required to properly manage 

transportation corridors, such as multiple-use winter trails.

Access to Kenai Fjords National Park Exit Glacier area, 

for instance, is defined by the single Herman Leirer Road 

corridor. The State of Alaska, U.S. Forest Service and the 

NPS all have certain responsibilities for this road corridor 

which in its unplowed condition during winter months serves 

snowmachiners, skiers, snowshoers and dog mushers. 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 27

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.2 Mobility

The LRTP mobility goal is to “provide safe, 

efficient, and appropriate access to and through 

NPS lands.” The following objectives clarify 

how the mobility goal shall be achieved:

 Safety: Provide safe access to and within 

NPS lands.

 Access: Provide access for recreational 

and subsistence users consistent 

with the purposes of the parks using 

appropriate modes and seamless 

connections to and through NPS lands.

 User Information: Provide accurate and 

accessible information through a variety 

of means about how to travel to and 

through Alaska parks.

As documented in the Mobility Technical 

Report, available in Appendix B, numerous 

data sources were used to determine 

existing conditions as they relate to the 

mobility goal and access, safety, and user 

information objectives. Data sources 

used include NPS PMIS, park unit 

interviews, planning and management 

literature reviews, a Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) safety report 

(available as an addendum to Appendix 

B) based on NPS Service-wide Traffic 

Accident Reporting System (STARS) 

database, and other agency data. 

Condition findings are organized by data 

source.

It should be noted that access to NPS 

lands may be by rail, road, river, and air, 

meaning there may be diverse influences 

in mobility without any direct role or 

responsibilities of the NPS. For example, 

the Alaska Railroad provides passenger 

service to Denali National Park and to the 

gateway community of Seward, near Kenai 

Fjords National Park. Also, ADOT&PF 

has responsibility for maintaining the 

state highway and road infrastructure 

which brings thousands of motorists to 

road accessible parks. Similarly, river 

connections allows for watercraft of all 

types, including barges, to access parks 

(such as Kobuk Valley National Park and 

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve). 

Finally, there are many air facilities 

outside park boundaries that provide the 

necessary infrastructure and operational 

support that enables aircraft to fly over 

and into NPS lands.

2.2.1 Project Management Information 

System

A review of NPS Alaska Region projects 

documented in PMIS indicates that 160 

projects were related to access, safety, or 

user information. Of these projects, Road 

Park units accounted for the majority of 

projects (103 projects), followed by Cruise 

Ship Park units (36 projects), Remote 

South Park units (16 projects), and finally, 

Remote North Parks (5 projects). Of these 

PMIS projects, 94 projects are safetyrelated, 55 are access-related, and 11 

projects are related to user information. 

Figure 16 summarizes the PMIS mobility 

projects by objective and cluster category. 

Transportation projects in PMIS are 

discussed further in Section 3.3.3 as 

well as the Mobility Technical Report 

in Appendix B and Financial Analysis 

Technical Report in Appendix E.

Figure 16 

Alaska NPS Mobility Related Projects

 Source: PMIS, February 2011

0

200

250

150

100

50

Number of Projects in PMIS

Remote North

Parks

Remote South 

Parks

Cruise Ship 

Parks

Road 

Parks

Access

Safety

Visitor

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.2.2 Park Unit Surveys

To obtain expert knowledge about park 

unit conditions, needs, and gaps, park 

unit-level surveys were conducted. 

Table 11 summarizes key mobility-related 

conditions as reported by local park unit 

personnel. The surveys provide a means 

to document qualitative data related to 

conditions, needs, and gaps that are not 

always identified through other analyses 

or data sources such as PMIS.

2.2.3 Planning and Management 

Documents

Existing conditions resulting from a 

literature review of NPS planning and 

management documents is represented 

in Table 12. The NPS planning and 

management literature review revealed 

more in terms of identified needs and gaps 

than existing conditions. These identified 

needs and gaps are discussed in Section 

2.2.6. 

Table 11

Mobility Condition Survey Results

Mobility 

Objective

Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship

Road

Condition

Access (No response)

Safety

X Interagency coordination is occurring

X Insufficient winter trail markings and shelter cabins

X X Poor runway conditions

X Poor data reporting

X X Severe weather degrading airstrips and trail markings

X X Poor road conditions

X Boating incidents

X Inadequate lighting

X Modal conflicts and capacity issues

User 

Information

X X Materials are outdated / insufficient

X X X Materials and marketing championed by non-NPS organizations

Source: In-person and teleconference interviews conducted in May and June 2010
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 29

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.2.4 Safety Data

Safety conditions consider all 

transportation systems to and within 

NPS lands regardless of jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, safety data considered 

in this LRTP includes STARS, Safety 

Management Information System, 

ADOT&PF statewide roadway accident 

records, National Transportation Safety 

Board aviation accident database, and U.S. 

Coast Guard Boating Accident Report 

Database system. From this data, the 

following conclusions are made regarding 

existing safety conditions:

 Ninety-five percent of accidents are 

localized to Denali. Of those Denali 

accidents, 58 percent are on Denali Park 

Road. 

 Seven percent of reported airplane 

accidents statewide occur on NPS lands. 

Of those accidents on NPS lands, most 

occur in Road and Remote South Park 

units.

 Of the dozen boating accidents reported 

by the U.S. Coast Guard in NPS lands, 

most incidences occurred in Cruise Ship 

and Road Parks.

The existing NPS STARS dataset is 

only current to 2005 and it is difficult 

to provide a current estimate of crash 

trends and patterns based on outdated 

data. From 1990 to 2005, there were five 

parks with STARS crash data for the 

study period, with a total of 199 reported 

crashes. However, since 1996, only 

Denali crash data was included in the 

STARS database. 

2.2.5 Conditions Summary

Based on the existing conditions analyses, 

the following generalizations can be made 

about the current condition of mobility in 

the NPS Alaska Region:

Access

 Currently, park access is deemed 

adequate with no significant issues 

within the region.

Investments in access related projects 

are ongoing according to PMIS data.

Planning and management documents 

indicate that known future events and 

opportunities could change access, but 

these factors are being monitored and 

planned for accordingly.

Traditional subsistence modes of travel 

have been determined for two park 

units.

Table 12

Planning and Management Literature Review

Mobility 

Objective

Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship

Road

Condition

Access

X Two Remote North Parks have restricted off-road vehicle (ORV) 

use for subsistence users

X Multiple air taxi operators access unit

X ORV trail planning is a major transportation issue

Safety

X X Severe weather conditions can occur year-round, causing 

delays in transportation and hindering access

X The Bering Land Bridge GMP calls for landing strip maintenance 

at Serpentine Hot Springs in Bering Land Bridge

X Growing number of boating accidents

X Short-condensed park visits by large numbers of cruise ship 

passengers cause high congestion at times

User Information (No mention)
30 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Safety

 Accidents are few in number, localized, 

and not a region-wide or cluster-wide 

problem.

 Severe weather is an ongoing 

problem for travel safety and the safe 

maintenance of transportation assets.

 Cruise Ship Park units experience safety 

conflicts when there are concentrated 

spikes in tourist visitation.

 Boat safety issues are believed to be 

increasing in Cruise Ship and Remote 

South Park units.

 Road and pedestrian improvements 

are needed due to inadequate or unsafe 

infrastructure in Remote South and 

Cruise Ship Park units.

Investments in safety related projects 

are ongoing according to PMIS data.

User Information

Investments in visitor information 

products are more active in Road and 

to a lesser degree, Remote South Park 

units.

 Remote North and Cruise Ship Park 

units rely on concessionaire visitor 

information products.

 Remote South Park units report that 

visitor information is outdated.

Investments in visitor information 

related projects are ongoing according 

to PMIS data.

2.2.6 Needs and Gaps

The existing conditions analyses exposed 

numerous mobility related needs and gaps. 

These needs and gaps are summarized 

in Table 13. The table provides a crosstabulation of needs and gaps based on the 

number of analyses (PMIS, interview, and 

literature review) that indicated a certain 

topic was either a need or gap within a 

cluster. The row tabulation totals indicate 

the level of recognition a need or gap has 

region-wide. The column totals indicate 

the level of recognized needs and gaps 

within a cluster by mobility objective 

(access, safety, and visitor information), as 

well as the region as a whole. 

Table 13 also illustrates that safety related 

needs and gaps were most frequently 

identified (38 reports), followed by access 

(17 reports), and visitor information needs 

and gaps were less common (5 reports). 

Between the clusters, the identification 

of needs and gaps ranges from 12 to 18 

reports with Road Park units reporting 

the most and Remote South Park units 

reporting the fewest. 

Although the Alaska Region is vast and often remote, there 

are locales where pedestrian safety can be challenging 

due to compressed periods of congestion. For example, the 

gateway town of Skagway to Klondike Gold Rush National 

Historical Park receives 800,000 cruise ship tourists between 

the months of May and September. Multiple dockings in a 

single day transform the small, quiet historic town into a 

bustling scene, more typical of a busy city.

In a matter of a few hours, thousands of pedestrians 

disembark large cruise ships and descend on a sixteen block 

commercial district while remaining open to automobiles, 

buses, bicycles, horse-drawn carriages, and commercial 

trucks. The NPS works with the local community and the 

State of Alaska to provide separated walkways and signage 

to guide visitors through the town.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 31

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 13

Mobility Needs and Gaps

Park Clusters

Totals

Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship

Road 

Parks

Access

Interagency coordination 1 - - - 1

Access study needed - 1 1 2 4

Improve water/land connection - 1 - - 1

Dock improvements - - 1 - 1

Pedestrian congestion relief - - 1 - 1

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rehabilitations - - 1 - 1

Acquire visitor transit buses - - 1 - 1

Trail restoration/improvements - - - 1 1

All-terrain vehicle (ATV)/ORV access management 1 - - 2 3

Potential non-NPS access corridors/development identified near park units 1 1 - 1 3

Access Total 3 3 5 6 17

Safety

Insufficient infrastructure 1 - - 1 2

Inconsistent safety data reporting 1 - - - 1

Severe weather conditions or natural hazards and impacts 3 2 - 1 6

Search and rescue/coordination with other groups 1 - - - 1

Road and airport safety concerns - 1 - - 1

Boating safety/analyze safety of fleet vessel - 1 2 - 3

Inadequate lighting in parking lot - - 1 - 1

Modal conflicts and capacity issues - - 1 - 1

Road safety improvements needed or proposed - 1 - 3 4

Inadequate information about road conditions - - - 1 1

Winter trail safety 3 - - - 3

Facilitate safe bear viewing - 1 - - 1

Commercial operator training - 1 - - 1

Trail safety/restoration improvements - 1 1 1 3

Rehabilitate/maintain airstrip surface 2 - 1 1 4

Pedestrian and/or vehicle congestion - - 2 1 3

Dock improvements - - 1 - 1

Safety Total 11 8 9 9 38

Visitor Information 

Provide interpretive exhibits or roadside kiosks 1 - - 1 2

Repair/replace information signs - - - 1 1

Implement shuttle system and associated infrastructure - - - 1 1

New visitor information materials proposed - 1 - - 1

Visitor Total 1 1 - 3 5

Grand Mobility Total 15 12 14 18 60
32 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Based on what is reported in Table 13, the 

following generalizations can be made of 

region-wide and cluster specific needs and 

gaps:

Access

 More access studies are needed regionwide.

 All-terrain vehicle (ATV)/off-road 

vehicle (ORV) access management is 

needed in select areas.

 Future non-NPS projects could affect 

access region-wide.

Safety

 Severe weather impacts safety regionwide.

 Boating safety is an issue in select areas.

 Road safety improvements are needed 

in select areas.

Winter trail safety improvements are 

needed in select areas.

 Airstrip improvements would benefit 

safety region-wide.

Vehicle and/or pedestrian congestion is 

an issue in select areas.

Visitor Information

 Needs and gaps exist in select areas. 

2.2.7 Strategies

Based on the needs identified above, the 

following strategies resulted from an 

NPS prioritization and funding scenario 

workshop conducted in Anchorage in July 

2011.

Provide readily available and accurate 

information and training.

 Support infrastructure that improves 

winter trails safety.

Incorporate ANILCA Section 1301(b)(4) 

consistent access studies into GMP 

updates and as needed.

 Conduct access management plans 

where needed.

Where deemed necessary by parks, 

provide minimal improvements and 

basic maintenance to airstrips.

 Reduce vehicular crashes, especially in 

road accessible parks.

 Coordinate with ADOT&PF and local 

governments on transportation planning 

and projects.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 33

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.3 User Experience

The LRTP user experience goal is to 

“proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal 

experience.” The following objectives are 

used to achieve this goal:

 User Data: Collect and analyze user 

information to determine which 

experiences and expectations are most 

relevant to transportation access.

 Multimodal Transportation: Establish a 

multimodal transportation system that 

emphasizes the journey as integral to 

the Alaska experience.

The LRTP user experience goal 

responds to the portion of the NPS 

agency mission that states, “the NPS 

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.” In Alaska, the 

journey to and within parks is often 

part of an enjoyable, educational, and 

inspirational experience. More so than 

other NPS regions, transportation related 

user experience in Alaska is tied to the 

multimodal nature of travel within the 

State. The types of users accessing Alaska 

parks also vary from locals who travel to 

and through parks to reach neighboring 

villages and for subsistence purposes, 

to visitors on cruise ships that travel to 

a number of historic and natural parks 

along the Alaskan coast. Information 

regarding Alaska Region and other Alaska 

FLMA visitation is available in the Alaska 

Federal Lands LRTP, as the Visitation

Trends Technical Report appendix.

Existing conditions established for the 

user experience goal relies on unit-level 

surveys, NPS visitation statistics, NPS 

planning documents, visitor surveys 

conducted by the University of Idaho, 

and requested and formulated projects 

in PMIS. This information is reported 

in great detail in the Visitor/User

Experience Technical Report in Appendix

C. The following condition evaluations are 

derived from the technical report, and are 

provided at a park cluster level. For each 

park cluster, user experience conditions 

include:

 User demographics

Transportation systems, modes, and 

access

Trends

 Experience types

 Needs

2.3.1 Remote North Parks 

Remote North Parks experience relatively 

low visitation compared to other units in 

the Alaska Region and the NPS system. 

Winter travel throughout remote Alaska is often 

characterized by trails that connect villages inside 

and outside of national park lands. Mobility is highly 

unpredictable as weather conditions, changing terrain on 

frozen rivers, and variable snow depth all contribute to the 

difficulty of maintaining stable routes. 

The NPS collaborates with Native villages and local users 

to explore safer practices of transportation for subsistence, 

village commerce, and traversing the parks. The ability to 

utilize Alaska’s national parks during the more than eight to 

nine months of winter is no less important than winter parks 

in the Lower 48, but the difference is that Alaska’s parks 

remain occupied year round. 
34 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

These parks are generally accessed by 

non-local visitors through commercial 

flights from Anchorage or Fairbanks to 

the gateway communities of Kotzebue 

or Nome. Locals use these parks for 

subsistence purposes and inter-village 

travel. Remote North Parks are depicted 

in Figure 3 and listed in Table 1.

User Demographics

Remote North Parks are estimated to 

account for 0.7 percent, or 45,000, of 

total 2009 Alaska Region visits. Overall 

visitation in Remote North Parks is 

trending downward. Trends in visit type 

show increases in recreation visits and a 

decline in non-recreation visits.

Transportation Systems, Modes, and Access 

Remote North Parks are accessed 

primarily by snowmobile, small boat, and 

fixed wing aircraft. Gates of the Arctic 

National Park is accessible from the 

nearby Dalton Highway by way of ORVs 

or hiking. Signage and wayfinding at 

Remote North Parks and their gateway 

communities is limited or absent. 

Type of Experience

Users of the Remote North Parks typically 

expect and encounter a wilderness 

experience. Most non-local travel is preplanned or provided through guided tours. 

Visitors arrive by airplane for multi-night 

excursions including fishing, camping, 

hiking, and rafting. Visitor reports suggest 

that small fixed winged aircraft flights 

and water or tundra landings are trip 

highlights. Users find few wayfinding tools 

in these parks and gateway communities. 

Local users are typically associated with 

subsistence purposes or traverse parks 

for inter-village trade and through travel. 

Anecdotal information indicates safety 

concerns with insufficient winter travel 

corridor markings and shelter cabins.

Identified Needs

The following user experience needs are 

identified for Remote North Parks:

1. Travel safety. Safety gaps include a lack of 

search and rescue capability, emergency 

shelters, inter-village trail markers, and 

interagency cooperation with accident 

data between NPS, State Troopers, 

Native Corporations, or other land 

management agencies.

2. Unreliable aviation access. Aviation 

concerns include weather caused delays, 

flooded airstrips, poor airstrip condition, 

and airstrip maintenance liability. As 

aviation access to Remote North Parks 

is expected to increase in the future 

airstrip flooding related to any change in 

climate is a concern for these parks.

3. Access. Issues related to the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) and State of Alaska 

Revised Statute 2477 access issues are 

managed on an individual park rather 

than regional basis, and is not addressed 

in this document. 

4. Additional data. Data is needed to answer 

the following questions:

• How many users/visitors?

• What are the purposes of the use or 

visitation?

NPS
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 35

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

• What are user origins and 

destinations? 

• What are user modes of travel?

• Are users satisfied with their travel 

experience to and within the park(s)?

5. Airstrip mapping. Several sources 

discussed needs for airstrip mapping. 

Airstrip locations are needed for search 

and rescue activities. More investigation 

is required to assess the feasibility 

of mapping and maintaining airstrip 

location data. 

2.3.2 Remote South Parks

As illustrated in Figure 3, Remote 

South Parks are located proximate to 

or within the Alaska Peninsula. These 

parks are typically accessed by private 

and chartered fixed wing aircraft from 

Anchorage, Katmai NPP, and Lake Clark 

NPP. Gateway communities for these 

parks are King Salmon and Port Alsworth. 

Coastal areas in Remote South Parks are 

accessed by boat and aircraft via Kodiak. 

User Demographics 

Remote South Parks account for 1.7 

percent of Alaska Region visitation. 

Similar to North Remote Parks, more data 

is needed before conclusions can be made 

about visitor demographics. 

Transportation Systems, Modes, and Access

With the exception of Brooks Camp in 

Katmai NPP, most visitation to Remote 

South Parks is not reported due to the 

nature of travel, primarily private fixed 

wing aircraft and private boat. These data 

are therefore difficult to acquire.

Type of Experience

Bear viewing at Katmai NPP is a 

popular activity and draws many visitors. 

In-holder fishing lodges are located 

throughout Katmai NPP and Lake Clark 

NPP and are visitor destinations. Visitors 

arrive via aircraft for fishing, hiking, and 

rafting excursions that occur, by necessity, 

over multiple days. Users report that 

arrival to these parks via floatplane, water 

landings, and hiking highly vegetated 

trails as trip highlights. There is little 

wayfinding in Remote South Parks and 

their associated gateway communities. 

Identified Needs

The following user experience needs are 

identified for Remote South Parks:

1. Additional data. Same as identified for 

Remote North Parks. See additional 

data topic in section 2.3.1.

2. Access. Issues related to the ANILCA 

and State of Alaska Revised Statute 

2477 access issues are managed at the 

park level rather than a regional basis 

and are therefore not addressed in this 

LRTP. 

3. Unreliable aviation access. Same as 

identified for Remote North Parks. See 

unreliable aviation access in section 

2.3.1.

4. Airstrip mapping. Same as identified 

for Remote North Parks. See airstrip 

mapping in section 2.3.1.

5. Off-road vehicle. Further investigation 

into Remote North Park ORV needs is 

necessary.

6. Advanced travel planning data. User 

experience can be improved through 

providing advance information detailing 

conditions and ways to access Remote 

South Parks.

7. Information and wayfinding. PMIS data 

indicates that providing information and 

wayfinding at Remote South Parks is 

needed.

2.3.3 Road Parks 

As illustrated in Figure 3, Road Parks 

are defined by their connection to the 

ADOT&PF road network. The following 

existing conditions are determined 

for Road Parks in the Visitor/User

Experience Technical Report available in

Appendix C.
36 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

User Demographics

Road Parks receive 47.2 percent of 

Alaska Region visitation. Of Road Park 

users, 56 percent are under the age of 50. 

Popular Road Park visitor destinations are 

campgrounds and visitor centers.

Transportation Systems, Modes, and Access 

In addition to the vehicular access that 

defines Road Parks, users access parks 

through trains, air and float planes, boats, 

snow machines, and other travel modes. 

The Alaska Railroad provides extensive 

access to Denali NPP as well as Kenai 

Fjords National Park. 

Type of Experience

Typical user activities include bus tours, 

boat tours, backpacking, mountaineering, 

camping, rafting, biking, ranger 

programs, dog sledding, wildlife viewing, 

photography, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, 

kayaking, ATV, and staying in backcountry 

cabins. Sightseeing by train and bus 

are primary transportation-related 

user experience in Road Parks. These 

services are generally privately-owned 

and operated. Congestion is experienced 

during the peak tourism months at Denali 

NPP. 

Identified needs

The following user experience needs are 

identified for Road Parks:

1. Airstrip mapping. Same as Remote North 

and South Parks as identified in section 

2.3.1.

2. Off-road vehicle. Further investigation 

into Road Park ORV needs is necessary.

3. Crowding. Conflict between local 

residents and park visitors needs 

further study.

4. Road maintenance and construction. 

High-priority roads need to be in good 

condition.

5. Negative transportation system impacts to 

wilderness experience. Separate from this 

LRTP, Denali NPP bus traffic issues and 

mitigation are being studied.

6. Advanced travel planning data. Throughout 

Road Parks, visitor experience can 

be improved by providing advance 

information about conditions and ways 

to access these parks.

7. Information and wayfinding. PMIS data 

indicates that providing information and 

wayfinding in Road Parks is needed.

2.3.4 Cruise Ship Parks

Cruise Ship Parks that include parks in 

southeast Alaska are primarily visited 

by cruise ship travelers. Parks in this 

category are identified in Figure 3 and 

Table 1.

User Demographics

Cruise Ship Parks account for 50 percent 

of visitation in the Alaska Region. Use of 

these parks is characterized by cruise ship 

passengers. Of cruise ship passengers, 

52 percent are over 50 years old. Users 

typically access Cruise Ship Parks for 

short-duration day visits; however, Glacier 

Bay NPP cruise ship visitors do not leave 

their vessels as ships travel through 

waters only to view glaciers from afar. 

NPS Glacier Bay NPP receives some overnight 
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 37

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

and day visitation by way of Juneau 

(arrival to Gustavus by commercial jet, 

private and chartered boats, and the 

Alaska Marine Highway System).

Transportation Systems, Modes, and Access

All Cruise Ship Parks can be accessed 

by the Alaska Marine Highway System, 

cruise ships, and commercial jets. 

The most common mode of travel to 

Cruise Ship Parks is watercraft (cruise 

ship, commercial boat, and ferry). The 

second most common form is aircraft, 

typically from Juneau. Tour buses are an 

important component of the Cruise Ship 

Park transportation systems in parks 

where cruise passengers disembark and 

physically access NPS lands. The White 

Pass and Yukon railroads also provide 

access to Klondike Gold Rush National 

Historic Park. 

Type of Experience

Cruise Ship Park visitors travel within 

parks predominantly by foot. A lack of 

safe crossings, adequate sidewalks, clear 

pedestrian signs, wayfinding, and proper 

accessibility all contribute to needs in 

these Cruise Ship Parks and nearby 

communities. Cruise Ship Parks are also 

connected to community transportation 

systems and networks, requiring close 

coordination with communities and 

transportation providers. Common 

activities at Cruise Ship Parks are hiking, 

camping, mountaineering, backpacking, 

kayaking, rafting, fishing, hunting, ranger 

programs, walking tours, museums, and 

viewing historic buildings. 

Trends in Cruise Ship Parks

Visitation to Cruise Ship Parks is 

increasing. Recreational visitation is 

increasing while non-recreation visitation 

is declining. High levels of visitation are 

beginning to create pedestrian crowding. 

In areas with inadequate ground vehicle 

support, pedestrian crowding creates 

safety concerns during the height of ship 

travel season. Information and wayfinding 

at Cruise Ship Park ports is lacking as 

is ADA compliant infrastructure. The 

Alaska Federal Lands LRTP contains a 

Visitation/User Trends Technical Report 

in its Appendix B. The technical report 

highlights trends in cruise ship visitation 

to NPS and other FLMA units. The report 

supports the notion that visitation to 

Cruise Ship related Federal lands is high 

and increasing.

Identified Needs

The following user experience needs are 

identified for Cruise Ship Parks:

1. Congestion/conflicting modes. There are 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts during travel 

to and within Cruise Ship Parks. There 

is also incomplete connectivity to/from 

parks and docks.

2. Crowding. Pedestrian capacity is a 

paramount need and impacts user 

experience and mobility goal areas. 

Conflicts between local use and cruise 

passenger crowding needs to be further 

investigated.

3. Off-road vehicle. Further investigation 

into Cruise Ship Park ORV needs is 

necessary.

4. Advanced travel planning data. User 

experience can be improved by 

providing advance information about 

conditions and ways to access Cruise 

Ship Parks.

5. Information and wayfinding. Information 

and wayfinding at Cruise Ship Parks is 

needed.

2.3.5 Needs Summary

Transportation in Alaska is an integral 

aspect of user experience. Region-wide 

user data is needed to better understand 

and improve transportation influence on 

user experience. Despite this data gap, 

safety, traveler information, as well as 

crowding and congestion were identified 

as needs that impact Alaska Region 

parks. While Table 14 summarizes needs 

identified throughout Section 2.3, the 

following bullets indicate the foremost 

transportation issues relating to user 

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 14

User Experience Needs Summary

User Experience Identified Needs

Park Cluster

Remote 

South

Remote 

North

Cruise 

Ship Road

Access X X

Advanced Travel Planning Data X X X

Airstrip Mapping X X X

Congestion/Conflicting Modes X

Crowding X X

Information and Wayfinding X X X

Lack of Data X X

Negative Transportation System Impacts to Wilderness Experience X

ORV X X X

Road Maintenance and Construction X

Travel Safety X

Unreliable Aviation Access X X

Information needs

Improve travel safety

Improve wayfinding and advance 

traveler information

 Crowding and congestion

 ADA compliance

 Road maintenance and construction

 Alleviate negative impacts to wilderness 

experience

2.3.6 Strategies

Based on the needs identified in Section 

2.3, the following strategies were 

devised during a NPS prioritization and 

funding scenario workshop conducted in 

Anchorage in July 2011.

 Collect and analyze transportation data 

on origin/destination, winter trail system 

use, incident reporting, demographic 

trends, mode of travel, safety needs, and 

so on.

Improve safety in the Alaska Region 

by providing safe infrastructure and by 

providing information. Address known 

pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, plan for 

emergency shelters and trail markings 

for winter travel, and coordinate with 

existing safety programs.

Provide for directional and informational 

signs within and to/from parks. 

Develop advanced travel information to 

disseminate travel information.

 Conduct pedestrian and transit planning 

in partnership with local entities to 

decrease crowding, congestion, and 

bottlenecking and reduce conflicts with 

cruise ship passengers.

 Complete ADA compliance along routes 

from cruise ship docks to parks and 

along park travel corridors.

 Maintain roads to a condition level 

that is appropriate for its use and 

coordinate with ADOT&PF regarding 

the maintenance of roads used to access 

parks.

Identify and manage negative impacts 

from vehicles and transportation 

infrastructure to wilderness experience 

where appropriate.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 39

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.4 Resource Protection

The LRTP resource protection goal 

is to “protect parks’ natural, cultural, and 

subsistence resources.” The following 

objectives will be used to achieve this goal:

 Protect Wildlife at an Ecosystem Scale: 

Coordinate with neighboring land and 

transportation managers to ensure 

that transportation system impacts on 

wildlife are understood and mitigated 

across borders.

 Physical Environment: Protect the physical 

environment from adverse effects of the 

transportation system.

 Cultural Resources: Mitigate negative 

impacts and provide appropriate access 

to cultural resources.

 Subsistence Resources: Consider impacts 

and access to subsistence resources 

in transportation planning and policy 

development.

Resource protection is a cornerstone of 

the NPS mission which states (italics 

added to emphasize resource protection) 

“to promote and regulate the use of the 

[...] national parks [...] which purpose is 

to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment 

of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations.” 

While some Alaska Region parks 

have extensively studied the impact of 

transportation systems on resources, 

the relationship between transportation 

and resources has not been explored at a 

regional scale. This LRTP is a first step 

at such a regional transportation/resource 

protection perspective.

This LRTP relies on unit-level surveys 

and requested/formulated projects in 

PMIS to identify resource protection 

conditions, needs, and gaps for park 

clusters. Existing conditions are organized 

by data source below and are based on 

the results of the Resource Protection 

Technical Report available in Appendix D.

2.4.1 Project Management Information 

System

Natural resource issues identified through 

requested and formulated projects 

contained within PMIS are identified 

in Table 15. The most wide-spread 

Alaska Region needs identified by PMIS 

are transportation planning, baseline 

inventories and documentation, and air 

and water quality monitoring.

Parks such as Wrangell-St. Elias NPP are accessible by 

motor vehicle, but two roads accessing the park, McCarthy 

Road and Nabesna Road, are within State of Alaska rightof-way. The park and ADOT&PF found collaboration on 

improvements and maintenance to be challenging, as these 

unpaved roadways are not the highest priority for the State, 

but they do provide essential park access to park lands and 

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 15

Natural Resource Issues in PMIS Requested and Formulated Project

Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship Road Issue Identified in PMIS

X X Impacts to soundscape from aircraft and vessel

X X X Inclusion of transportation issues in planning documents (backcountry 

wilderness management plans, resource protection plans)

X X X Resource inventories and subsistence use documentation

X X X Air and water quality data and monitoring

X Impacts of small aircraft travel on backcountry use impacts

X X Monitor and study ORV impacts on resources

X Cruise ship impacts

X Resource protection enforcement

X X Addressing exotic species

X X Repairing transportation assets that are cultural resources

X X Dust mitigation for roads and trails

X Transportation impacts on wildlife

X Transportation components to resource education

X Wildlife and fish crossings

Source: PMIS, 2011; Resource Protection Technical Report

2.4.2 Park Unit Surveys and Planning 

Documents by Cluster

Needs and issues identified through 

unit-level surveys and park planning 

documents are examined at the park 

cluster scale. To obtain expert knowledge 

about park unit conditions, needs, and 

gaps, park-level staff and management 

were asked about the relationship between 

transportation and resource protection. 

The surveys provide a means to document 

resource-related conditions, needs, 

and gaps that are not always identified 

through other analyses or data sources 

such as PMIS. Planning documents 

examined include GMPs.

Resource protection conditions for each 

park cluster are described in terms of 

character and needs. 

Remote North Parks

The following conditions exist for Remote 

North Park resource protection character 

and needs. 

Character

The Remote North Parks are large in 

area and contain few assets. Although 

these parks are some of the least 

visited in the NPS system, surrounding 

remote communities rely on the Remote 

North Parks for subsistence hunting, 

gathering, and habitat for subsistence 

resources. In addition to the natural and 

subsistence resources, these parks contain 

archeological and cultural resources.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 41

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Issues

Due to the lack of infrastructure and 

heavy use, few resource impacts were 

identified in unit-level surveys. The 

following issues were identified:

Tundra is damaged by illegal use of 

ORV and snow machines on insufficient 

snowpack.

 Soundscape disturbances from aircraft 

and snow machines may impact caribou 

migration thereby impacting subsistence 

hunting.

 Dust from gravel surfacing affects 

lichen near road corridors, which is then 

eaten by caribou and also infiltrates fish 

habitat. Roads themselves fragment 

habitat with as yet undetermined 

impacts.

General Management Plans for 

the Remote North Parks address 

transportation and resource preservation 

by documenting permitted modes of 

travel to/from inholdings and travel that 

is subject to reasonable regulation based 

on impacts to resources. In particular, 

decisions regarding the use of ORVs for 

access to inholdings is made by park 

superintendents on a case-by-case basis. 

The decision considers the potential for 

resource damage from ORVs.

Remote South Parks

The following conditions exist for Remote 

South Park resource protection character 

and needs. 

Character 

Remote South Parks contain significant 

geographic landscapes, natural and 

subsistence resources, and archeological 

resources. These parks are visited more 

than the Remote North Parks, and have 

more assets within their borders including 

roads and marine facilities.

Issues

Unit surveys indicate concern about 

natural and subsistence resource 

disturbance along transportation 

corridors. Disturbances include:

 High-speed river boats causing bank 

erosion and/or reductions in animal use 

of shorelines and riverbanks.

 Subsistence users increasingly travel 

further into parks to reach resources, 

using airplanes or boats.

 ORV impacts on park resources.

Cruise Ship Parks

The following conditions exist for Cruise 

Ship Park resource protection character 

and needs.

Character

Cruise Ship Parks receive the highest 

levels of visitation of any cluster category. 

The majority of visitors travel to or within 

these parks by cruise ship.

Serpentine Hot Springs, the most visited area in Bering Land 

Bridge National Preserve, is accessed only by fixed-wing 

aircraft in the summer and by snow machine in the winter.

The recent Serpentine Hot 

Springs Transportation 

Access Report relied 

heavily on the knowledge 

of village residents 

to explore means of 

providing safe travel to 

the area while preserving 

natural and cultural 

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Issues

Cruise Ship Park needs identified in 

unit-level surveys respond to cruise ship 

impacts on natural resources. These 

national resource impacts include:

Water and air quality impacts from 

cruise ships and small boats.

 Occurrence of petroleum and other 

transportation-related contaminants 

in intertidal communities and marine 

environments.

 Marine and land soundscape issues 

impact cultural resources, bears, whales, 

and other marine mammals.

Vessel disturbance of the critically 

endangered bird species, Kittlitz’s 

Murrelets.

Introduction of exotic and invasive 

species by cruise ships.

 Discharge from cruise ships may impact 

glaciers, which are considered sacred by 

some Native Alaskans.

Road Parks

The following resource protection existing 

conditions exist for Road Parks. 

Character

Road Parks contain most Alaska Region 

transportation assets and receive the 

second highest levels of visitation. Road 

Parks have the highest potential for 

impacting land resources compared to 

other park categories.

Issues

Unit-level surveys indicate that Road 

Park transportation systems impact 

geologic, natural, subsistence, and cultural 

resources in the following ways:

 Air and water quality concerns due to 

road and ORV trail runoff and dust.

Infrastructure impacts on permafrost, 

gumbo soil types, and so on.

 Boats can increase erosion (through 

wake) and disturb salmon rearing.

 Roads can bisect fish and wildlife habitat 

and hinder sheep migration.

 Soundscape impacts of planes and other 

vehicles on wildlife are concerning, but 

largely unstudied.

In Wrangell-St. Elias NPP, habitat 

fragmentation by road and ORV trail 

is poorly understood and requires 

additional study.

 Airstrips are sometimes constructed on 

cultural resources.

Include impacts to wildlife in vehicle 

management plan as was done for 

Denali NPP.

Addressing transportation needs and accommodations for 

visitor access are entirely contingent upon the NPS first 

managing the extraordinary natural and cultural resources 

found in Alaska.

In Glacier Bay NPP for example, visitation from about 

400,000 people per year occurs primarily by cruise ships and 

smaller tour or charter boats. Measures to address vessel 

traffic in Glacier Bay NPP were initiated in 1979 to protect 

endangered humpback whales. The vessel quota system and 

associated vessel operating conditions have been amended 

several times since then to properly balance resource 

protection and visitor experience.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 43

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.4.3 Needs and Gaps

The following is a summary of the 

transportation issues and needs relating 

to resource protection identified in 

Section 2.4:

 Bank erosion and fish rearing 

disturbances from high speed river 

boats.

 Dust from road and ORV trails (affected 

lichen entering the food chain).

 Rising costs of travel to access shifting 

subsistence resources.

 Air and water quality impacts from 

cruise ships.

Transportation systems contribution 

to petroleum in intertidal and marine 

environments.

Introduction of exotic species by cruise 

ships.

 Conflict surrounding discharge from 

cruise ships and impact to glaciers 

considered sacred.

Infrastructure impacts to permafrost, 

gumbo soil types, and so on.

Impacts of habitats bisected by roads.

 General national resource impacts 

caused by cruise ships.

2.4.4 Strategies

Based on the needs identified above, 

the following strategies were developed 

during a NPS prioritization and funding 

scenario workshop conducted in 

Anchorage in July 2011.

 Research the effects of transportation 

on resources.

 Study effects of cruise ships on 

resources.

 Continue to study, document, and invest 

in managing illegal ORV and snow 

machine use.

 Study relationship between current 

transportation system and shifting of 

subsistence resources.

Regional and interdepartmental 

approaches are required to address 

the natural resource needs identified 

in Section 2.4 of this LRTP. In doing 

so, transportation asset and program 

managers must work with the Alaska 

Region cultural resources team 

members, the natural resource science 

team members, and the subsistence 

team members. This coordination 

will ensure continued identification of 

regionally significant needs and integrate 

transportation planning with other 

planning and research efforts.
44 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.5 Climate Change

The LRTP climate change goal is to 

“plan for impacts of climate change to park 

transportation systems and impacts of park 

transportation systems on climate change 

through science, adaptation, mitigation, and 

communication.” The following objectives 

support the climate change goal:

 Science. Initiate, support, and 

participate in scientific research and 

assessments needed to understand and 

respond to the relationship between 

transportation and climate change in 

Alaska.

 Adaptation. Manage transportation assets 

and conduct transportation planning for 

climate change.

 Mitigation. Reduce the carbon footprint 

of the NPS by reducing the impact of 

transportation associated with park 

operations, visitation, and partner 

operations. 

 Communication. Share the compelling 

story of climate change impacts in 

Alaska to the public as it relates to 

transportation.

The objectives of the LRTP climate 

change goal respond to the national and 

regional climate change goals outlined 

in the NPS Climate Change Response 

Strategies. Rather than developing a 

separate and potentially duplicative 

climate change response through this 

LRTP, this plan supports and draws from 

existing national level strategies as they 

relate to transportation.

Several national and regional climate 

change efforts are underway to address 

data gaps, planning methodologies, and 

the need for policy changes that respond 

to and plan for climate change. These 

actions include Alaska Region Climate 

Change Scenario Planning, Inventory 

and Monitoring Program, Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives, and the 

Climate Friendly Parks Program. These 

efforts are documented in the Alaska 

Region Climate Change Technical Report 

in the appendix of this LRTP as well as 

the Alaska Federal Lands LRTP, Climate 

Change Technical Report available in that 

document’s appendix.

Because climate change is a relatively 

new focus of NPS planning, available data 

does not directly address climate change. 

Anecdotal information from unit-level 

surveys more directly addresses climate 

change-related transportation challenges 

and reactions in the Alaska Region. This 

anecdotal information, in combination with 

climate change data available from the 

University of Alaska’s Scenarios Network 

for Alaska Planning (SNAP), serve as the 

basis for existing condition determinations. 

Best practices developed by ADOT&PF 

for adaptive transportation asset 

management are used as climate change 

strategies. Alaska Region conditions are 

organized by climate change objectives: 

Science, Mitigation, Adaptation, and 

Communication. 

2.5.1 Science

The Alaska Region is exploring the nexus 

between global transportation systems 

and climate change impacts on Alaska’s 

National Parks and gateway communities. 

A measure of the extent to which the 

Alaska Region contributes to climate 

change is also being studied. Regional 

and park transportation systems as well 

as asset managers can integrate climate 

change data and research efforts through 

the following actions:

1. Provide transportation information 

to ongoing NPS climate change 

monitoring and research efforts, 

including funding and regional technical 

support for Climate Friendly Park 

certification.

2. Identify, propose, and fund 

transportation related research 

projects through professional 

organizations such as Transportation 

Research Board (TRB), and through 

university programs.

3. Partner to test new and innovative 

green technologies and adaptive 

infrastructure.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 45

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Risks

Information on transportation assets 

vulnerable to climate change impacts and 

climate change-related planning needs 

comes from unit-level surveys conducted 

in May and June of 2010. The impacts 

of climate change on the Alaska Region 

transportation system, is summarized in 

Table 16, where park staff identified from 

a list of climate change indicators from the 

NPS inventory and monitoring program.

Other climate change topics identified by 

park staff include:

 Remote North and Remote South 

Parks indicate that traditionally allowed 

modes of travel are adequate for 

subsistence users to reach resources; 

however, changing migration patterns 

coupled with the cost of fuel may make 

some subsistence harvest trips cost 

prohibitive.

 New safety problems will emerge with 

shorter or unpredictable winter travel 

seasons in Remote North and Remote 

South Parks.

With a shift in the seasons, the ability to 

travel, the availability of the subsistence 

resource, and the legal hunting season 

may no longer align to allow efficient 

subsistence harvest in Remote North 

and Remote South Parks.

 Sea-level rise will impact non-NPS 

marinas used by Road Park visitors and 

staff.

In February, 2011, an interdisciplinary 

team from NPS, University of Alaska’s 

SNAP, and individuals from other 

agencies, businesses, and communities 

participated in a Climate Change Scenario 

Planning workshop for the South-West 

Alaska Network of the Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. Parks involved with 

the South-West Alaska Network include 

Remote South Parks and Kenai Fjords 

National Park.

Table 16

Climate Change Risks to Transportation System

Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship

Road

Climate Change Risk Impact to Transportation System

X X Surging Glaciers and 

Glacial Outbursts

Airstrip, road, and trail washouts, hazardous debris in coastal 

waters

X Coastal Hazards Floating sea ice is hazardous for small boats 

X X Coastal Erosion Threatens OHV trails and administrative assets

X X X Permafrost Thaw Causes heaving, cracking , subsidence of roads, trails, and 

airstrips

X X Submergence Trails and airstrips may submerge

X X Wildland Fire Smoke impacts visibility for boating and aviation, submerged 

hazards to boats are not visible as turbidity increases

X Ground Failures Frost heaves render airstrips unusable

X X X X Rivers Flooding Road washouts, submerged hazards to boats are not visible as 

turbidity increases

X X X Water Quality Submerged hazards to boats are not visible as turbidity increases

X X X X Water Flow Timing Shifting winter and summer river travel seasons can create safety 

hazards, can cause boat groundings.

X X X Avalanches and 

Landslides Damage to trails, roads, airstrips

X X X X Invasive plants Invasive plants are more prevalent along transportation corridors

Source: In-person and teleconference interviews conducted in May and June 2011
46 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 17

ADOT&PF Adaptation Best Practices

Park Cluster

Best Practice Remote 

North

Remote 

South

Cruise 

Ship Road

X X X X Relocation of existing assets

X X X X Shoreline protection using rip rap and sandbags

X X Deeper fill for infrastructure on permafrost

Climate change drivers rated as 

“important” for involved parks in this 

network are temperature change, 

precipitation change, and extreme 

events (storms). Within the range of 

scenarios developed during the workshop, 

the following impacts may occur to 

transportation infrastructure in Remote 

South Parks over the next 20 years:

Trail and road washout.

 Loss of marina facilities in gateway 

communities.

 Shifts in recreational and subsistence 

use travel patterns.

 Damage to roads, trails, and buildings 

due to melting permafrost.

Increased storm damage to all facilities.

2.5.2 Adaptation

Climate related impacts to transportation 

assets are addressed through adaptation. 

The term adaptation in this context 

describes the adjustment of natural or 

human systems to a new or changing 

environment by capitalizing on 

opportunities and/or moderating negative 

effects. Adaptation is a course of action 

that adjusts to predicted change.

Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities has developed numerous 

best practices that provide adaptive 

effects for transportation assets. Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities employs the climate change 

adaptation best practices summarized in 

Table 17.

The NPS Alaska Region Climate Change 

Response Strategy offers the following 

planning level steps towards adaptation:

1. Identify and prioritize risks to 

NPS-owned and non-NPS owned 

transportation assets and systems 

likely to be affected by climate change 

and determine what management 

actions are needed.

2. Participate in existing scenario 

planning activities to develop and 

evaluate alternatives and options for 

managing a range of probable changes 

and their impacts to transportation 

assets and systems.

3. Develop adaptive management into 

LRTP updates as a means of assessing 

situations, designing, implementing, 

monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting 

management decisions to account for 

climate change.

4. Enhance collaborative transportation 

management, with Federal, State, 

and other land managers in Alaska to 

coordinate climate change response 

strategies on a landscape scale.

5. Incorporate consideration of climate 

change in planning and funding 

decisions.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 47

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.5.3 Mitigation

Climate change mitigation is an 

intervention that attempts to reduce 

the causes of changes in climate such as 

reducing the emission of greenhouse gases 

into the atmosphere. Mitigation strategies 

focus on how to slow the progress of 

climate change and how to change longterm conditions. In Alaska, mitigation 

efforts involve reducing the sources of 

greenhouse gas emissions or increasing 

carbon sinks to offset emissions. 

Existing Mitigation Efforts

Alaska Region climate change mitigation 

is currently developed and funded at the 

unit level. Across the Alaska Region, NPS 

units rely on video conferencing between 

offices and units to reduce staff travel. 

In addition, telework and flex scheduling 

is increasingly used to reduce employee 

commutes.

Park fleets are being converted to more 

efficient vehicles and fuels. For example, 

Lake Clark National Park and Preserve 

converted its marine fleet to more 

efficient four-stroke outboard motors. 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic 

Park and Kenai Fjords National Park 

both use electric and hybrid cars and 

vans. To reduce on-the-job vehicle use, 

Klondike Gold Rush National Historic 

Park provides bikes, helmets, and locks for 

all seasonal employees. Denali NPP has 

experimented with using biodiesel for the 

park’s transit fleet and is currently using 

grant funds to test hybrid fuels. 

Some parks are implementing employee 

commute programs to encourage 

alternative transportation to the 

workplace, with Glacier Bay NPP and 

Kenai Fjords National Park offering 

opportunities to earn time off and 

monetary awards. Denali NPP established 

a carpool fleet for employees to reduce 

travel within the park. The park also 

reduces vehicle miles traveled by 

identifying local gravel sources for road 

projects, thereby minimizing distances 

traveled to haul gravel.

Suggested Actions for Mitigation

The following steps are based on 

objectives as applied to transportation 

assets and systems from the NPS 

publication, Alaska Region Climate 

Change Response Strategy:

1. Provide technical and financial support 

for transportation components of the 

Climate Friendly Parks certification.

2. Consider sustainability in planning new 

or replacement transportation facilities 

and infrastructure.

3. Learn about and participate in local 

sustainable transportation operations.

4. Encourage innovation in employee 

transportation to and from work.

2.5.4 Communication

No region-wide devoted communication 

effort currently exists to describe the 

relationship between transportation and 

climate change in the Alaska Region. 

Currently, Glacier Bay NPP, Klondike 

Gold Rush National Historical Park, 

and Denali NPP all offer interpretive 

programs on the impact of climate change. 

The following communication steps are 

based on the NPS Alaska Region Climate 

Change Response Strategy objectives 

as applied to transportation assets and 

systems:

1. In cooperation with interpretive park 

staff on a regional scale, develop 

and fund educational materials and 

programs for internal and external 

audiences to explain the impacts of 

transportation on Alaska’s parks.

2. Provide the tools to encourage 

individuals to make appropriate 

transportation choices to maintain 

sustainability for future generations.

3. Communicate internally about 

successes and failures with regards 

to environmentally sustainable 

transportation practices.
48 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

2.5.5 Strategies

Based on the needs identified, the 

following climate change strategies were 

developed during a NPS prioritization and 

funding scenario workshop conducted in 

Anchorage in July 2011:

Identify and prioritize risks to 

NPS-owned and non-NPS owned 

transportation assets and systems likely 

to be affected by climate change and 

determine what management actions are 

needed for adaptation.

Identify, propose, and fund 

transportation related research projects 

through professional organizations 

such as TRB, and through university 

programs.

Participate in or initiate local sustainable 

transportation operations.

Provide technical and financial support 

for transportation components of the 

Climate Friendly Parks certification.

 Communicate throughout NPS about 

successes and failures with regards 

to environmentally sustainable 

transportation practices.

The following are other transportationrelated actions for addressing climate 

change needs in the Alaska Region:

 Support and provide transportation 

components to ongoing monitoring and 

research efforts, including funding and 

regional technical support for Climate 

Friendly Parks certification.

Partner to test new and innovative 

green technologies and adaptive 

infrastructure.

Participate in existing scenario planning 

activities to develop and evaluate 

alternatives and options for managing 

a range of probable changes and their 

impacts to transportation assets and 

systems.

 Develop adaptive management into 

LRTP updates as a means of assessing 

situations, designing, implementing, 

monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting 

management decisions to account for 

climate change.

 Enhance collaborative transportation 

management, with Federal, State, and 

other land managers in Alaska in order 

to coordinate climate change response 

strategies on a landscape scale.

Incorporate consideration of climate 

change in planning and funding 

decisions.

 Consider sustainability in planning new 

or replacement transportation facilities 

and infrastructure.

 Learn about and participate in local 

sustainable transportation operations.

 Encourage innovation in employee 

transportation to and from work.

 Cooperate with interpretive park staff 

on a regional scale to develop and fund 

educational materials and programs 

for internal and external audiences to 

explain the impacts of transportation on 

Alaska’s parks.

 Provide the tools to encourage 

individuals to make appropriate 

transportation choices to maintain 

sustainability for future generations.

 Communicate internally about 

successes and failures with regards 

to environmentally sustainable 

transportation practices.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 49

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

NPS transportation investment decisions 

are guided by funding availability, 

regulatory requirements, and strategic 

planning. This chapter describes the result 

of these three dynamics as they pertain 

to traditional transportation funding 

streams, fund source requirements, 

justifying investments, and various 

funding scenarios. Topics discussed in 

this chapter are based on the results of 

the Financial Analysis Technical Report

available in Appendix E.

3.1 Funding Sources

The NPS has several internal and 

external sources available for funding 

transportation projects. The Alaska 

Region receives Federal Lands Highway 

Program funding (FLHP), which covers 

planning, design, construction, and limited 

maintenance. A portion of the Region’s 

funding for transportation projects comes 

from non-standard appropriated sources, 

such as the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in 

Parks Program, Public Lands Highway 

Program Discretionary Fund, National 

Scenic Byways, Congressional Earmarks, 

and State of Alaska transportation. This 

section describes these sources as well 

as the types of projects that are eligible 

for funding. Project selection processes 

are also described for significant internal 

funding sources.

3.1.1 Common FLMA Funding Sources

Common FLMA funding sources are 

programs that are available to all FLMAs 

for eligible transportation related projects 

that meet a wide variety of requirements 

and needs. Because these possible funding 

sources are common to all FLMAs, they 

are documented in the Alaska Federal 

Lands LRTP. 

3.1.2 NPS Funding Sources

In addition to common FLMA sources, 

the Alaska Region funds transportation 

projects through several NPS and 

FHWA WFL programs. These funding 

programs and their applicability are listed 

in Table 18 and are described in greater 

detail in the following. It should be noted 

that although there are numerous funding 

sources available nationally, the Alaska 

Region has not consistently fared well 

in nationally competitive funding due to 

its relatively undeveloped transportation 

system.

3. Transportation Funding and Project 

Selection

Table 18

National Park Service Internal Transportation Fund

Funding Programs

Eligible Project Type

RoadParkingBridgeDrainage/Slope stabilizationTrailMarineTransit SystemIntelligent Transportation System

FLHP – Category I X X X X X

FLHP – Category III X X X X X

Repair/Rehabilitation Program X X X

Line Item Construction (new construction) X X X X X X

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement (FLREA) - Fees X X X X X X X X

Planning (general management plans, LRTPs, etc.) X X X X X X X X
50 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Federal Lands Highway Program – Category 

I – Roads and Bridges

Traditionally, FLHP funds have been 

authorized for construction improvements 

to existing roads, bridges, and occasionally 

new projects in the form of realigned 

roads. This follows national policy 

that emphasizes reduction in deferred 

maintenance on the NPS road system. 

FLHP funds are distributed by categories, 

where Category I encompasses roads 

and Category III includes alternative 

transportation (Category II exists, but 

addresses parkways, which are not 

present in Alaska).

Category I funds are allocated to regions 

by a mathematical formula that quantifies 

the road program’s national goals and 

objectives. Within the Alaska Region, 

informal but pragmatic processes and 

procedures guide Category I road project 

prioritization and selection. Projects are 

selected through a collaborative process 

influenced by regional funding demand, 

all construction projects of any kind (to 

avoid disruption of visitor services and 

contractor work) and specific maintenance 

priorities at Denali NPP. Prioritization and 

selection accounts for the park containing 

two thirds of all paved and unpaved public 

roads region-wide and its roads carry 

significantly more traffic than all other 

parks combined. Therefore, the bulk of 

Category I funding is typically allocated to 

Denali NPP. 

Federal Lands Highway Program – Category 

III – Alternative Transportation 

Until fiscal year 2011, the FLHP 

Alternative Transportation Program 

required regions to compete for funding 

applied to prioritized and selected 

projects at the national level each year. 

In fiscal year 2011, a pilot effort allocated 

alternative transportation funding to 

regions through the use of a formula much 

like the one described above for Category 

I funds. Regions are encouraged to use 

these limited funds to solve transportation 

problems that cannot be addressed 

by traditional road development or 

that require alternative modes of 

transportation to protect resources. 

Category III funding for alternative 

transportation projects are few in 

number and require an evaluation team 

to determine regional priorities driven 

by national criteria. These projects may 

include improvements to trails, waterbased infrastructure and systems, and 

intelligent transportation systems, among 

other project types.

Repair/Rehabilitation Program 

Funding for minor repairs to roads and 

bridges is occasionally provided through 

the Repair/Rehabilitation Program. 

Repair/Rehabilitation funds are approved 

through the NPS operating budget that 

is appropriated every fiscal year. Repair/

Rehabilitation funds are two-year funds 

that expire at the end of the second fiscal 

year. The program has a $500,000 funding 

cap per project.

Line-Item Construction

Funds to develop new parks and areas 

within parks are budgeted through the 

Line-Item Construction Program. Funds 

from this program are appropriated by 

line item in the yearly Department of 

the Interior appropriation act. Line-item 

funds generally do not expire.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

The Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act (FLREA) Program 

(formerly the Fee-Demonstration 

Program) allows park units to charge fees 

for access to specific areas and attractions. 

Park units are allowed to use a portion 

of these funds for certain purposes 

within a unit, including transportation 

projects. The Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act funds cannot be 

transferred from the NPS to the FHWA; 

however, an interagency agreement can 

permit FHWA work to be accomplished 

with FLREA funds.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 51

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Planning

Funds for integrating transportation 

planning into regional and park planning 

processes are allocated on a case-by-case 

basis. In most situations, these funds may 

be applied towards the following:

 Supplement funds intended for 

completing updates or amendments to 

park GMPs.

Provide essential funding for completing 

long range transportation plans at the 

regional and park level.

 Allow special planning projects to be 

completed that are inherently related to 

transportation or have a transportation 

component.

PMIS Funding Summary

The Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act dollars fund 41 percent 

of the $4.6 million project dollars spent on 

transportation assets each year. Figure 17 

and Table 19 illustrate the diverse funding 

sources for transportation projects 

identified in PMIS from 2006 to 2010.

Figure 17 

Transportation Funding Sources (2006 to 2010)

Regular Cyclic 

Maintenance

21%

FLHP Category I - 3R

25%

FLHP Category III - 

Alt. Trans. Program

8% 

Federal Lands

and Highways

Program

8%

Recreation Fee

Park Revenue

14%

Concessions

Franchise

Fee 80%

10%

Repair / 

Rehabilitation

11%

Concessions Franchise Fee 20%

3%

Recreational Fee Demonstration 80%

0% 

Park Partnership Program

0%

Youth Conservation Corps

0% 

Line Item Construction

0%
52 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 19

Transportation Funding Sources (2006 to 2010)

Fund Source Amount

Regular Cyclic Maintenance $956,464

FLHP Category I - 3R $1,151,736

Recreation Fee Park Revenue $661,704

Federal Lands and Highways Program $367,793

Concessions Franchise Fee 80% $444,705

Repair / Rehabilitation $514,753

FLHP Category III - Alt. Trans. Program $370,800

Concessions Franchise Fee 20% $120,000

Recreational Fee Demonstration 80% $24,786

Park Partnership Program $6,400

Youth Conservation Corps $6,211

Line Item Construction $22,316

Total Project Funds $4,047,668

Other Fund Source

Emergency Storm and Flood Damage (2007) $1,235,100

2009 Economic Recovery - Trails $204,500

2009 Economic Recovery - Deferred Maintenance $631,730

Recreational Fee Demonstration 20% $384,700

Recreation Fee 20% $234,930

Non-NPS Fund Sources (2007) $3,000,000

Line Item Construction (2004, 2006)- one time funding $15,828,000

Total $21,518,960
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 53

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

3.2 Project Selection Processes

The Alaska RTPM, through ongoing 

discussions with regional parks, develops 

a five-year work plan to identify and 

program funds for transportation and 

other facility projects. To the extent 

possible, projects are scheduled for 

funding and implementation in the rank 

order shown on the FLHP project priority 

list. The region has established processes 

and procedures to guide projects through 

the development, evaluation, and ranking 

of projects. The process is described in the 

following steps for both Category I and 

III projects.

3.2.1 Category I (Roads and Bridges)

The Park Road and Parkways 

Program is the main source of funding 

for improvement of transportation 

infrastructure in national park system 

units. The Park Road and Parkways 

Program is comprised of three primary 

funding categories, similar to those 

described in FLHP discussion above. 

Category I, however, is divided into 

two subcategories: Road Rehabilitation 

and Road Reconstruction/Realignment. 

These projects are administered by NPS 

regional offices, with coordination, funding 

allocation, and oversight provided by the 

NPS Washington Office.

The Road Rehabilitation “3R” acronym 

represents “resurfacing, restoration, and 

rehabilitation.” This work is undertaken 

to extend the service life of roads and 

enhance safety. Occasionally, 3R projects 

may include drainage structures, retaining 

walls, slope failure repair, and bridges 

repair work. However, this type of work 

by must be limited to 5 percent or less of 

total project costs. Above that limit, work 

is designated as “4R,” which is subject 

to different funding approval standards. 

Bridge work may be done independently 

of 3R road work if the results of regular 

bridge inspections indicate a need for 

improvement and if the work does not 

exceed $1.5 million.

Road Reconstruction/Realignment “4R” 

acronym represents “reconstruction” 

and “realignment.” This work consists 

of changing the geometry of existing 

roadways, intersections, or bridges as 

well as widening lanes or modifying the 

horizontal and vertical alignment of roads. 

Category 4R projects also include work 

such as the replacement of large bridges 

(more than $1.5 million); road relocation; 

and construction of new roads, bridges, 

parking areas, or parallel bicycle paths.

The Category I project selection process is 

described in the following and summarized 

in Figure 18.

Figure 18 

Category I Project Selection Process

1. Service-wide Comprehensive Call issued and net construction 

components are added to PMIS

2. RTPM evaluates funding, requested needs, and prioritizes 

projects within a five-year plan

3. RTPM meets with WFL Division to discuss prioritization and near 

term planning, design, and construction workloads

4. Funded projects are entered into Park Transportation Allocation 

and Tracking System (PTATS)
54 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Step 1 

An annual Service-wide Comprehensive 

Call is issued, which prompts parks to 

generate a single component for Category 

I project net construction in PMIS. 

This component is used to track project 

management and funding detail through 

fiscal years. Projects are justified through 

supporting documentation which indicates 

how work orders fulfill national, regional, 

and park unit level goals.

Step 2

The RTPM generates a five-year program 

that lists projects by requested year of 

funding from each park. After evaluating 

available funds and the annual total 

request for funds, the RTPM prioritizes 

projects for all five years. Typically, 

projects from parks other than Denali 

NPP are given priority due to the 

infrequency of such requests. Denali 

NPP projects are then reconciled with 

the remaining estimated funding for each 

year. Denali NPP East and West Road 

Supervisors confirm current park needs, 

priority of projects, and available funding 

during their annual meeting.

Step 3

The RTPM conducts an annual meeting 

with FHWA, Western Federal Lands 

Division to collaborate on the final 

prioritization list. Emphasis is given to the 

upcoming fiscal year to confirm immediate 

planning, design, and construction 

management workloads as well as data 

collection, planning, and design strategies 

for other near term projects.

Step 4

Projects ready for funding are then 

formulated based on priority. Once the 

component is formulated to Category I/3R 

or Category I/4R, that project is then 

automatically entered into the NPS Park 

Transportation Allocation and Tracking 

System (PTATS) for funding allocation 

and management.

3.2.2 Category III (Alternative 

Transportation)

The Park Road and Parkways Program 

is also the main source of funding 

for improvement of transportation 

infrastructure in national park system 

units that use alternative transportation 

modes or specialized solutions to 

transportation issues that require 

alternative approaches. Category III is 

administered by the NPS regional offices, 

with coordination, funding allocation, 

and oversight provided by the NPS 

Washington Office. Figure 19 summarizes 

the Category III project selection process 

detailed in the following.

Step 1 

The annual Service-wide Comprehensive 

Call prompts parks to generate a single 

component for planning or implementation 

of a Category III project in the NPS 

PMIS. As is done for Category I 

components in PMIS, the Category 

III component is used for project 

management and assessing funding detail 

through fiscal years. Projects are justified 

through supporting documentation, 

which demonstrates the degree to which 

proposals align with national, regional, 

and park unit level goals. Category III 

projects are subject to specific criteria, 

which each park must address and 

codify in PMIS. The ranking process 

only considers the specific details and 

factual material provided in the submittal 

package. Applicants are therefore 

encouraged to provide supporting 

documentation that is factual, measurable, 

and quantifiable. 

Step 2

Each park unit submits its needs. 

Proposals include itemized cost estimates 

for the requested project, scope, 

project map, utilization, administrative 

considerations, resource opportunities, 

anticipated management or resource 

problems, design elements, historic 

eligibility, mission dependency, and annual 

operation and maintenance costs.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 55

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 19 

Category III Project Selection Process

5. Within the available budget, eligible projects are programmed 

into PTATS

1. Service-wide Comprehensive Call issued for possible projects 

to be added to PMIS

2. Project proposal packages are submitted by each park unit for 

review

3. RTPM generates a prioritized five-year program plan

4. Regional Office staff determine eligibility for project 

implementation

Step 3

The RTPM generates a five-year program 

with projects listed by requested funding 

year for each park. After evaluating 

available funds and the annual total 

request for funds, the RTPM gives 

preliminary prioritization for projects for 

all five years. 

Step 4

A team consisting of regional office 

staff is assembled to rank projects 

eligible for initiation. Eligibility is 

determined by readiness of a park to 

begin planning or implementing a project, 

status of compliance or site evaluation, 

and confirmation of partnerships or 

partnership funding. The team members 

first complete an individual, independent 

review and prioritization of the projects 

using a standard scoring system developed 

by the NPS for all regions. The team 

then compares individual evaluations to 

confirm scoring consistency. Some ranking 

adjustment may be made through this 

process.

Planning projects are considered based on 

five factors:

1. Demonstration of need. Describes what 

the problem is and how the problem is 

impacting the purpose and significance 

of a park. Needs demonstration also 

describes potential or identified issues 

or constraints. 

2. Planning strategy/process. Explains 

how the planning process will develop 

solutions to the problem and address 

significant transportation issues such 

as congestion, transit/roadway capacity, 

mobility, access, safety, or facility/

operational limitations. Planning 

strategy also includes identification of 

park staff/divisions, partners, general 

public, and any other parties that may 

be impacted by the potential project and 

now they will be included in the planning 

process.

3. Visitor experience and resource benefits. 

Identifies and describes significant 

issues related to transportation 

(including visitor experience, natural 

resources and cultural resources) that 

will be addressed as part of the planning 
56 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

process. Describe how the planning 

process will establish relationships 

between user capacity and the 

transportation system (i.e., will proposed 

changes to the transportation system 

limit, enhance, or control access based 

on resource conditions).

4. Financial sustainability/analysis. Describes 

all planning costs associated with the 

project (i.e., transportation planning 

consultants, project management, and 

environmental compliance). The analysis 

also describes how the planning process 

will determine implementation and 

lifetime operation and maintenance 

costs of the project alternatives. The 

analysis also explains how alternatives 

will be evaluated considering costs 

(i.e., value analysis, and value based 

decision making). Also describes how 

the planning process will identify 

financial impacts to park operations and 

explores potential funding sources and 

partnerships.

5. Facility conditions/asset management. 

Describes the FCI of the facility or 

asset and how the planning process will 

address and evaluate the benefits to the 

condition index rating.

The five factors considered for 

implementation projects are:

1. Demonstration of need. Describes a project 

and why it is important to the park. The 

explanation cites park goals, strategies, 

management decisions, project 

prioritization, and other applicable 

targets. Needs express if the project is 

a new start or ongoing project and what 

problems are solved by the project. The 

needs statement describes issues and 

points of controversy and how they will 

be resolved.

2. Visitor experience. Describes how 

a project will promote, preserve, 

or enhance the visitor experience 

(i.e., visitor enjoyment and comfort, 

transportation information or park 

education). Access discussions 

describe how a project will improve 

movement to or within a park and/or 

reduce congestion for persons of all 

abilities. Safety discussions describe 

how a project will result in direct and 

measurable changes to documented 

unsafe conditions (citing studies, 

reports, incidents).

3. Cost effectiveness. Identifies the total cost 

of a project and how it will be funded. 

The planning exercise describes all 

associated project costs (start up, capital 

investment, and lifetime operation 

and maintenance). If the lowest cost 

alternative is not selected, this exercise 

explains why. Funding sources and 

financial sustainability discussions 

describe how the project leverages and/

or combines funding sources, including 

partnerships, to fulfill funding needs 

over the project lifetime. Matching 

funds are verified.

4. Protection of resources. Describes how 

a project will protect and/or improve 

natural, cultural, and/or scenic 

resources, or mitigate negative impacts.

5. Deferred maintenance. Describes an 

asset’s current FCI and how a project 

will improve facility condition.

Step 5

Projects ready for funding are then 

formulated based on priority and 

available funding. Once the component 

is formulated to FLHP Category III/

Alternative Transportation Program, it is 

entered into the NPS PTATS.

3.3 Historic Funding Trends

Records of recent Alaska Region 

transportation project funding were 

examined in the Financial Analysis 

Technical Report. Among other findings, 

the report documents transportation 

funding trends from 2006 to 2010 as well 

as formulations about future funding. 

The following subsections summarize 

historic transportation funding levels 

and distributions as documented in the 

technical report. Additional details on this 

and other funding topics are in the report, 

located in Appendix E.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 57

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

3.3.1 Federal Lands Highway Program 

Funds

Project funding data from the PTATS 

reporting system for FLHP is 

summarized in Table 20. The majority of 

Category I funding applies to Denali NPP 

for road construction and maintenance 

projects. Figure 20 illustrates the FLHP 

funding by funding category.

3.3.2 Alternative Transportation in Parks, 

Public Lands Program, and National 

Scenic Byways Program 

In addition to the data reported in PMIS 

and PTATS, two other funding sources 

contributed to transportation funding 

within the past five years: Alternative 

Transportation in Parks and Public Lands 

(ATPPL) Program and the National 

Scenic Byways Program. Table 21 lists the 

five-year funding history for ATPPL and 

the National Scenic Byways Program.

The ATPPL Program, established in 

2005, funds capital and planning projects 

for alternative transportation systems in 

National Parks and other public lands. 

ATPPL is a competitive grant program 

jointly administered by the Department 

of Interior and the Federal Transit 

Administration. Examples of past NPS 

Alaska Region transportation projects 

funded by ATPPL over the past five years 

have included construction of the Gustavus 

Dock serving Glacier Bay National Park 

and funding for hybrid buses in Denali 

NPP.

The National Scenic Byways Program is a 

competitive grant program administered 

by FHWA, which funds projects related to 

Scenic Byways such as creating statewide 

byway programs, corridor management 

planning, promoting byways, and scenic 

easements. Through participation with 

ADOT&PF, the Alaska Region received 

funds for George Parks Highway and 

Seward Highway projects. 

Table 20

FLHP Funding (2006 to 2010)

Funding Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FLHP Category I-3R (construction projects) $365,426 $6,146,481 $11,152,732 $2,577,255 $3,182,056 

FLHP Category I-4R (construction projects) $0 -$5,135 $0 $0 $2,000,000 

FLHP Category III (construction projects) $696,900 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 

Design, Planning, Compliance and 

Administration $1,048,829 $1,384,358 $1,490,500 $1,104,179 $1,349,779 

Total $2,111,115 $7,525,704 $12,043,232 $7,181,434 $6,531,835 

Table 21

ATPPL and Scenic Byway Funding History, FY 2006 through 2011

Additional Funding Categories 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ATPPL Program $1,200,000 $3,000,000* $0 $515,000 $571,000 

National Scenic Byways Program $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 

*Amount represents funding for the Gustavus Dock replacement, which is a project (and similar $ amount) that is also 

documented under FHLP Category III funds. To not double count this funding amount, the $3 million for 2007 under ATPPL

funds was removed from the funding projection found in Appendix E
58 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 20 

FLHP Funding

$ 0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$ 4

$ 12

$ 14

$ 2

$ 10

$ 8

Millions

$ 6

Design, Planning, 

Compliance and 

Administration

FLHP Category III 

(construction 

projects)

FLHP Category I-4R 

(construction 

projects)

FLHP Category I-3R 

(construction 

projects)

3.3.3 Project Management Information 

System

The Financial Analysis Technical Report

includes a five-year history of all funding 

sources recorded in PMIS that have 

funded capital, planning, environmental 

and other transportation projects within 

the Alaska Region. Figure 21 illustrates 

total transportation funding reported by 

PMIS from 2006 to 2010, including fleetrelated projects. The figure includes a 

one-time line item construction project 

for $12.7 million (construction of the 

Northwest Alaska Heritage Center and 

Administrative Quarters in Kotzebue) 

in 2006. The line item project accounts 

for over one-half of the transportation 

funding for that year. With the exception 

of that line item project, transportation 

funding reported in PMIS is fairly 

consistent over time. Figure 21 suggests 

that transportation funding in PMIS is 

about $7 to $10 million per year, excluding 

one-time line item projects. Details about 

each funded transportation project are 

available in the Financial Analysis 

Technical Report in Appendix E.

Figure 21 

Funded Transportation Projects Reported in PMIS (2006 to 2010)

$ 0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$ 4

$ 12

$ 14

$ 16

$ 18

$ 20

$ 2

$ 10

$ 8

$ 6

Millions

Excludes one-time $12.7 million line item

Source: PMIS, Financial Analysis Technical Report. Data includes fleet-related projects.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 59

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Road Parks receive the majority of PMIS 

transportation funds as these parks 

possess more transportation assets than 

the other three park clusters combined. 

Figure 22 presents the median funding 

of transportation for park clusters. The 

figure shows that funds for Remote North 

Parks in PMIS from 2006 to 2010 is 0 

percent. As this is a median value, onetime anomalies such as the $12.7 million 

2006 Northwest Alaska Heritage Center 

in Kotzebue, are essentially ignored.

The Transportation Program Manager 

assigned LRTP goal areas to funded, 

formulated, and requested transportation 

projects in PMIS for projects ranging 

from 2006 to 2010. Most of these projects 

were assigned to more than one goal 

area, and a percentage of funding 

documented in PMIS was attributed to 

the appropriate goal. The final break down 

of PMIS cumulative funding by goal area 

is represented in Figure 23. As indicated 

by the figure, the majority of funding 

was programmed for projects related to 

system management, followed by projects 

related to user experience. Formulated 

and requested projects in PMIS indicate a 

trend towards more requests for projects 

related to the system management goal 

area and resource protection goal areas.

As illustrated in Figure 24, PMIS 

funding history by goal area varies 

greatly by park cluster category. While 

approximately half the projects in Road 

and Remote South Park are related to 

system preservation, Remote North Park 

requests have traditionally focused on the 

user experience and mobility goal areas. 

Project Management Information System 

data also indicates that Cruise Ship Parks 

have focused funds on resource protection 

related projects.

Figure 22 

2006 to 2010 Median Transportation Funds in PMIS by Park Cluster

0% – Remote North Parks

4% – Remote South Parks

22% – Cruise Ship Parks

74%

Road Parks

Source: PMIS, 2006 to 2010
60 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 23 

Funded, Formulated, and Requested Project by Goal Area

Source: PMIS, 2006 to 2010

Figure 24 

Goal Area Funding History by Park Cluster 

 Source: PMIS, 2006 to 2010

20%

System

Management

50%

User

Experience

30%

Mobility

<1%

Resource Protection

0%

Climate Change

Remote North Parks Remote South Parks

Road Parks Cruise Ship Parks

50.3%

System

Management

36%

User

Experience

12.4%

Mobility

1.3%

Resource Protection

0%

Climate Change

48%

System

Management

30%

User

Experience

9%

Mobility

12%

Resource

Protection

<1%%

Climate Change

42%

System

Management

23%

User

Experience

20%

Mobility

14%

Resource

Protection

<1%

Climate Change

42% – System Management 32% – User Experience

15% – Mobility

10% – Resource Protection <1% – Climate Change
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 61

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

3.4 Future of Transportation 

Funding

Alaska Region transportation funding 

has been aggregated to provide a 

comprehensive five-year funding 

history from which future funding levels 

were projected. Appendix B of the 

System Management Technical Report

(Appendix A of this LRTP) documents 

the five-year funding projection for 

transportation-related projects by 

funding source. Additionally, the report 

provides a description of the future 

prospects of each fund based on input 

from NPS transportation planning staff. 

Many of funds that have been available 

historically—either as one-time funds 

or intermittently—are not projected for 

future years. Many of the projections are 

based on an average of funding levels over 

past five years. Figure 25 shows the past 

five years of funding and a projection of 

funding for the next five years.

Available annual transportation funding 

over the next five years is estimated at 

approximately $12.5 million in 2011 with a 

slight upward trend to $13 million in 2015. 

This projection is intended to provide an 

approximate figure with which to program 

future transportation projects. There may 

again be the intermittent, one-time funds 

available to direct towards transportation 

projects as there has been in the past. 

Examples of these include Emergency 

Relief for Federally Owned Roads, 

additional stimulus dollars, or grant 

funding.

Figure 25 

Five Year Funding History and Projections

2006

2007

2008

2009 2010

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2006

2007

2008

2009 2010

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

Milli

ons

2006-2010 Funding 

(Actual)

2011-2015 Funding 

(Projected)
62 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 63

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

To determine which transportation 

needs can be addressed with forecasted 

funding, a scenario planning workshop 

was conducted in June 2011. At the 

workshop, participants prioritized 

the needs identified in each goal area 

technical report (Appendices A though 

E). Prioritization was based on data and 

anecdotal information documented in 

the technical reports, as applied by the 

Transportation Program Manager and 

regional staff. The following factors were 

considered in prioritization decisions:

 Regional significance: Does the need 

impact more than one park or cluster?

 Relation to Transportation Program: 

Can the Alaska Region, Transportation 

Program take steps to address the need?

 Current transportation projects: Is the 

need already being addressed by funded 

projects?

Workshop participants devised possible 

strategies for addressing prioritized 

needs. These strategies are used as the 

basis for generating cost estimates for 

long-range planning purposes only, and 

are not intended to prescribe or exclude 

other means of addressing the prioritized 

needs. This work resulted in cost ranges 

for each strategy used to potentially 

address each need.

4.1 Strategies and Costs

Table 22 summarizes the results of the 

prioritization workshop though needs, 

strategies, and cost estimates. Cost 

estimates reflect an average of high and 

low estimates for each strategy. Based 

on the results summarized in Table 22, 

$95.7 million is needed to address all 

prioritized needs for each LRTP goal area 

in the current seven-year plan. Table 23 

and Figure 26 indicate that needs and 

strategies associated with the system 

management goal account for 78 percent 

of total estimated costs.

4. Prioritized Funding Needs

Table 22

Transportation Funds in PMIS by Park Cluster (2006 to 2010)

Park Cluster 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Remote North Parks $12,806,057 - - - $158,882

Remote South Parks $220,260 $310,700 $215,144 $212,330 $161,251

Cruise Ship Parks $585,417 $3,780,388 $580,208 $1,465,869 $1,074,092

Road Parks $2,968,430 $4,331,568 $2,649,961 $3,635,583 $4,286,510

Total $16,580,164 $8,422,656 $3,445,313 $5,313,782 $5,680,735

 Source: PMIS, 2006 to 2010
64 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 23

Prioritized Needs, Strategies, and Cost Estimations

Goal Prioritized Need Strategy Estimate ($1,000s)

Low High

Mobility

Safety needs related to sever weather 

and natural hazards.

Information: provide readily available 

and accurate information and training. 

Infrastructure: winter trails safety 

infrastructure.

$500 $1,000

Access studies. Incorporate access studies into GMP updates 

and as needed. $500 $700

ATV/ORV access management. Access management plans where needed. $1,000 $1,500

Rehabilitate/maintain airstrip surfaces.

Where deemed necessary by the park, 

provide minimal improvements and basic 

maintenance to airstrips.

$500 $1,000

Road safety improvements. Reduce vehicular crashes in road accessible 

parks. $2,000 $3,000

Potential non-NPS access corridor 

development near park units.

Coordinate with ADOT&PF and local 

governments on transportation planning and 

projects.

$1,500 $5,000

 Total $6,000 $12,200

$9,100 (average)

System 

ManagementBands 1-2 priority assets operation and 

maintenance. Invest only in high-priority assets $16,000 $19,000

Projects (deferred maintenance, 

component renewal, project funding). $55,000 $60,000

 Total $71,000 $79,000

$75,000 (average)

User Experience

Information needs.

Collect and analyze transportation data on 

origin/destination, winter trail system use, 

incident reporting, demographic trends, mode 

of travel, safety needs, etc.

$400 $640

Improve travel safety.

Improve safety in the region by providing safe 

infrastructure and by providing information. 

Address known pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, 

plan for emergency shelters and trail 

markings for winter travel, and coordinate 

with existing safety programs.

$800 $1,600

Improve wayfinding and advance 

traveler information.

Provide for directional and informational signs 

within and to/from the parks, and develop 

advanced travel information to disseminate 

travel information.

$1,000 $1,400

Crowding and congestion.

Conduct pedestrian and transit planning in 

partnership with local entities to decrease 

crowding, congestion and bottlenecking and 

reduce conflicts with cruise passengers.

$450 $600

ADA compliance.

Complete ADA compliance along route from 

Cruise Ship docks to parks and along park 

travel corridors.

$450 $600
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 65

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 23

Prioritized Needs, Strategies, and Cost Estimations

Goal Prioritized Need Strategy Estimate ($1,000s)

Low High

User Experience

Road maintenance and construction.

Maintain roads in condition appropriate 

to use and coordinate with ADOT&PF on 

maintenance of roads used to access parks.

$3,000 $7,000

Alleviate negative impacts to wilderness 

experience.

Identify and manage negative impacts from 

vehicles and transportation infrastructure to 

“wilderness experience” where appropriate.

$300 $600

Total

$6,400 $12,440

$9,400

(rounded average)

Resource Protection

Study and address soundscape 

disturbances.

Study effects of transportation studies on 

resources.

$250 $400

Cruise ship impacts: soundscape, air and 

water quality, petroleum, exotic species. Study effects of cruise ships on resources. $250 $500

Study and address illegal ORV and snow 

machine use impacts to tundra.

Continue to study, document, and invest in 

managing illegal ORV and snow machine use. $100 $300

Study and address rising costs of 

travel to access shifting subsistence 

resources.

Study relationship between current 

transportation system and shifting of 

subsistence resources.

$700 $1,350

Total

$1,300 $2,550

$1,900

(rounded average)

Climate Change

Identify and prioritize risks to NPS-owned 

and non-NPS owned transportation 

assets and systems likely to be affected 

by climate change and determine what 

management actions are needed to 

prepare.

Same as need. $50 $100

Identify, propose and fund transportation 

related research projects through 

professional organizations such as TRB, 

and through university programs.

Same as need. $25 $50

Participate in or initiate local sustainable 

transportation operations. Same as need. $100 $300

Provide technical and financial support 

for transportation components of the 

Climate Friendly Parks certification.

Same as need. $25 $50

Communicate within the agency 

about our successes and failures with 

regards to environmentally sustainable 

transportation practice.

Same as need. $0 $0

Total $200 $500

$350 (average)

Grand Total   $84,900 $106,690

$95,795 (average)
66 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 27 

Seven Year Funding Gaps (Millions)

0 50 100 150

$16.7 gap

$5.7 gap

Need (high estimate) $106.7 

Average of Need Estimates $95.7

Funding Available $90

Need (low estimate) $84.9

Figure 26 

Cost Estimates by Goal Area

78% – System Management

10% – Visitor Experience 10% – Mobility

2% – Resource Protection 0% – Climate Change

4.2 Funding Gaps

As illustrated Figure 27, the total 

projected seven-year funding for 

transportation in the Alaska Region is 

approximately $90 million. This projected 

funding level is lower than that of the 

average anticipated need. As illustrated 

in Figure 27, the gap between averaged 

7-year needs estimate and expected 

funding is $5.7 million, a six percent 

funding shortfall. The gap between the 

high needs estimate and expected funding 

is $16.7 million, an 18.5 percent funding 

shortfall.

Funding scenarios were developed during 

the July 2011 workshops to examine 

the implications of investing limited 

transportation dollars in four different 

ways, each emphasizing an LRTP goal 

area. Workshop participants decided that 

funding for operation and maintenance 

for assets in priority bands 1 and 2 as 

well as one half of the operation and 

maintenance costs of assets in priority 

band 3, and region-wide costs for deferred 

maintenance and component renewal are 

minimum constants for all scenarios. By 

addressing the most serious deferred 

maintenance for transportation assets 

over the next seven years, the region can 

expect to decrease the amount of spending 

on maintaining assets in subsequent years, 

freeing funds for other projects.

Operation and maintenance, component 

renewal, and deferred maintenance for 

high-priority assets over seven years is 

$63 million, leaving $27 million to be used 

in each funding scenario to emphasize a 

goal area. New assets, planning efforts, 

as well as operation and maintenance, 

component renewal, or deferred 

maintenance costs for assets that are 

less than high priority (priority bands 3 

through 5) are eligible for the remaining 

$27 million in the scenario plans.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 67

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

The following sections include funding 

allocations and a description of the needs 

met through each funding scenario. 

4.2.1 System Management Scenario

The system management scenario 

summarized in Figure 28 and Table 24 

maintains high and one half of medium 

priority assets (priority bands 1 through 

3 at a cost of $79 million) and provides 

funding to drastically reduce the deferred 

maintenance backlog of transportation 

assets, using the high estimate for 

these costs. By including operation and 

maintenance for half of priority band 

3 (medium priority) assets, the system 

management scenario allows for the 

maintenance of over 39 percent more 

transportation assets in Alaska (from 

194 assets in bands 1 and 2 to 272 assets 

in bands 1 through 3). Many of these 

medium priority assets are essential to 

the transportation system as a whole, 

and include road and trail bridges, 

parking lots, fuel systems, and emergency 

shelters. Within seven years, this scenario 

provides funding for the current deferred 

maintenance backlog recorded in FMSS 

thereby decreasing further degradation 

of these assets and demand for deferred 

maintenance funding.

The system management scenario 

also provides for safety information 

dissemination and winter trail safety 

infrastructure (emergency shelters 

and trail markings), access studies, 

GMP transportation components, OHV 

management plans, and partial funding for 

airstrip safety improvements. However, 

funds needed to address road safety 

improvements or coordinated corridor 

planning on non-NPS lands are not 

available. The user experience allocation 

in the system management scenario will 

provide basic user information, improve 

travel safety in pedestrian areas and 

winter trails, provide signs and develop 

and support advanced traveler information 

systems such as 511 and smart phone 

applications. American with Disabilities 

Act compliance, crowding, and congestion 

hotspots will be studied and addressed. 

Of the $5 million in road maintenance 

and coordination with ADOT&PF on 

crucial road projects, $2 million will not be 

funded. Management of negative impacts 

to wilderness experience will not be 

addressed under this funding scenario. 

Prioritized resource protection needs met 

through this funding scenario include 

studies and solutions for soundscape 

disturbances, cruise ship impacts, OHV 

and snow machine impacts. Half the 

funds needed to study of the rising costs 

of subsistence travel are available. All 

prioritized climate change needs will be 

met in this scenario.

Figure 28 

System Management Funding Scenario Allocation

$79,000,000

88%

System Management

$3,000,000, 3%

Mobility

$6,400,000, 7%

User Experience

$1,300,000, 2%

Resource Protection

$300,000, <1%

Climate Change 

Table 24

System Management Funding Scenario

Goal Area Percentage of 

Funding Funding

System Management 88 $79,000,000

Mobility 3 $3,000,000

User Experience 7 $6,400,000

Resource Protection 2 $1,300,000

Climate Change <1 $300,000
68 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

4.2.2 Mobility Funding Scenario

The mobility funding scenario summarized 

in Figure 29 and Table 25 underfunds 

the low estimate for system management 

needs by $1 million. This level of funding 

will address most of the deferred 

maintenance backlog over 7 years, provide 

component renewal costs, and pay for 

operation and maintenance of priority 

band 1 and 2 assets, and some of priority 

band 3 assets.

This scenario funds all prioritized mobility 

needs at the high cost estimate, including 

$3 million in road safety projects and $5 

million in corridor planning and projects 

on non-NPS lands. However, less than 

half of the $6 million needed for user 

experience-related road projects and 

coordination with the ADOT&PF is 

funded. Although all other user experience 

priority needs will be met in the mobility 

funding scenario, no funding is used 

to study or address negative impacts 

to wilderness experience. Resource 

protection and climate change allocations 

decrease under the mobility funding 

scenario. Funding for transportation 

studies of subsistence resource impacts 

will be decreased to half of the $1 million 

needed. The mobility funding scenario also 

decreases participation in local sustainable 

transportation projects by half, and the 

transportation program will be unable to 

provide technical transportation assistance 

to parks attaining Climate Friendly Park 

status.

4.2.3 User Experience Scenario

This scenario funds at high cost estimate 

all prioritized user experience needs. 

The scenario ensures that baseline park 

visitation information will be collected 

and analyzed, filling a critical gap in 

transportation planning data in the 

Alaska Region. Also, user safety will be 

improved through increased education 

and planning projects addressing 

vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and winter 

trail safety. Wayfinding and traveler 

information will be improved through 

this scenario, and new technology-based 

means of dissemination developed. 

Crowding and congestion problems will 

be addressed, gaps in ADA accessibility 

will be addressed, road maintenance and 

construction projects carried out, and 

negative impacts to wilderness experience 

will also be identified and mitigated 

through the user experience funding 

scenario.

Figure 29 

Mobility Funding Scenario Allocation

$70,000,000

78%

System Management

$12,200,000, 13%

Mobility

$6,000,000, 7%

User Experience

$1,600,000, 2%

Resource Protection

$200,000, <1%

Climate Change 

Table 25

Mobility Funding Scenario

Goal Area Percentage of 

Funding

Amount of 

Funding

System Management 78% $70,000,000

Mobility 13% $12,200.000

User Experience 7% $6,000,000

Resource Protection 2% $1,600,000

Climate Change <1% $200,000
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 69

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 30 

User Experience Funding Scenario Allocation

$70,000,000

78%

System

Management

$5,760,000, 6%

Mobility

$12,440,000, 14%

User Experience

$1,600,000, 2%

Resource Protection

$200,000, <1%

Climate Change 

Table 26

User Experience Funding Scenario

Goal Area Percentage of 

Funding

Amount of 

Funding

System Management 78% $70,000,000

Mobility 6% $5,760,000

User Experience 14% $12,440,000

Resource Protection 2% $1,600,000

Climate Change <1% $200,000

As with the mobility scenario, the user 

experience funding scenario underfunds 

the low estimate for system management 

needs by $1 million. This level of funding 

will address most of the deferred 

maintenance backlog over 7 years, provide 

component renewal costs, and pay for 

operation and maintenance of priority 

band 1 and 2 assets, and some of priority 

band 3 assets. The user experience 

funding scenario uses the same levels 

of funding for resource protection and 

climate change as proposed in the mobility 

funding scenario. However, funding to 

mobility needs is decreased in favor 

of funding all of the prioritized user 

experience needs, as illustrated in Figure 

30 and Table 26. 

The funding scenario cannot fully fund 

priority mobility needs. None of the 

estimated need of $3.2 million is available 

to address non-NPS access corridor 

development near park units in this 

funding scenario. This curtails the ability 

of the NPS to coordinate with ADOT&PF 

on essential non-NPS infrastructure and 

transportation systems such as key roads 

and docks used to access parks.

4.2.4 Resource Protection/Climate Change 

Scenario

The resource protection/climate change 

funding scenario, summarized in Figure 31 

and Table 27, maintains high-priority 

assets and some medium-priority assets 

while completely funding prioritized 

projects within the resource protection 

and climate change goal areas at the 

high cost estimate level. Mobility and 

user experience prioritized needs are 

fully funded. Increased funding of 

projects relating to the mobility and user 

experience goal areas take precedence 

over maintaining existing on-the-ground 

transportation assets in this funding 

scenario.

The resource protection/climate change 

scenario meets all prioritized needs in goal 

areas other than system management by 

maintaining only the high-priority needs 

in priority bands 1 and 2 assets. However, 

critical transportation assets currently 

identified as medium-priority assets would 

receive no operation and maintenance, 

component renewal, or deferred 

maintenance funding, and will deteriorate 

further over time. 
70 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Kennecot National Historic Landmark, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preser

Figure 31 

Resource Protection / Climate Change Funding 

Scenario Allocation

$63,000,000

75%

System

Management

$9,100,000, 11%

Mobility

$9,400,000, 11%

User Experience

$2,550,000, 3%

Resource Protection

$500,000, 1%

Climate Change 

Table 27

Resource Protection/Climate Change Funding 

Scenario

Goal Area Percentage of 

Funding

Amount of 

Funding

System Management 75% $63,000,000

Mobility 11% $9,100,000

User Experience 11% $9,400,000

Resource Protection 3% $2,550,000

Climate Change 1% $500,000
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 71

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Chapter 5 outlines actions and other 

recommendations that will assist the 

Alaska Region in advancing the longrange transportation goals and objectives 

established in Chapter 1. Actions and 

recommendations are based on the needs 

and gaps identified in Chapter 2 as they 

relate to each goal area. The resulting 

actions fall within two categories:

1. Actions that address needs and gaps by 

achieving outcome-based performance 

measures.

2. Actions that resolve needs and gaps, 

but are not directly quantified in LRTP 

performance measures.

These actions, and the measures used 

to track success, are discussed in the 

following subsections.

5.1 Performance Measures

Performance measures embody outcomes 

that once fully achieved, represent 

major milestones in meeting the longrange goals and objectives expressed 

in this LRTP. These outcomes are 

documented in Table 28 as a desired 

performance, followed by the measure 

from which progress can be evaluated and 

tracked. The prerequisite requirements 

described in the table are actions that 

must occur before performance can be 

measured. The “2011 Score” column in 

Table 28 indicates the degree to which a 

performance measure was met in fiscal 

year 2011. The column also indicates if 

enough information exists at this time to 

determine a performance measure score.

5.2 Needs and Gaps

The needs and gaps identified in Chapter 

2 result in actions that are represented by 

performance measures and others that are 

not. Needs and gaps are not represented 

by performance measures when:

Performance is not readily quantifiable

 Specific actions are better determined at 

the park, issue driven, and at small scale 

planning levels than at a regional and 

long range level

 Additional information is needed 

before actions can be recommended 

and performance measures can be 

established

 Needs are short-term and not fully 

consistent with the long range outlook of 

this plan

Actions required to address the needs 

and gaps identified in Chapter 2 will be 

documented once public comments are 

received on this draft LRTP.

5. Actions and Performance Measures
72 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan Table 28 Performance Measures Goal Objective Performance Measure Requirement 2011 Score System Management: Develop a long-term transportation system to satisfy current and future land management needs Asset Management: Apply available financial resources to essential transportation infrastructure. 1. All high-priority assets (API of 75 or higher) are in good or better condition (FCI of 0.3 or less). Percentage of FMSS API bands 1 and 2 transportation assets that have an FCI of good or better. None. 87% Asset Investment Planning: Consider sustainability of operation and maintenance of new and existing assets in the planning process. Coordination: Coordinate among parks, regions and agencies to set priorities for needs, to exchange data, and discuss mutual policies to share execution of projects.  None.  None. None. Alaska Region involved in FLMA LRTP - Combined action plan and coordination meetings

Mobility: Provide safe, efficient, and appropriate access to and through park lands

Safety: Provide safe access to and within park lands.

2. Minimize number of safety related incidences.

Number of safety related incidences.

Establish safety baseline which includes winter travel.

(Score is dependent on item(s) in the requirement column)

Access: Provide access for recreational and subsistence uses consistent with the purposes of the parks using appropriate modes and seamless connections to and through park lands.

3. All GMPs have transportation elements.

Number of GMP updates with transportation elements.

None. 2

User Information: Provide accurate and accessible information about how to travel to and through the Alaska parks through a variety of means.

4. All surveyed users have information needs met.

Percentage of surveyed users that have information needs met.

Visitor surveys need to determine if users have had information needs met.

(Score is dependent on item(s) in the requirement column)

 Not enough information exists at this time to determine a score for the performance measure – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 completely 

failed to meet the performance measure.

Only enough information exists at this time to make a partial determination of performance – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 did not

completely meet the performance measure.

 Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 met or exceeded the performance measure.
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan 73

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 28

Performance Measures

Goal Objective Performance Measure Requirement 2011 Score

User Experience: Proactively enhance the Alaskan multimodal experience

User Data: Collect and analyze user information to determine which experiences and expectations are most relevant to transportation access.

5. In 20 years, all parks will have a reliable user/visitation baseline condition.

Number of parks with reliable visitor/user baseline condition.

None.

(50% of clusters [Remote North and South] identify user/visitor data need, but measure asks for park level info)

Multimodal Transportation: Establish a multimodal transportation system that emphasizes the journey as integral to the Alaska experience.

6. All users that consider transportation part of the park journey report a satisfied experience.

Percent of surveyed users reported that transportation was part of experience.

Visitor surveys need to determine satisfaction of transportation experience.

To be determined

Resource Protection: Protect parks’ natural, cultural, and subsistence resources

Protect Wildlife at an Ecosystem Scale: Coordinate with neighboring land and transportation managers to ensure that transportation system impacts on wildlife are understood and mitigated across borders.

7. Plans coordinate with neighboring land and transportation managers to ensure that transportation system impacts.

Number of coordinated plans and projects implemented annually.

None. To be determined

Physical Environment: Protect the physical environment from adverse effects of the transportation system. 8. All GMPs consider 

transportation in relation to the physical environment, cultural and subsistence resources.

Percent of park GMPs/RMPs with transportation elements that influences physical, cultural, and subsistence resources.

None. To be determined

Cultural Resources: Mitigate negative impacts and provide appropriate access to cultural resources.Subsistence Resources: Consider impacts and access to subsistence resources in transportation planning and policy development.

 Not enough information exists at this time to determine a score for the performance measure – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 completely 

failed to meet the performance measure.

Only enough information exists at this time to make a partial determination of performance – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 did not

completely meet the performance measure.

 Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 met or exceeded the performance measure.
74 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan Table 28 Performance Measures Goal Objective Performance Measure Requirement 2011 Score Climate Change: Plan for impacts of climate change to park transportation systems and impacts of park transportation systems on climate change through science, adaptation, mitigation, and communication Science: Initiate, support, and participate in scientific research and assessments needed to understand and respond to relationship between transportation and climate change in Alaska. 9. Improve understanding of transportation and climate change through at least one climate change participation effort per year with documented results. Number of climate change participation efforts. None. To be determined. Adaptation: Manage transportation assets and conduct transportation planning for climate change. 10. Improve climate change adaptation through reducing the number of transportation assets at risk due to climate change. Number of transportation assets at risk due to climate change. None. (LRTP shows types of risks at cluster level, does show asset level risk). Mitigation: Reduce the carbon footprint of the NPS by reducing the impact of transportation associated 

with park operations, visitation, and associated operations.

11. Become a climate friendly region by 2030.

Number of climate friendly parks in the region.

None. 2

Communication: Share the compelling story of climate change impacts in Alaska to the public as it relates to transportation.

12. All parks have climate change addressed in planning transportation elements.

Number of parks including climate change in transportation elements in plans.

None. To be determined.

 Not enough information exists at this time to determine a score for the performance measure – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 completely 

failed to meet the performance measure.

Only enough information exists at this time to make a partial determination of performance – or – Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 did not

completely meet the performance measure.

 Data shows that the conditions in fiscal year 2011 met or exceeded the performance measure.
78 A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
National Park Service

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

National Park Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank