Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1679~NANA BASIN AREA PLAN [}{]&00~& c ~00&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number ILD 79 Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL HC 107 .A42 n v.7 PHASEI RESOURCE~NTORY -- SETTLEMENT ELEMENT STATE OF ALASKA Department of Natural Resources 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service .., ~ ~ ~ ,J '1 ] _j) ~ --! j , ~ ,..,. ..) ~ _j "] .3 g •, ..;! B 1 ' ... l J 1 ~ ~ ' -~ ' ,dl j -· ~ .d _; ~, Contents ______________ __ Chapter.l Introduction Introduction •••••••••••••••••.••.•••••.•••••.•••••• • • • Chapter 2 Issues and Procedures Issues Coneerni.ng State Land ManageDient .............. 1-1 2-1 Local Preferenees • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2·4 Chapter 3 DeJQ.and for the Resource Introduction • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·3-1 Part 1. Total Demand for Private Land in the Tanana Basin • • • • • • • • • • • 3-2 Part 2. Projected Settlement Land • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-4 Chapter 4 Supply·of the Resource Physical Capability • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-1 SuitabUity •••• ·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-5 Appendix4A Mapping Procedure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4-7 Definitions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4·8 Appendix 48 Soils With Very Severe Umitations for Low Buildings (Regardless of Slope) (Soil Conservation Service Categories) ••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4·9 -, ;;j -,; :::? ill ., J ., : :.) , ~ ~ ] '1 ] j __jl -'1 _) " _ _} ' ~ ' ~~ -j j l ~ l _;; ..J --~ J Contents-------- Chapter 5 Benefit Cost Analysis Introduction ••••.••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•.••• I. Current Benefits to Consumers o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ••• II. Current Net Revenue to the State • o • o •• o • o •••• o •••••••••••• III. Fiscal Impacts of Subdivisions and Remote Land Disposals on 5-1 5-2 5-3 Local Governments •• o •••• o ••••••••••• o o ••••• o ••• o • • • • 5-7 IV. External Benefits and Costs • • • o • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • 5-l 0 Appendix 5-A Calculation of Present Value of Revenues from Disposals ••••• ·• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :. • • • • • • 5-11 Appendix 5-B Background Data and Scenario Assumptions for Fiscal Impact Calculations •• o •• o ••••••••••••••••• o • • • • • • • • • • • • 5-12 Chapter 6 Supply Co10pared to De~nand Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••• I. Supply and Demand for Land along Roads o ••••••••••••••••••• II. Waterfront Property and Land Near Airstrips • o •••••••• o •••• o. III. Land within 1;4 mile of Water or an Airstrip •••••••••• o ••••• o • o IV. Remote Land •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Chapter 7 ManageJDent Recommendations A. RecoJDJD.endations for Designations •••••••••••• o ••• B. Other Managem.ent Guidelines •• o ••••••••••••• o • o o o 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-2 7-1 7-9 j .,. ~ =:; ~ oi "'! J " J ~ ~ d "" ;j -, ~ -" _;; 91 -~ ' J; j ~ l ~ ""' -~ ~ ~ J .::::;6' J J List of Tables _________ _ 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 4-1 4-2 Settlement-Gross Acreage Page Demanded IT '84-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 · Summary of Population Forecast-Tanana Basin ........................................ 3-5 Residential Settlement Use ...................................... '3-8 Recreational Settlement Use . . . . . . . • • • . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 3-8 Remote SeH Sufficient Use . . • . . . . • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . •. 3-9 Small Agriculture/ Agriculture Homestead Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 • • • • • • • • •• 3·9 Criteria for Disposals When Both Primary and Secondary Vegetation are Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-3 ··-Estimated Amount of State Owned or Selected Land Capable of Supporting Settlemenfin the Tanana Basin (in acres) .......................................... 4-6 5-1 A Hypothetical Demand for Land . . . o • • o • • o • • • • • • • • ••••• o • • • • • • • • o • • 5-2 5-1 State Revenues from Subdivisions and Remote Parcels IT '82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5-2 Estimated State Costs of Land Disposals NCDO, IT '82 ....................•................... 5-4 5-3 Summary of Net Revenue from Disposals, IT 82 . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . 5-6 5-4 Fiscal Impact Scenario Assumptions and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 6-1 Settlement-Gross Acreage Demanded IT '84-881 •••••••••• ~~~ •••••••••••••••••••• a • 6-3 [ l -, ~ "" "' _:; ~ ~ ,.4 "" ] • .1 ,_,. 3 J '1 J ~ --:. , j, "1 1 . ...i ~ 1 .J ...., =-i ] ~ 1 ;) ""11. j :;:;.J. ~ --' __J This report completes Phase I of the Alaska State Departrn~nt of Natural Resources Tanana Basin Area planning process. The report inventories and analyzes background information on sett:ement in the Bas in and will serve as the basis for the continuing phases of the planning process. This information is part of a resource inventory of seven resources incl.uding fish and game, agriculture, for- estry, minerals, outdoor recreation, settlement (land dis- posa:s) ·and water. The information included in this report was gathered by the Tanana Basin Area Planning staff of the Divis ion Lan_d ___ and.------Wate.I!----Uana_geJll~l1.t_.!.. People who ~t"ci-pa-ted-in the production of this report include Susan Todd (Project r-1anager, Tanana Basin A.rea Plan); Chris Guinn Lf-::rt-22L/3 (Disposal Section,); Bill Copeland (Pl.anning and Coordination Section); Delores O'Mara, Rob Walkinshaw, and John Weddieton (Resource Allocation Section). There are seven chapters in this report. Following the introduction, the second chapter presents major issues about settl.ement and :and management. The third estimates the demand for settlement land, and the fourth discusses the areas appropriate for settlement. The fifth chapter examines the benefits and costs of land disposals in the Basin and chapter six compares demand_ and supply. Finall.y, the seventh chapter makes recommendations :concerning state land allocations which would be preferable fron a settle- ment standpoint. 1-1 sa~npaao.1d 1uao'l puu sanss1 f l ;- F r t r L -, d = ._, -:::;;=; ~ 9 ' ... , --l ..J l ' =-'i J q ' _j ~ __j ,...,. _l --, ,__. q -J 9 J ... ~ .....;/ ., '--" _. ISSUES CONCERNING STATE LAND MANAGEMENT I. INTRODUCTION Issues and local preferences are important pieces of information Hhich must be incorpor~ated into the planning process. Issues concerning the use of a specific resource provide a focus and framework for the planning process; local preferences show how the public feels these issues should be resolved. In this section of th~s report, issues and local preferences are documented for incorporation in the planning process through the work of the Planning Team Members. The issues identified in this chapter were collected and summarized from three sources. The first source, the Statewide Natural Resources Plan was prepared by DNR to give po:icy guidance for state-wide management of resources and to present summary information on those resources. The issues included in the statewide plan were identified by the division or agency within the state responsible for managing a specific resource. The Tanana Basin Plan sketch elements were a second source used to identify issues. The sketch e:::.ements were developed in l98l to provide a starting point for the Tanana Basin Area Plan. The issues from the sketch element are more specific to the Tanana Basin than the issues in the statewide plan. The issues identified in the sketch elements were based on conversations with agencies, resource experts and public interest groups. The public meetings held in the Tanana Basin during the spring of :::..982 was the third source of issues for this chapter. Planning team members, after reading the comments from the public meetings identified a series of issues concerning the resource they represent. Loca:::. preferences about how these issues should be add- ressed were determined from various sources. One is a series of community originated land use plans. Several communi ties are currently working on proposed plans for state land in their area; others have already submitted proposals to DNR. These local land use plans can provide a clear indication of what a community prefers. This is particularly true \then a proposal receives endorsement of village councils, city councils, native corporations, and other interest groups in the area. 2-1 The possibility of doing local lana use plans was mentioned at the public meetings and in a newsletter that was sent to all communities. Only a few of the communi ties, however, have decided to submit proposals. Those \'fhich have are on file with the State Department of Na t.u r:o:J 1 R AR nu rc ea And summaries are included in this report. The public meetings held in the spring of 1982 are the other source of information on local preferences. The notes from these meetings. were given to members of the planning team who then developed the summaries included here. These represent the planning team members' understanding of how residents want state land in their area managed. 2-2 c r f~ ~ ~ 0 r, tj F: L [ [ [ r~ 0 c 0 n . L.i [] L [ L _) J ~ .J 1 -~ d 1 J ~ i ' j ~ The following issues concerning disposals were drawn from ~e public meetings. ISSUE 1. The amount of land offered. ISSUE 2. The quality nf land offered • ISSUE 3. The location of land offered. ISSUE 4. The size of the parcels. ISSUE 5. The effect of habitat classifications on disposals. ISSUE 6. The effect of forest classifications on disposals. ISSUE 7. The effect of mineral development on disposals. ISSUE 8. The effect of agriculture on disposals. J ISSUE 9. The effect of disposals on fish and game. ' j 'l ...1 =i 3 .J ~ -~ j ~ J J ~ ~ .,} -.., 1 :; --, _I ...) ISSUE 10. The.effect of disposa:s on recreation. ISSUE 11. The effect of disposals on forestry. ISSUE 12. The effect of disposals on mineral development • ISSUE l3. The effect of disposals on agriculture. ISSUE :4. The effect of disposals on access to the backcountry. ISSUE 15. The effect of disposals on public service costs and tax revenues. <ISSUE 16. The effect of disposals on future state land management. . 2-3 LOCAL PREFERENCES This chapter summarizes concerns about land disposals expressed at a series of public meetings held in the communities of the Tanana Basin in the spring of 1982. Comments are transcriptions from the meetings. Anderson 5 persons attended the meeting Don't put people where they can't make a living. Disposals have been overly regulated to prohibit private enterprise such as developing a ski lodge, or bar, or roadhouse on your land. It seems like the state has decided that no one should make money on disposals. Multiple use of state lands is possible with disposals and agricultural disposals. People should have the right to use the land as they choose. Most of us live here because we prefer fewer regulations. Disposals have been in the bogs. People should not be forced into a homeowner's association. State should supply electricity rather than forcing people into a homeowner's association. \le are not. allm'fed to subdivide property. Disposal prices are too high. It costs a great deal to get out there to a piece of state disposal land, let alone the price of the land. The price should be adjusted to allow for the cost of access. Roads to disposals are very poorly planned. \ve need green spaces beh1een disposals; areas that are not going to be developed. Population density should be regulated through disposals. The state should look ahead. 2-4 ~- r r- l~-> 8 n- \___.j P- t o- c [ p U c 0 c 0 - n w E [ [ L ' ~ .., _:; :;J ~ -" l j , J l j ""! ..J , J ., " .;; -, ' ~ - .J ~ ·~ d l ; ..J 1 d 1 -~ ..J ' ~ _j ~ d -, _) Anderson (eont) Disposals are inaccessible. Don't put disposals in swamps. Disposals on floodplains are not a problem. There are trails and woodcutting areas around 7 Mile Lake which should be utilized for disposals. The state needs more field checking on disposals. This community has no room or land to grow. \~e ·wouldn't be here if these current disposal rules applied when we first carne to the area. Cantwell 6 persons attended the meeting \fuat the hell do they think they are doing? People have to be· insane to buy some of this land. Sell fewer subdivisions. Hake larger pieces of land available. Give c:ear fee simple title to the land. Don't regulate what can be done on the land • \~e need :and disposals. \~e need more homes i tes in the r1inchl.,liTlina area. The state should open all land to private ownership. The thing that is missing from disposals is the notion of carrying ~apacity; small disposals are not adequate to support a family. No sewage treatment facilities included in the disposals. I'd hate to see the cost to get access to tUnchurnina. Disposals ~n rural area should be much larger and not just for r~creat~on. Most people want larger plots than what the state is selling. I'd like fee simple title to the land with the right to use it as I like and enough room for a house. Nothing less than a 40 ·acre tract. 2-5 Cantwell (eont) They put tracts in as if it were a suburb of Chicago; straight lines r-ight throu'gh a swamp or steep cliff. They just like a neat looking map with straight lines. The placement of disposals seems to have nothing to do with the land suitability. Land must be closer to access. To sell subdivisions just put lots of homes together like a town, but people don't want to be in a town when they buy land out here. Sell larger parcels so that conflict between disposals and recreation can be eliminated. \Je' ve got all the ground in public owner-ship that we need. Disposals should r-ecognize popular-tr-ails. We need a lcind of greenbelt between the trails and disposals. You can't get to many of these disposals. They don't have access. Tell the disposal people to consult local folks about the layout and location of disposals. Locals can also give infor-mation on weather-anct scenic areas. The state should not have to protect remote parcels from fire or flood. I cannot stress str-ongly enough the futility and unfair-ness of removing waterfront proper-ty from land offerings. The r-eason given was so that people could picnic and camp v1her-e they wanted. I submit that picnic and campgrounds should be reser-ved but to reser-ve all water-front lands to this use is not only unrealistic but will contr-ibute to the creation of another-Homer Spit. One has only to visit ther-e in summer to r-ealize a description would be libelous, scandalous and indicative of the misuses the water-fr-ont of our state would be in for-. People who commit themselves to establish a home in the bush need access on navigable r-iver-s and str-eams. They need incentive for this expensive and difficult lifestyle and should talce pr-ecedence over r-ec r-ea tiona-1 land use. Tourist business \'I'OUld be enhancect by those \vho would build lodges Or' maintain campgr-ounds, boat or aircr-aft ser-vices or-waterfr-ont par-cels .•. ~laskans own this land, not bur-eaucrats, and have right to the best not the wor-st which has been offered lately. 2-6 ~- [ f' ~ E 0 fJ c [ c E c 0 0 0' - n '--' [j [ L [ "' ~ • .J> 1 j 1 ' _) ~ ' .J j ' -' ~ ;;. 1 ..... -'f ;:j ~ -~ .; 1 .; ~ 1i j ~ "11 .J ] j ,.jj --" Cantwell (eont) Water from your property has to be near. You have to be able to get to water from your disposal. Past disposa~s -Yetna/Skwentna drainages will be grabbed by Anchorage people for recreation use/f'ly-ins. That's fine but get some land to people who can live there and make something of it. Not necessary to have such large setbacks on river frontage to al~ow for public use. Provide for legitimate access to disposals. Write it into the sale. Let competitive bid set prices of disposals. r1ake more land available to bring prices down. Anything to release land is an improvement over the status quo. We've only got 13 subdivisions in the area. No land is available. The state is doing pre-surveys. This -places a prior investment in subdivisions which shouldn't necessarily be sold. Human impact on the habitat and the land is just a chicken scratch. ~ won't hurt anything. Disposals and settlement won't conflict with habitat. There is some good residential ground on the Denali Highway. Delta .Junction 9 persons attended the meeting State tract development and disposals within municipalities have been plunked in city limits; but the state nidn't establish the subdivision in accordance with overall design of our land planning process. State failed to design and put in road on disposals in the area. This puts financial burden on the city. We feel very strongly that the sta£e !lliST put roads in before lands is sold; or state should give sufficient money for construction to city government. It's a real problem. There is more demand for land than there is land. Take Tanana Loop Area. People said they didn't want this much land, but they saw it was the only way to get some land so they bought really large lots. I think there is need for more disposals. 2-7 Delta JUDetioa (coat) But ~-1e need a better disposal balance. Lots who didn't want agricultural :and bought it. ~ve need small tracts that don't require clearing. 5-10-20 acres where someone could pitch a tent and develop the land at their leisure. There were a lot of people who hemmed and hawwed for remote wilderness areas but I doubt they are taking them. People want to drive to their land and get an electric line to it. Mining claims as a vehicle to get a homesite shows that there is a demand for small tracts. There is a need for land along rivers and lakes. Selling land there makes it difficult to keep recreation and wilderness intact but there should be a ratio where these settlements can be mixed with the other uses. As soon as peop~e get to remote areas, the state should anticipate that there will be demands for roads and utilities. Dot Lake 6 persons attended the meeting Nothing cart be done to make trapping compatible with disposals although remotes wouldn't impact as much. The real impact is from private property signs forcing disorganization of your trapline. People moving in increases pressure on game. We don't know how many animals people are taking and we have a hard time regulating an area to insure that there will be animals for next year. Trapping is important to the people here. Lower 48, new people come into the area and trap, on my trapline. Find traps hanging on a tree. \Ve have been using this area for hundreds of years. ANCSA has provisions for protection of subsistence sites that people use seasonally and Hhere peop:e live. With a subsistence site within the corporation boundary we can get title to our land but outside the boundary and on state lands, they won't give us title. Does the state make any consideration for historical~y used hunting and fishing camps for subsistence? 2-8 c- ~ r~ L {~ b 8 0 fJ LJ c c E c 0 [ 0 n l._j 6 [ [ L ~ --.,_ i \ Q· _) J "'! ~ ,] " .J. I I I j -1 I j ..., J ~ -~ .;.,i. =' 1 J o.Jl g - ·Dot Lake (eont) You should set a mechanism into the plan to provide for subsistence use. You should show that we have used this land for hundreds of years (If you put fair market value on it, like my ~oose camp, we should be given the opporLunity to buy it. This would be showing a preference, but so is an auction. In an auction you are giving preference to those with the most money.) · People are living out here to live this lifestyle and get away from cities. You can have overkill --if too many people come out here no one will be able to enjoy this area. What you don't want is 50 people with little lots who can come for a weekend and hurt the moose populations and then return to Anchorage. There is :imited employment or income here. People have moved into the western culture to a certain degree, but they still live off the land. What is the percentage of land taken that is offered? A lot of it is not taken so why reoffer it; or sell more in this area? Why lceep adding land when it is sitting there and not being so:d? Robertson is an example of this. It has been up for sale for 2 years and no one takes the lots there. Study the impacts of disposals on local areas; the impact on fish and game, minerals, communities and state residents. Look at past figures of land taken to get the sense of the demand for :and. Don't sell land for speculation. The state shouldn't compete with private enterprise in the land selling business. Let the private market take care of the land. There is concern over disposals that are on hold and aren't going to be addressed in the context of the TBAP. What are you going to do about those that are on hold only until thi-s fall? Slow process down so that plan will provide framework for addressing disposals. Put hold on disposals until plan is complete. You will have the context set to guide d~sposals once the plan is done. 2-9 Dot Lake (coat) Surveys on demand for land are not good. They ask Fairbanks residents but not other residents. Also people will say they want land on the terms that the state offers. . State is establishing communities by selling subdivisions. Then the communities become eligible for revenue sharing and s:t;ate grants. This will be a big cost to the state. ~Jhat is the social impact of these areas and communities being developed? (Like Sam Creek) The Dot Lake school couldn't handle all the new people. This creates a problem for Dot Lake planning efforts. Also it will cause increased competition for employment. People don't want to live in subdivisions. People want to live here to get away from that. Offering subdivisions forces people here to move away because they don't like more people moving in and the changes that accompany them. Pipeline right of way conflicts wi~l disposals. Until the corridors and project is decided on there shouldn't be any disposals in the area. Demand for land should be centered around local communities where the ::.and is wanted~ People in Anchorage and Fairbanlcs say they \vant land but they don't want it at Dot Lake. They want it in or near Fairbanks. Base disposal on demand in the area ~vhere the demand is. In Dot Lake there is a denand for land but not subdivision; scattered remotes, maybe 20 acres in size is what people want. Find sui~able ::.and in specific areas and then leave the other land alone. To me, private recreation lots here should be around 5 acres. To me recreation lots are one five acre lot here and then 5 miles down the road another 5 acres. To me that's private recreation, not to have subdivisions all over the area. Sell land on an "I want and I am going to use'' basis. Most of the ::.and the state sells people are not really using. Don't subsidize private enterprise by selling land to specu::.ators. 2-10 I [ [ r '=o~ ~ [J § . 0 c c ~c C u c D n , ........ lJ [ [ T' -~ " _; 1 .] "' J , ,j ~ ~ !I J l " l 'I j! J "! oi> , • .J 'l 3 ~ ~ " 3 ..;; , -~ "' , -] J ] ~ "0:':1 ~ J '7 j C' J J Dot Lake (eont) The impact of disposals on Fish and Game and subsistence should be addressed. Don't provide :and for people to u~e as a stopping off point for hunting. Consider the trade-off between selling land and the public value of keeping that land. Offer land at auction rather than lottery. Lottery the land rather than auction so that everyone has an equal chance. Dispose only of lands that are patented. It is hard to get loans for TA'd lands. Don't sell them. vfuat are the plans for lands that have been sold that aren't in the long run patented. \fuen state goes into remotes put in buffer zones between private lands. Protect people who went there to get away from having people right up against their land. Also a buffer would stop the chance of people staking on private land, like has happened v1i th some of these remotes; especially when it hasn't been surveyed. Put the whole area on hold between Johnson and Robertson Rivers; until the plan is complete~ People .. ~ant land for different reasons than for the. ones the state has offered land for. Farms in Delta and Clearwater --it's too bad, that you can't use them. Focus agriculture disposals on subsistence agriculture. Gane habitat and trapping are most important to people in this area. Traplines aren't trails. They are areas. They are not linear. Trappers depend on game from surrounding areas, not just the line cut through the woods. 2·11 Dot Lake (eont) A trapping trail (getting to the area) is different from a trapping area. \fuen you protect trapping during disposals you should remember this. It is no good to have only the trail protected. What good would a trapline trail in the middle of Fairbanks -like 2nd Avenue, be? You've got to protect the trapping areas as well. Traplines are walked on by people getting into remotes. I brush a trail and spend time working on it and then people use it and ruin my trapping. The plan should assess the local social and economic impact of any action on the local areas and communities. Will the plan change the cultural and economic and social lifestyle in the area? And if you are changing and impacting it when the people want things to remain as they are, are you not infringing on these people's rights? Craig Lake would be nice for public and private recreation. Recreation to me is holding the land in public ownership. Put things in wildlife habitat and our recreational needs will be protected. Don't classify things public recreation. That draws-attention to it. Just leave it as habitat._ Habitat will protect the recreational needs of people. · The problem with rest areas or campgrounds is that they really impact the area. People come in and hack at trees for firewood and just ruin the area. \fuereas if you leave things in habitat, people are more dispersed and start to get a favorite campground that they come back to year after year and they take care of it. Send Delta Plan and notice of meeting to Ted Charles. Dot Lake Native Association, Box 441, Tok 99780. Send maps to Virgil Hilliker, mile 1361 on the Alaska Highway via Delta Junction. Healy 5 persons attended the meeting Develop a state policy on state land disposals in fire danger areas. Concentrate disposals and provide fire protection for that concentration. Don't make disposal areas spotty so that exorbitant amounts of money are spent to protect areas from fire. 2·12 r-~ [ [ F-e E- [, [ [ [ ['- r- u u 0 f-1, - !_;' h L L [ J ":! ,, .J ., --' J "'; ~ 1 .J "l .J 1 _) ' 1 -' ' ~ -., " :.] -. 2 J l - ,;;;; ,] -' -> Healy (eont) People ought to accept responsibility of land without fire protection or land on the floodplain. Write a clause in the deed that says the state can't be sued if a fire or flood ruins their property. I don't like the new rule that you have to at the office to get a disposal. It is discriminatory and favors the rich • Give loca:s first crack at the land in the area. There are other mechanisms for giving locals a good chance. People want land with access. Develqp disposals first that are near the road. Concentrate development of disposals to minimize costs of schools and other services. Don't scatter disposals all over the country without insuring that people wont't expect the state to provide schools and all sorts of other services. Provide woodcutting areas for disposals. Consider houselogs and firewood in developing disposals. Insure public access and trails through disposals. Disposals, if dispersed, will conflict wit~ trappers. Leave access through disposals open to trapping. Include some legal mechanism to allow continued trapping. Include covenant in sa:e to insure trapping can continue. Assess social impact on existing settlements when large numbers of peop:e move into an area and there is a need for more schoo:s and services. Also assess the impact of newcomers on availability of firewood and houselogs. I'm really big on this fire thing. It bugs me when I see the state put a disposal out there somewhere and then the state spends millions of dollars to protect them. People need to be made aware of the costs of these things. I doubt many people think of this. Designate one area where there is no government, no rules but also no government aid, assistance or bail-outs. Residents could realize the ultimate ALASKAN frontier dream of doing what they wanted but at the same time take the consequences. 2-13 Lake Miaehumiua 18 persons attended the meeting Don't block off access to the lakeshor-e. Cease any further disposals here. \ve don't want them. Only a here. sense fe~ people have been staking on this last disposal out Why offer more if ther-e is no need for it. Ther-e is no in it. Don't keep opening up remotes in this area. People weren't demanding lots in this area in the last lottery. Wait and see impact on community, before you can dispose of any more land. Limit the number of entries in the remotes. S_top and take a breather and looJ.~ before you dispose of more. Don't open up again until you've assessed the impact of the developments on this community. We had a plan done and submitted classification requests to DNR. \.Ye did best we could to be reasonable, but it hasn't gotten us anywhere. Hurry up the plan. There are enough of these meetings. Classify the land on the basis of the plan we did. There is the old Herron Trail; through the remote disposal. Leave it open (See Fran Holmes for more information). It'd behoove the state to ~ake disposals available to people who know the land. \'lhere is the access from on that remote? People can reall:! cut up the country. Plan the access out carefully, and make sure people knm'l where it is and use it rather than cutting their own access across the country. The area is pretty well saturated for trapping. What are people in these disposals going to do for a living? \~at about water up there? People are going to have a hard time. \fuy have disposals close by so that they can undermine the community. 2~14 [- [ ,~ b C c c c c c c c c c D 0 u r: u [ [ [ - j --, =-' ~ ··-; j "1 ~ ,.., J ::j J ..J ~ _) } _j ....., _) } j "l ,J l .J l ~ '") 1 ;.;;;! ., _j ~ -' Sell land close to the road; in the Boroughs but NOT here·. People ~ill be liviny on food stamps and garbage if you keep selling land. Look at the demand for the last disposals to get a sense of the demand in the area now. Open the area up to homestead or homesites -let people find the good land. The more people we have the more need for wood. The situation here may get really critical. Reasons \Je • re here is that we like it. ¥le don't -want a few carpet baggers coming in and ruining the community. The area is saturated by disposals • That new state rule that you have to be at the drawing to get a parcel is a good one but the place they had the last drawing (Healy) was goofy. He couldn't get there. We'd have to hitch hike or something from Fairbanks; we don't all have our own planes you know. Even those people who did have a plan~ couldn't get in to Healy because of the weather. That just wasn't fair. It would ha·ve been better to hav~ the drawing in Nenana or Fairbanks. We have scheduled services to those places. Have it at Lake Minchumina next time. Second best would be Nenana or Fairbanks, but don't do it at Healy again. There are a few trails in the area of that remote disposal. Most of them are outlined on the topo maps. Those trails should be protected. With that remote disposal, you should set.aside some of the land as a buffer thac circles the subdivisions and the remote for a woodlot. Those people are going to need wood. I have a trapline running through that disposal. My wife tried to get an allotnent in there on our line but the paperwork got fouled up and we never got the land. But our line still runs through there. I don't want any preferential treatment or anything but I was wondering if the state could do anything to protect my trapline when they dispose of that land? (See Tom Flood for more infor~ation. l No more land sales for 10 years. impact of previous sales. Let us absorb the See what happens.and then decide whether to sell small quantities regularly. 2-15 People want land for ti1e lifestyle but if they continue the sales the lifestyle is gone -either an extremely limited number can enjoy it or nobody can. If it doesn't stop, the very reason for doing it will be destroyed. The land sale system is erratic, unorganized and mixed. Before they mess up everyone else they should get their own act together. Policies are temporary. The land is forever. The people of Minchumina are unanimously opposed to any land sales or disposals in any kind in any place around the lake. The North shore of the lake {Sec. 22, 23, T. 11 s., R. 23 W.) is unsuitacle for settlement, timber or other uses, as it is primarily muskeg and black spruce. It is inhabited by a variety of animals and wildlife ~acitat is, we believe, an appropriate classification. Manly Bot Springs 8 persons attended the meeting Open land where roads already exist. Don't put diS};X)sals way out in remote areas. It's appalling to me the way the state has selected lands for disposal. Remotes haven't done anything for people in the immediate area. Some of us don't want any land disposals within 100 miles of ~s, like me; but also, at the same time I'd really like a good piece of land right in Manley. Land is awful tight in this area ri~ht around Manley. I'd like to know i£ they found areas of good soil in the area: they could ~lace disposals there (s~all agricultural disposals). In Eureka a te\J people have •..;an ted land· for years. The state nas it. They should offer some disposals up there. Consider the impact of land disposals on native lands, particularly where people use access across native lands. In fact, the state even put a subdivision on Bean Ridge Corporation land. Remotes -why offer when they might be right by an oil well? Don't put all land disposals in this area--spread out the burden of the disposal program. Already they -~ut 60,000 in this area and none of it's helping people here. State doing us a great disservice. 2-16 [ [ f' 6 c c [ c [ c [ c c c 0 D \;;;;> b [ L [ 3 ~, -"' ' '1 _ _) , _} ; c:3 ""' _) ' ~ .J ~ -' ' ' --' ' ..J --, ' ..J l d _.., ~ ~ -~ __J ~ .J A lot of these land disposals need a helicopter to get into. One guy's tried ten times to get to some land he owns and has gotten there only five times. Seems kind of outrageous when the state creates mining vs. disposal conflicts. The state should look at what's going on in the area at present before they dispose. There are people here that want land nearby for sale. I would like to stop a lot of these disposals. They are lousy quality and they disturb the ways we've been using the land in the past. · You should sell accessible land. Gi·:e local preference-Anch::>rage and Fairbanks residents shouldn't have an equal chance. We don't want a subdivision of Fairbanks here • Now that we are here we want the place to remain small. We want to see preference as long as it 1 s us. It's a problem. I realize the problem and don't know quite how to resolve it. Mentasta Lake 5 persons attended the meeting If you sell land it will bring more people in. I don't think we want them in~ We have problems with people on our land. There are too many p-oblems already Wlt~ people on our traplines. If state brings people in, it will create trespass problems with Native lands. Put disposals from Clear~ater to Tok. Sou~j of Tok there are proolems. Peopla fish JUst south of Tok and it is swamp there. Would like to see more disposals in the Tok area. Minto 40 persons attended the meeting State shouldn't do anything Wlth land. The first guy got land -the another 9uy came in -we have to move on ~ it's the law. I have good land for hunting, berries, some tr~pping - tjat's all; that's all I have . 2-17 \Je got the land first. I just want to make that point and make you remember that. ~Jhy did the state get land? It's a good question. No one can answer it. The state has too much land and no one ever has given me a good reason why the state got it. You are a beaver--that one over there in the red coat-~ a muskrat. (laughter.) ~~e don • t want to lose the land; that's all.; We got a graveyard there. 7hey have land over there. long time. State has too much land. land. ~ie' 11 show you. Those people have land. We've been on that land a We want that land. It's our We have trails all over the land. Graveyards are important. We want to keep lands ~here they are. We don't want the state to dispose of land in any area. You state people want roads and wells and develop- ments. It's not what we want-we ~ant a place to fish and hunt ducks. Land disposals conflict wit~ traplines. Disposals should be around Livengood and on the Yukon, near roads. We wouldn'c care if they were th~re. The gover~menc says ~e ~ec land; but they lie to us, they didn't gi'Je it to us. ~ie got to 9et our land. The state shouldn't have our land. Don't sell it-leave it as it is. DO NOTHING with lands. Nothing. Don't do nothing on it that hurts fish and game. A lot of people still live off land. If they start disposing close to village, it will hurt these people. There is a problem with people using an area. The public used one area and now I can' t use it. ~-lhere my father had hunting camp, now state owns it and leases it to a man right next to my tiative allotr:1ent. He says there was no tent frames and state leases the land to him. My grandfatner had that land. ~.Jhy can't I have the land when he can? 2-18 c f [ [] E [ [ c [ [ c c c 0 D t:i c [ [ L _:; ~- _J ~ ,J '1 _; j '"' :J l _} ~ J _) "" -' ' _j ;;J l _j "1 £ J -. .J ~ "" J _j _) Because people aren't using land year after year, it doesn't mean they don't use it. Historically, they have used it as their grandfathers did but now people come in and take over because you don't use it one year. It's not right. All the papers on my claim to that land were burned in a fire in Nenana. But it was filed on. And now I can't -get it. That other man has it. What can I do to get it? \ Get village corporations involved in this. plans for their lands. They should be here meeting. They have for this We should have strong 5ay in what happens to our land. ~~e want to know when white men get that land. The state should tell us. We want to know. I'm against state lands. They are pouring ~uck into our lands--all they're doing is dumping much in our rivers and not doing anything about it. Hold off on disposals or developmenc just for a few years while we get out feet on the ground. All the people coming in, the roads, the change. The old people know it is coming. Just let it co~e slow. Give them a chance. It's so hard for them. Put land in forest, but don't develop it for 5 or 10 years. We know change is coming. We're trying; building the lodge, getting jobs in the village, but give us some tim~ for the old people. Nenana 26 persons attended the meeting Need an idea of price ahead of time. Disposals should go to Alaskans. Alaskans can't compete in bid land sales. Sell small plots so Alaskans can compete. Nenana Ridge near the highway should be for disposals for residential use. Put disposals on Henana Ridge back fror.1 the road to keep the route scenic. Make disposals affordable to those that have been in the area a long time. Orient program to residents of local communities. 2-19 Access should be factored into disposal decisions. Go slower with disposals. Don't offer. so much land so fast •. Include service costs in disposal decisions. Access, power, water should be available for state land disposals at a reasonable cost to the buyer. Build roads into disposals and include construction costs in the price of the land sale. Offer more disposals that have river frontage. Use both lottery and outcry.auction methods for the sale of land .• Don't sell lands with 20-40% slope. build on. Sell more level land. It ' s too hard to Before disposing of any land make sure that the land is capable of being built on. Don't sell land that is swampy; have the state fill the· swamp and include the cost of the fill and construction in the purchase price of the land. 'lh~n selling highway frontage property, let purchasers know and stress future plans for the land for sale and surrounding land and the restrictions place on the land so buyers know what they are getting involved in. Greenbelts along highways 6reate problems for access to disposals. Incorporace local desir2s and review· in plannin~ for subdivisions. Protect traplines and evaluate impact on them when disposing uf lands and ~uildin~ roads. Want river frontage property that is cheap and has a place ~here you can pull a boat up to. Have not been enough disposals in the area. Jisposals hav~ not been of good enough yual1ty. Disposals are over?riced and don't have access. There isn't enough timber to build a cabin on disposal lands. 2-20 b [ r·· b c c c c [ r L [ c c 0 n ~ r w D L L L 3 .., -~ ....., ~ . , ' ...) "J J '1 3 ""l --" ' --' ' j -, _; ' -' ' j ~ ...) l J , ;;;> ~ 0 -~ "' ..... J _j s·ac~es are not enough for a remote site . Need more remote parcels of up to 40 acres • Access is a problem wit~ disposals that should be considered in planning disposals. 5 acres are only good for recreations sites • Density of 5 acre lots will upset the ecology. Northway 27 persons attended the meeting Keep people on the road system. Don't sell land way out in the country. Sell land where people can get to it without making new roads and tearing up the land. Don't put people out of their subsistence area. Don't do anything that will cause people to not be able to use their area where they do subsistence hunting and ~rapping. Some land is needed in this area for disposals near town. Offer state land close to existing communities which can be used to build a residence on. The route between Nenana and Fairbanks is beautiful so don't dispose of it. :'on' t do much with the land. Don't do anything that attracts outsiders. I agree that a few disposals near Northway would be nice. There are relatively few people in the ~arket for land here. It has been enJoyacle the past two years since comming to Northway. We uould like to have some land to build a permanent structure, ·plant a garden~ something to call our own. I know that people ~anting state land opened for disposal are in. the minority in our area, mainly because the maJority of people here have their own land and have no real need for state land disposal. Basically, the people desiring land are the teaching staff at the school, some FAA residents and the village pastor -the non-land owners of ~~e community. I believe the only chance we would have of convincing the maJority of people to support opening land would oe to propose: 1) a limited numce~ of 5 to 10 acre plots~ 2) thP. plots should have direct highway access (so as to avoid g~irig a~ross other claimed land, ample access to 2-21 land behind these plots; 3) dispose in such a way as to favor local residents or those planning to reside here (such as homestead disposal). This would discourage ~outside" land speculation and tend to favor people who are conuni t ted to the community. Most people here do not want "outsiders" buying up land and would vehemently oppose any plan which would favor such - they might· support disposal of a few acres to people who would live here. Tanaeross 2 person.~ attended the meeting -Look for alternatives. Don't pick lands to sell that are critical to people here. It seems the state always picks lands close to us. Go near Tok. There is lots of land the state can use near there and jobs would be easier to find. Keep disposals away from habitat areas. Send us a map of the at:"ea so \Je can show you whet:'e NOT to have disposals, and whet:'e they are OK. There is othet:' land that doesn't conflict with our uses that coul.d be used for disposals. Put disposals close to the road, ~.rhet:"e thet:'e is access, along the Glenn Highway, not in habitat areas. Tanana 5 persons attended the meeting I like the land the way it is. I'd liJ<e to have a 100 mile radius with nothing happening--the land left alone. I'm against any kind of land lotteries. Population increases pressures on us. see tha c. I don • t \Jant to The Cosna;Zi:=iana disposals--if people wane land in thet:'e; it ~on't a£~ect us--at least I don't think .... How do people find out about disposals? Send us information on land sales. ;;e nevet:' know about them. Put us on mailing list. People from Tanana should have a chance to buy land, be we never know about it. The state selling land here, personally doesri·~ oother me. People should have land to live on--as long as they respect things d.nd as lony as they are at least 100 :niles away. I wouldn't mind if they had land in town ~ot:' people to purchase. We're hunting for land to buy in town here. 2-22 [ f~ r~ b- c c c [ [ c [ [ c c c JJ t;;; [ [ [ [ -, 3 '""'\ -, ~ ., -j _) J _) "'1 "" l 1 __) .., _j ., i .J "'I _) --.. ' _ .. ' ..; ~ ...J ' -j J • ' d ~ --~ J ' -J Tetlin 5 persons attended the meeting Open up areas near Delta for settlement. Let people all pour in there. Concentrate development. If there are too many people in this area they'll destroy the land, take it over and choke us out. Don't bring lots of people in. Don't place disposals in areas where there is poor access or no access. Disposals need to be at least 40 acres in size. Don't sell land. No reason to sell the land •. Keep th~ state land, don't sell it • We like to see wild country. Great country; that's how we look at the land . We want to be able to live in the rndian way in 100 years. Don't destroy the land so that we can't do that. . . We keep land and don't destroy or chdnge it. Tok 12 persons attended the meeting Quit offering disposals in ouclying areas. Concentrate disposals in the immediate area. Disposals create conflicts with fishing, hunting and trapping. Disposals are barely accessible. They should be kept for publ1c use. Property values are des~~oyed by excessive lanJ for sale by the state. Disposals have yone way over the need for land • Parcel sizes are too s~all (5 acres). Sell people more and this would minimize the need to to to Tok for work. It would minimize competition for jobs. Local residents have no ~ay to plan •. They can't be assured a parcel due to the lottery system. Land gets in the hands of people who don't use it; in the hands of speculators •• People ~~at want to do something with the land can't get it. 2-23 Don't sell people a dream that isn't real. Remotes where people can hunt and fish and build a little cabin don't exist. This is not a way to yet a job/make a living. The fish and game in the area can't support this lifestyle. Dispose of bigger pieces that people can make a living off of. The smaller pieces aren't doing anyone any good. Need 40 acre farm pieces. Sell inexpensive parcels that people can live on. Get better compliance and enforcement to insure people are meeting requirements that are outlined by the state for people when they buy the land. · Uho checks up on compliance'and wh~ther residents meet requirements? Stace requirements for buying land so it leaves no question as to what is re~uired for compliance. Money should not be the only common denominator and basis for making disposal decisions • • In considering disposals consider the long term values of keeping that land in a renewable resource use, like forestry, or fish and wildlife. Give people three years or another period of time to develop their land. This way land will be put in the· hands of those that wane to do something with it. Speculators would be red~ced and demand also. There is a built-in problem with remotes; fire protection. Consolidate disposals and keep them close to Tok so the state doesn't have to l;)ay huge amounts ·of money JUSt to protect a few people's property. Cathedral Bluffs -no one is in th~ area and DON'T reopen it. Don't do a lot of disposals in this region. Dispose of land fror.1 th~ center of the comr.lUni ty ou t·..;ard. Include easements in disposals and write them into the land disposals. Where is everyone Yho buys this land going to work? 5 acre disposals are useless. You can't live on them. Place disposals in an area with an economic base that can support .nore people. 2-24 L L r·, t-o c c [ c [ [ [ [ [ c 0 D tc> G [ [ L ..., --, J ~ ..) ] J 1 ~-. ~ =, , ,j '":~ ....) -, _) ' _J j _) ..., =I ~ J ""' 2 ;j • -~ .., ' -~ .J __. There are plenty of disposals at present to meet the future expansion of Tok. A lot of the land the state has for sale is under a bunch of water or is straight up. Easements and access to personal property across state lands should be provided for • Give a lease to purchase land with stated development conditions, not at these high inflated prices •. Now! for Alaskans, not these fly-by-night rotating residences. Fairbanks-General 23 persons attended the meeting People are demanding land--cheap land. There is lots of land for sale but it is not cheap. The state is creating its own momentum with a flood of cheap land. It's a myth that the state is perpetuating. The state should stop creating its own demand • Speculators should be stopped from getting land. It should be sold to those who need the larid. Disposals have encouraged speculation. I bet 95% of people that buy have land and don't use it. People should have to use their land. I'm not against disposals, but the state should make the prices less prohivitive for the unwealthy. Private ownership should be at bottom of priorities • Pick other public uses first -sell what is left. The problem is that disposals are startiny to conflict with public interest lands. Disposals should stay out of public interest lands. The 2roblem is that both public interest lands and good disposal land are at the same place. Identify public interest lands first-then what's left give to disposals. Put less weight on remote disposals. People want land more for public uses such as recreational/hunting/ fishing, not to have it sold. Include provision in the sale of state land requiring people to use the land. I have real trouble with the state telling people what to do. ~lhat business is it of the state's what people do with their ~and? 2-25 I agree-don't put restrictions on use of land bought from the state. It's not fair to my children to require people to use the land now. I want some land for my children. Prir:1e sites come up now but in 20 years won't be available to my children. I should be allowed to yet land now and hang onto it for ~y children. If the state opens an area -they should provide a road to it. If they can't put a road into it they shouldn't sell it. Small tracts should be placed along existing roads. Do it so there isn't a heavy concentration of people in one spot. Spread people . out •. Center disposals around the road system where there is access. Don't lock land up by disposing it. Alaska Trappers agree. Land lock up is by disposals. The disposal program to date has been really helter skelter. People are taking it in the rear end with disposals. It's just not a very good proyram. Disposals create head-on conflicts with recreation. State shouldn • t try to make money on land. land to start out with. It's our Lands that are classified should have more weight than is presently given classi~ications~ For exanple, forest classified areas. I've seen the state JUSC ;o in and dispose of these with no proolem. The scat~ shouldn't be able to JUSt go in and sell. Give classifications weiyht to they can't oe chan~ed at so~eone's whim. ~lhere there is a trapping cabin or any kind of structure no agricultural or :ninin<J dis!:)osal should be allowed within a reasonable distance of these s·tructures. Get more public review for disposals. Provide land for the people for year-round use. 2-26 b [ I' b E E r L c c c [ c c c D fJ L [J [ [ [ ~ -- CJ ~ -, __; 'J _j ""! J l o.l -~ ...) ' _J 1 ' ' ..;; ' d ~ l d '; -;;,;; ~ __. Those days are gone when you could get your remote place on a river nearby to a population center. We just have to get used to this. There are some people that have a good thing -have whole area to themselves, and are going to keep it that way. But that's where the problem is. I have one, or want one~ but don't want you next to me. Hhen disposals get too many people in one spot it's not good. It ruins why the people came and tried to get remote disposal. They didn't come to-live right next to someone. If the state is going to sell remotes then it should insure that the buyer gets what he buys, a remote parcel. It's the state's ·responsibility to do this. The state should include buffers with most of e1ese remote disposals. Don't offer any remote disposals. A good acreage and density for remote disposals would be 5 acres every square mile. Areas adjacent to private recreational sites should have a buffer system between them and other uses. Stronger language should be put in the sale of private recreational sales to make sure it is just seasonal use. I have some land and there are private year-round users on lots next to mine. There is a linkage between settlement, recreation and habitat. Settlement increases the value of the l~tter two. The owners of the land tend to block public access. Disposals inevitably lead to conflicts: pressure on resources; erosion of character of area and t~ey ~ignt require fire services as ~ell as public services. Large blocks of public land are too few and too important to be disposed of. We are opposed to disposals ~nless within three ~iles of existing roads or near communities-don't create new communities. If you dispose of an area, you eliminate the options for future. \;e see no press in":! need for disposals. ! think the state should identify new sites for ur~an development but these should be located near potenti~l developments. These ~ight be prioritized for development. You will need access betwe~n these. Make 2-27 sure the access routes are coordinated with bordering region. You must do rural, industrial and social planning in addition to land planning. With the disposal program in the past, there has. been too much land sold, with too little planning -no water , etc. Too much emphasis on quantity and not quality. Much more emphasis is needed in finding quality land. A public survey should determine local demand for land. A local socio-economic assessment is necessary for disposals in outlying areas. Citi~en committees could be used to make disposals responsive to local needs. · The state should establish 11 Settlement Advisory Boards ... ~lhat percentage of land offered has actually been settled? This would indicate where they are most successful and how serious people are about using the land they obtained. Settlement -the key question we should be asking about settlement is whether it is in the long term public interest, not whether or not there is a demand for land. I question our right to make irrevocable decisions. Land disposals are not compatible with forestry or fish and game -this should be addressed in the plan's alternatives. Trappers see land disposals as greatest threat to wildlands and traditional uses. We are especially concerned about inappropriate disposals in very important habitat areas. Put remotes where they have access; where they don't require neu access routes. Leave access trails in area for public use. Lease state land for cabin sites. No high use recreation land should be sold without a public hearing. People want access to disposals. Keep disposals close to the roads. Remote disposals should ~e 2 acres or less. Remote ownership ties U? land -keeps other uses out. 2-28 b r [ c c . i c c [ [ [ r u c [. 0 r u D [ [ [ 3 ' _) od 3 -~ -~ j , ~ oJ l ""' l _j ' " J ~ _; -j ' d J .J ' :J J j , --; ;a =, J --, ,.,; _) ~ I'm against remotes four or so miles from a road. destroys habitat. Don't offer subdivisions in remote areas. Land can't support people in remote areas. Remotes should be dispersed. I'm against the quotas that tell the state ho\v much land to sell. It Keep remotes along river, lake or road -were there is access. Poor land is offered for remotes. The public wants to own land. Offer some areas for-lease and some for sale. Don't put state money into changing Alaska from what it is. Keep Alaska the same. I don't like roads. It really changes things when a road is put in. How much access can an area stand? Reasons for living in the Tanana Basin Area are space and freedom that is close to home -at the door. 'rJe want it to stay that way with buffer zones around town. Plan should identify sites for new communities and should take a broad view of planning which would include such issues as transportation and energy development. 'iJan t as nuch land in ::1ul tiple use as poss i;:,le. De~l witn what benefits ~ost people, not a limited few. Don't compare land use ~alues on an economic basis only. Fairbanks -Disposals 17 persons attended the meeting I 'rn a pro-agriculture person and some proo.l.ems are that the disposals are land that has a better use -such as t~mber -and they're not using the best dry muskeg which is good agricultural land. This land wouldn't even have to be cleared. Out best fields are drained wetlands but these are classed as Class IV and v. The method of selecting agricultural land is therefore poor. ~e're using good timber and fish and game land for agricult:.1r~ and wasting the other. 2-29 I'm for agriculture, but I'~ not in favor or disposing of good timber land. In the Fairbanks area, cleared black some of the finest farmland around. carefully at this rather than taking spruce muskeg is ~le should look good timber land. We don't need the old classification now that we know how good the ~uskeg can be. Save the timber on good forest land. I have class IV soil and it is not muck but I couldn't get credit for clearing it. Instead they made ~e cut down the trees on the rest of the land. Let's not go rigidly by ~~e soils infor~ation which is still very rough for the area. Goldstream soils are good when drained. · Class IV and V are equally or more productive than class II and III. Since this is state not federal land, we should classify it by what is most appropriate up here. We m~st adapt to the arctic. Take a look at these uses and how they would go best in the Tanana Valley. All of those uses listed (forestry, fish and ga1:1e, etc.) are important~ What may be good subdivisions elsewhere, wouldn't be here and the other way around. Subdivisions should be near the city, not away from the road. 1-le do need more lands for disposals~ ~le have a great shortage of land in tn~ area. Subdivisions should be in close so tne develop~ent and services to them are reasonable. A remote subdivision is a contradic~ion in terms. Subdivisions should be near work. Remote parcels are a farce. A way to ~et rid of land without ever going to live there. Like Cathedral Bluffs wit~ no timber, road or anything. Develop land in close. IJhac you're goiny to have is welfare conmunities in the bush -created by disposals. Land wit~in tne h~3hway sys~em should be used first. 2-30 [ l LJ I ~ 0 fJ G c c [ c [ c c 0 0 0 "=' 0 [ C [' ""' -' -, ::;! ~ J , _:] j "'! , -- .., J '"' --' " _] ""l '; ..J J ;;j l ~ = j l j i1 ~j .; --, d ...J _J Stay with forest if it's good forest near the road. This would alsq provide good fish and game habitat. Stay with forest near the road. A little subdivision won't interfere with large forests too badly. There's nothing that says a forest has to be sold or that a farm can't have wildland included. I'd like to see it divided section by section to see what each is good for. I was appalled when I sa1,.; all the wood piled up at Delta -not being used. The state has such a short removal time, there's no chance to salvage the wood. As far as multiple use, recreation should be at the bottom of the list. No one has time for that. I'm not opposed to recreation. We're going to have trespass proble~s if we don't watch it. Recreation is a major contributor to the economy. But we don't want parks, Just areas that are open to recreation • In remote areas, we should have fewer re~ote parcels and ~ore re~ote leases, so that we don't have a patchwork of suou.·bs there in t:;he future. ~·le don't have to sell these. Remotes are ~ust being used for speculation right now. Remotes also Jisru;?t ::..sn and game habitat. I'd like to see you go with b1gger lots. I'd like to see some s~all lot~ near town . Rembember for sewage and wells we need low density lots. It's unfair that· the Interior has to meet one-half the quota for disposals • There are many people in the state who feel that 100,000 acres is too much. That's why the repealed the law. Now they s~y they're going to ignore the law. 2-31 The prices are extremely high in some areas. vvithin a l/4 acre of the road, you could put a lot of people between here and Nenana. This would be within access of Fairbanks. You don't need big lots down there. · They're holding back land that is good for people to live on. \'ie ought to take a look at (public interest lands) to see if they're worth it. Tell people that there will be logging trucks and they won't object. Put the public lands back away from the road. Keep lakes and rivers for public use. Mining areas would only compete with subdivisions. Leave mining areas in multiple use catego~ies. Let the miners and farmers, foresters, trappers and hunters nominate land fo.r disposal. Let private enterprise decide ~hat should be disposed of. All the people with money would end up getting all the land if people nominated the land. First, determine what type of forest you have. Quit classifying large areas just as forestry or whatever. Have more than one use. Let • s get OGGS out ther:e to survey the land for mineral potential -lee's find out if the ~inerals are there or not. Let's get some fee sin~le ground out on the ~arket for homesteading. Lee's get some sweat equity. Let's not use today's standards for clearing land, let's look at the needs of the future for firewood and sawtimber. The disposal program ou~ht to be made on the basis of real personal need, not JUSt wants or desires. You can't separate them-if I want JUSt 10 acres and someone else wants a second ~0 acres, you can't tell the difference. · I'm not opposed to trapping, but trappers use 30,000 acres and call it public use and someone else buys. land and you say t~at isn't the same. 2-32 [~ [ r, b 0 c [: ~- c [ c [ [; c c 0 c 6 r·; c [ L L =oo -' -" ~ --, ~ ~ ~ => _j -· "'"' ., ' ~ , -" _J ~ _; ~ __. -"' ~ " .JJ ] ... ~ l " ... "l -~ -"' -" --, d 'l ~ You ~an use trapping areas for other uses; you can't use diiposals for other th{ngs. You can have remote traplines settled on both sides and not have a ~onflict. By leaving land in public use you don't give a fellow a chance to do his thing. Just trappers and hunters can use these areas if you don't dispose of them. It's a concensus of the people I talk to that 100,000 acres is too much. Th~ difference between "demand" and "need" bothers me. Demand is ·.vt:a t t.'ie people want. Heed is t..rha t the bureaucrats decide people need. Go on demand and not need -both by quantity and location. Forget quota, just sell land near towns. We put in for lotteries so many times and failed. We couldn't afford to do it again so we had to buy privately. Put out enough land near roads -everyone in the state wants land - I paid $3,000 for st.v-amp. DNR disposed of such poor land that people gave up on state disposals. Go after the Borough so that we don't have to go to remote areas. For most of the land, all you get is a right to farm - nothing else. We're going to b~ able to clear as much land as Divis ion of Agriculture says. You can't sell the livestock you raise. Fee simple title would change a ~ot. The restrictions on individual use are too great. They'll put everyone's lawn in production to meet~-500,000 acre figure. Look at how many people are applying for lots and you'll get an idea of the demand. ~here's nowhere enough land to meet tne demand. Sometimes I feel I was born 100 years too late • Trappers and miners opened up this country an4 now we have to take a back seat. Documented sales of furs are extremely important -40 lynx coats from the Tanana Basin were worth 57 million in 1980. We are on the verge of establishing a trapping industry in the Basin, but we've got to have the area to trap in. We can coexist with forestry, recreation, mining, etc. We can't coexist with pr1vate ownership in remote areas. We can coex1st with private land near the highways. uisposals ~ust be where people have access to the land. Forest lands in remote areas wust be preserved. In the Tanana Basin Area the value of fur is 5776,000 and another 5300,000 worth are manufactured into hats and .coats. 2-33 I agree that trappers and miners opened the land, but the times have changed. Now my land is w::>rth rrore thari the trappers produce. I am in favor of trapping and hunting and timber harvesting. But the people who p~otested Delta II on the grounds that it was good habitat didn't know anything about the area. You support me and I'll support you. I'm not against agriculture or dis~osals but I'd like to see them near roads. There's enough land for us to exist together. We've got to work togethe~. · We're not thinking of future growth. Since 1960, the population of Alaska has doubled and it will double again by 2000 and we will need tl1e land for agriculture. But the government is paying people in the lower 48 not to plant. Our arctic environment is different. In Fairbanks we have virtually reached the limit as far as P:>llution goes. We either stop the growth or take health. haza-rds. We've got to get land so people can move out. Firewood in the past few years has increased the pollution. We'll have to spread the people out a bit; but not too fa~ to cause pollution fro111 driving. Firewood isn't a problem. It's automobi:e exhaust and planes. Firewood burning will become a problem. ~hen you dispose ~f land you must ensure access for others -section lines and t:::-aditional trails. Leave parks out of the Basin. Don't close the door on remote ledses. Balance a guy's use with the best use of thac land. Sc .. :ebody said 11 no parks 11 • Out by Two River's School people are begging for a ski trail. I'd love to see this a possibility for this area. 2-34 . b [ r~ t::; 0 E c . 0 [ [ [ c c G Q D ~ [ [ L L L [ r ,_ t; :;; ~ j '1 -~ ~ ; d . .,. ~ --, _ _. ., :;j --, J ~ ! ;i ., ~ 0 -"" j DEMAND FOR SE1Tl.EMENT LAND I. INTRODUCTION This chapter is organized in two total demand for land, including demand for land to build on. Part 2 which may actually be used. parts. Part 1 estimates the both investment demand and estimates the amount of land Part l of this chapter was prepared by the Land Resource Planning Section in Anchorage as part of the annual statewide disposal demand assessment in January of 1983. It includes an evaluation of existing demand and projects demand by quality type and by disposal program, assuming 1982 disposals are typical. This is probably not true since the varying quality of land offered, consumer preferences, the recent end of the discount program, the introduction of the homesteading program and many other factors may cause significant changes. Although the end of the discount. program may be the most significant change from the 1982 program (which the projections are based on), sales still remain brisk in the Northcentral District. This is attributed to the current high quality of the land for sale. Apparently consumers still consider the land a good buy even at market prices (Chris Guinn, Disposal Section, NCDO, personal communication, August, 1~83). \fuether or not this will continue is uncertain. Sales at the Southcentral District in Anchorage are down about 30% since the discount program ended (Chris Beck, Susitna Basin Area Plan, SCDO, August, 1983). Given these mixed signals, it is difficult to anticipate the effect of the end of the discount program. These limitations must be kept in mind when reviewing Part 1 of this chapter~ Part 2 projects the anount of land that will actually be used based on surveys of land use in the Susitna Area. This approach also has limitations because it assumes that people in the Susitna area have "needs" similar to those of people in the Tanana Basin. This assumption is tentative, but because there is no similar survey for the Tanana Basin, the results are the best available and should provide an order-of-magnitude estimate. 3-1 PART 1. TOTAL DEMAND FOR PRIVATE LAND IN THE TANANA BASIN The demand for settlement land depends on a number of factors, -including price, quality, location and the buyer's perception of future prices. No detailed economic study of the current deMand for :and is available. However, a projection of what the future response to sales would be, based on past sales, was prepared by DNR early in 1983 (DNR, 1983). This study projected the demand for private land in the Basin based on past state sales. As mentioned above, several aspects of the state disposal program have changed since this study was conducted. In addition, the Tanana-Yukon region for which this information was coMpiled does not correspond exactly to the Tanana Basin. For these reasons, conclusions ~f the study are presented here only as an order-of-magni-tude estimate. As shown below in Table 3-1, the total demand for private land in the Basin was forecast to be about l94,000 gross acres over the next five· years. Of this amount, 56% is likely to be demand for Quality Type A subdivisions. The net acreage needed is roughly one-quarter of the gross. 3·2 b [" r b t- E c c [ [ c c c IJ w n w B L L L t,. ~ w I. ' . ) 1:.. 4 "'""Jj Jl,,; .,.,JI ~ ... ,,J I;.,LJJ Lk ,j L.d .. ,J \, "• .. ,J l, "' , . .J l.. , •. J Q" .. .,,.J U , .... l ~. LJr' IL, •• :.JJf il .J u j F':l'84 F':{ I 8 5 & I 86 FY'87 & '88 TOTAL 'Ihe net acreage, or TABLE3-1 SETTLEMENT GROSS ACREAGE DEMANDED FY'84-88 Type A TypeD TypeC TypeD TypeE Total 20,334 2,294 5,018 2,431 6,168 36,245 43,871 4,943 10,335 5,014 12,700 7,863 45,373 5,113 11,205 5,340 13,764 ~885 109,578 12,350 26;558 12,875 32,632 193,993 the acreage actually' sold, will be approximately one-quarter of the gross. PART 2: PROJECTED SETTLEMENT LAND INTRODUCTION This is an attempt to deterMine the amount of land that will be actually used by the purchaser. This does not include land that is held for speculation or other reasons .• No in depth study has been done to determine the amount of state land sold that is actually built on. In this analysis, we rely primarily on figures for the Mat-Su Borough and discussions with Division of Land and Water Management staff in Fairbanks. Rather than set forth one set of assumptions on land settlement requirements, we are providing a range. This range gives an order of magnitude estimate of projected settlement requirenents. 1. Defbdtloa of SettleJDeat Types Settlement use has been divided into 5 categories. These "'use .. categories are based on existing land disposal programs and are defined below. 1. Residential subdivision -Year-round residential use,. generally associated with expansion of existing communities and other presently road accessed, developed areas. 2. Recreational residential settle~ent including those dwelling residences. Recreational settlement remote portions of the Basin. Seasonal or recreational ~nits that are not primary occurs in both accessed and 3. Remote residential -Year round residential settlement where the residents earn the majority of their living directly off the land through hunting, fishing, trapping, farming and food gathering and construct their residences largely from local materials. These categories correspond to the major types of settlement use demanded of public lands. The categories and the areas in which they occur are not entirely nutually exclusive. D. Popalatloa Projeetloas Table 3-2 presents population projections for communities ·.vi thin the Bas in and for the Tanana Bas in as a whole. The population forecasts \vere talcen from the Tanana Basin Area Plan Socioecononic paper (DNR, DRD, 1982). 3-4 [ r I 8 ~ t; c [ c c c [ c c u Q r w t [ l L L l .. w ~ (,. ' ) LJ~ i) ~"'· ~,J ~m • .l' w ... ~ .. ciJ LJ..._ ..J L H ~ •;.,_, .. LJ k ,.. ' ) l u) \l, .. _, ,J l~ ' _J L. ;.,J ll .. _j .lJt ~~ TABLE3-2 SUMMARY OF POPULATION FORECASTS-TANANA BASIN 1980 YEAR COMMUNITY Census 1985 1990 1995 2000 Anderson 22,517 599 694 766 846 Cantwell 95 ll6 142 165 187 Delta Junction/Ft Greely/Delta 2,860 2,239 3,666 4,074 4,422 Delta Junction/Delta 1,224 1,562 1 '947 2,312 2,616 Dot Lake 66 78 90 102 113 Fairbanks North Star Borough 53,983 66,500 74,400 82,700 91,400 Healy 398 518 693 594 1 '351 Lake Minchumina 22 35 56 82 lOS Livengood 14 21 26 32 36 Manley Hot Springs 82 120 149 185 204 Mentasta Lake 59 60 62 64 65 Minto 152 156 160 164 168 Nabesna/Northway 186 221 256 290 320 Nenana 470 600 748 888 1,004 Tetlin 107 110 114 120 126 Tanacross 117 134 152 154 170 Tanana 388 389 408 418 429 Tok 585 880 1,150 1,503 ~742 Totals 61,325 75,347 84,913 94,613 105,304 Sources: Louis Berger and Assoc., and Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reserch and Development. L J l '" .J ID. Projeetion by Settle-.ent Use Type This section presents projections of land requirements to accommodate the forecast population growth over 20 years for each of the settlement use categories outlined in Section I. A. Residential Subdivisions This category of needed to accommodate calculate the quantity assumptions were made. settlement includes land that will be permanent residences. In order to of land required, certain · preliminary [ [ I ~~ E c 1. The average number of acres used per household is [ between one and four acres. 2. The average number of persons per _household 3.3 (average [' for communi ties in the Tanana Basin from U.S. Department of ·· Commerce 1980 census.) 3. From the above assumptions, the average number of acres used per person is .3 to 1.21 acres. Table 3-3 summarizes this information at five year increments for the next .twenty years. By the year 2000 it is estimated that betv1een 13,000 and 53,000 acres of residential subdivision land will be needed. B. Recreational Settlement This category of settlement is land that will be needed to accomr:1.oda te the recreational and seasonal "second homes'' of bas in residents. The assumptions used were as follows: 1. One to five percent of the population uses a recreational site. 2. The average size of these recreational sites is ::i..O acres. 3. The average amount of land tlsed per person in the basin is therefore between .l and .5 acres. 3-6 [ [ c c c E 0 0 w [ [ l L ' ' :3 "' ..., -i Table 3-4 summarizes this information increments for the next twenty years. By the estimated that between 4,400 and 22,000 acres land will be needed. C. Remote Settlement Land at five year year 2000 it is of recreational J This category of settlement is land that will be needed to accommodate residents who wish to live a remote self sufficient J lifestyle • .J The estimates and assumptions used are: -, 1. 0.01 percent of the population uses a remote site. l 2. The average number of acres per household for remote settlement use is 40 acres. d 3. The average amount of land used per person in the ~ Basin is therefore 0.04 acres. --" ]< '] __;, ' ' ~ l :::J --, ~ -~ ~ 9 J j l' J ' J __1 --' Table 3-5 summarizes this information at five year increments for the next twenty years. By the year 2000 it is estimated that an additional 1, 800 acres of remotet settlement land will be needed. D. Small Agriculture/ Agriculture Homesteads This category of settlement is land that will be needed to accommodate those people who are seriously interested in farming, but are not able to purchase a large scale barley farm. The estimates and assumptions are: 1. A total of 2,990 people in the Tanana Basin are interested in purchasing small agriculture parcels. (230 parcels have been offered in the Basin. On the average there are 13 applicants per parcel --Chapter 3 of the Settlement Element. 13 X 230 = 2,990). 2. Of these 2, 990 people bet\veen 50% and 95% or between 1,495 to 2,894 people would actually purchase a parcel if they won the lottery and would develop it for agricultural use. This is between 2% and 5% of the Basin population. 3. The average acreage \·fhich would satisfy people who are serious about small scale farming is between 40 and 160 acres. Table 3-6 summarizes this information at 5 year increments for the next 20 years. By the year 2000 it is estimated that between 88,216 and 738,968 acres for agricultural homesteading or small scale agriculture would actually be developed if offered for sale. 3-7 TABLE3-3 RESIDENTIAL SE'ITLEMENT USE Range of New Average Acres Acres/Year Likely Year Population Population per Person Needed2 to be Used Curr 61,325 -· 0.3 to 1.21 18,398 to 74,2031 l985 75-,347 14,022 " " " 4,207 to 16,966 1990 84,913 9,566 " " II 2,870 to 11,574 1995 94,613 9,700 " " " 2,910 to 11,737 2000 105,304 10,691 " II " 3,201 to 12,936 Total -43,979 13,194 to 53,214 1 It is assumed that about 74,000 acres are currently being used for residential purposes. 2 See text for assumptions·. TABLE3-4 RECREATIONAL SElTLEMElVT USE New Average Acres Range of Acres/Year Likely Year Population Population per Person Needed2 to be Used Curr 61,325 -0.1 to 0.5 6,133 to 30,6621 :-..985 75,347 14,022 II II II 1,402 to 7,011 1990 84,9l3 9,566 II II " 957 to 4,783 1995 94,6:.3 9,700 " " " 970 to 4,850 2000 :o5,304 10,691 II " II 1 ,_009 to 5, 345 Total -43,979 -4,398 to 21,989 1 It is assumed that about 30,000 acres are currently being used for recreational homes. -~ See text for assumptions. 3-8 [ [ r b E c c [ c c [ c c b Q {J 6 G L t ~ --' l ' ~ ~) TABLE3-5 REMOTE SELF SUFFICIENT SETTLEMENT USE ::> New Average Acres Acres/Year Likely ~ Year Population Population per Person Needed1 to be Used _, _j Curr 61,325 .04 2,4532 - J 1985 75,347 14,022 .04 561 ~-' 1990 84,913 9,566 .04 383 ., """ ::.995 94,613 9,700 .04 388 ..., 2000 105,304 10,691 .04 428 3 ' _) Total -43,979 -1,760 -, ..J , 1 See text for assumptions. c, _j ] _; TABLE3-6 ..--, SMAU. AGRICULTURE/ AGRICULTURE HOMESTEAD USE ..J A B c --, New Population Range of Acres/Year Year Population New Needing Ag Land Likely to be Used j Population d (A x .02 to .05)1 (B x 40 to 160]2 -. j Curr 61,325 -1,495 to 2,840 59,800 to 454,400 1985 75,347 14,022 112 to 280 4,480 to 44,880 l ..J 1990 84,913 9,566 191 to 478 7,656 to 76,560 l 1995 94,613 9,700 194 to 485 7,760 to 77,600 .... 10,691 8,520 to 85,528 2000 105,304 213 to 534 ~ " ~ Total -43,979 88,216 to 738,968 ..J - 1 See text for assumptions. _j 2 See text for assumptions. -~ _...] 3-9 L_ F ! L .- l !--- ~-- <._ r <L r L ('" ' L .L -., ~. "" ~ d "3 i .J 1 d l d 0 J -, i ..... ; _.., ' ..J ..., ::.1 "] ] , i d 5 .,., =-l. ....; _j --·~ -" PART I.PBYSICALCAPABILITY This part of Chapter 4 discusses the criteria used to produce the· maps of physical capability. 1. Criteria used to produce the JDaps of physical capabUlty The map of physical capability for settlement combined information from a vegetation map of the Tanana Basin arid a series of slope maps. Capability was also determined by a map of soil limitations, based on soils maps of the Basin. Each of the three sets of maps, vegetation, slopes and f?Oils was produced by Ray Kreig and Associates under con- tract to Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey in the fall of 1982. A. Vegetation The vegetation map integrates all existing information and is the best information available to date on the vege- tation of the Tanana Basin. The different sources used to produce this vegetation map are as follows: Viereck, L.A., Dyrness, C.T., and Batten, A.R., 1982, Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation in Alaska, 64 p. Vegetation maps and reports. U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 topographic quadrangle. LANDSAT imagery. Aerial photography • For a detailed discussion of the ~ethod used to inte- grate this inforr.Iation, refer to Appendix 4A and to the Susitna River Basin Automated Geographic Information. System; Land Capability and Suitability Analysis, published by Environr.1ental SysteMs Research Institute in 1981. This document explains how maps were developed for the.Susitna River Basin. The process used to produce the vegetation map for the Tanana Basin was the same. The basic vegetation map identifies coniferous, deciduous, mixed forests and scrub vegetation. Each of these categories is subdivided to indicate whether the trees are tall, intermedite or dwarf, and whether the vege- tation makes a closed or open canopy cover. Also included in the map are areas that are primarily one type of vege- tation (50-75%) but also have 25 to 49% of the area covered with a secondary type of vegetation. 4-1 Befor'e the vegetation map pr'ocess, the var'ious vegetation legend must be categor'ized sett:ement. This was done by Water' r1anagement. is of use in the planning types contained in the map as to their' value for' the Division of Land and The r'ankings of primar'y and primary-plus-secondary vegetation types are shown in Tables 4-1. B. Slopes The ·slope maps established categories fr'om 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, 15-30%, 30-50%, 50-75% and over' 75%. For' sett~ement capability these categories were combined to create an over'lay differentiating areas of greater than 30% slopes fror.t areas of less than 30% slope. The two maps, vegetation and slope, were then combined to create another' overlay ranking land from ver'y high to low for settlement capability. Slopes greater than 30% lower'ed the capability rating of land as shown in Table 4-2. SettleMent Rating very high high mediUr.t lmv C. Soils Slopes <30% very high high medium low >30% high high low The. soils r.tap pr'oduced by Ray Kreig and Associates is the best infor'mation availab~e to date on the soils in the Basin. The differ'ent sources of infor'mation used to pro- duce the-soils Map ar'e as follows: 1. Reiger'S., Schoephor'ster', D.B. and Fur'bish C.E., 1979, Explor'ator'y -Soil Sur'eyy of Alaska. US Depar'tment of Agricultur'e. 213 pp. Scale 1: 1,000,000. 2. Soil sur'veys and r'epor'ts. 3. Soil Conservation Ser'vice, 1975; Soil Taxonomy; US Depar'tment of Agr'icultur'e, no. 436, 754 pp. 4. U.S.G.S., 1: 250,000 topographic quadr'angles. 5. Aer'ial photography The pr'ocess used to integr'ate this infor'mation was the same as that descr'ibed for' the vegetation r.tap (see Appendix 4A). 4-2 [ [ b E c b c C- C [ c 6 p L; Q n '=' [ [ [ L ~ w I -~ L. H M L ! b 0 ~ ~ ~ ., 1'-. = e. ! i ~ I L!,. .;J IL ... -... ~1 iiil •.• ~.J t.""l.' :.JJ u.. ..J L .•..... J L ... , ,J ~ '·'" ' ) l. ..J IL ..... ,..1 u' j 'l, ,..J L ;JJJ TABLE4-I cmTEmA FOR DISPOSALS WHEN BOTH PmMARY AND SECONDARY VEGETATION ARE PRESENT u Secondary Vegetation Types (2.5-49% of Polygon) .Jt:: .c QJ i 4.1 .j.l '-' '"' ) 4-1 I ) Ill r-i QJ 0 '"' '"' 0 ~ ..... r-i .j.l '"' Ill r-i QJ '"' '"' "" Ill ~ bO ) r-i .j.l bO Ill QJ =High Value E-< H QJ Cl Ill ~ QJ ~ a ~ E-< H~ '"' 4-1 =Medium ~ ~ ~ r-i QJ.C '"' !/) !/) '"' !/) .. .. '"' .. r-i .j.l .j.l Ill =Low ;:l ;:l 0 ;:l !/) !/) 0 !/) Ill ~ ) 3: 0 0 0 ;:l ;:l ;:l E-< H 0 0 '"' '"' QJ '"' 0 0 QJ 0 '"' QJ QJ .u Q. :::1 :::1 .j.l :::1 .. .. bO .. 4-1 ~Ill 4-1 "" "" Ill "" "" "" QJ "" ..... 'M -M ..... ..... .......... ..... Q; QJ~ QJ ~ ~"" ~ u u-o u >< >< >< 0 0 QJ 0 QJ QJ 41 QJ ..... . .... '"' ..... u u a u Cl o a 0 ::1:: :1: 0 :1: '"' '"' '"' Map 0 0 0 Symbol E-< H~ Cl E-< ~-~~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ u uu u 0 oo 0 Tall Coniferous CT H H M H H M H H M Conifer, Intermediate CI or or Regrowth CR H M M H M M H M M Dwarf Conifer CD L L p L L p L L p Tall Deciduous DT H ll M H H M· H H M Deciduous, Intermediate DI or or Regrowth DR H M L H M L H M L Deciduous, Dwarf DD L L p L L L L L L Mixed Forest, Tall MT H H M H H M H H M Mixed Forest, Inter-MI or mediate or Regrowth MR H M L H M L H M L Mixed Dwarf MD L L p L L L L L L Scrub s M L p M L p M L p ----- .J L.. .J I I I ' ' I .0 :::1 '"' u en en I H M p H M L H M L p Two maps showing soil limitations for disposal location were made from the basic soils maps. Soils judged to have very severe limitations for settlement were blacked out on an overlay map. Soils in this category include the following calssifications: Hyp Hmp Lp -Pergelic cryofibrists -Pergelic cryohemists -Lemeta -rnnto r1n Sol-g Su -Lithic cryorthods Saulich These classifications were determined by Chris Guinn, DL~1, Department of Natural Resources, based on his knowledge of the soil types and experience with prior disposals. These classifications differ from the soils ranked "very severe" by the Soil Conservation Service, which included additional soil caterories in the ranking. A full listing of the soils ranked "very severe" by the Soil Conservation Service, along with Mr. Guinn's rationale for their exclusion in this case can be found in Appendix 4B. The second map of soil limitations is a refinement of the "very severe" soils category. Soils in.cluded in the first overlay show soils with "very severe" limitations for residential disposals. The second map is a subset of the first, showing those soils with limitations for even remote and subsistence settlement. The following classifications are included: Hyp Hmp Lp Su Pergelic Pergelic -Lemeta -Saulich cryofibris ts cryohemists The two soils overl.ays, together with the composite ranking of vegetation and slope were used to determine physical capability of land within the Basin for settlement. 4-4 L [ [ E c c c [ [ [ c c n tJ n 8 r b [ L [ L -,, :.3 ' ::::; ~ _j PART 2. SUIT ABB.ITY This portion of Chapter 4 is divided into two sections: (1) the criteria used to determine suitability and (2) a discussion of the acreage and estimated supply of the resource in the Basin. I. Methods Used to Detenabae SaltabWty 1 Two criteria in addition to physical capability were J used to determine the suitability of an area for settlement: ownership and accessibility. "J ':':i , _; ' _j l ~ . ...dJ l _:; ~ _; -. .J -, ~ "' i ~ ~ ~ ~ "':'! _) -, ~ A. Accessibility Five categories of accessibility were used. They range from most accessible to :i.eas t and are defined · as fol.lows: Category A 8 c D E B. Ownership Definition Land within 40 miles of Fairbanks or 25 miles of another community and also within 2 miles of an existing road, existing railway or a proposed road where no bridge will be required. Land greater than 40 miles distant from Fairbanks or 25 miles from another community but :i.ess than 2 mi:i.es from an existing road or rai:i.way or a proposed road. Land within 300 feet of a lake, floatable river or airstrip and greater than 2 miles from a road or railway Land betHeen 300 feet and 1/4 mile from a lake, floatable river or airstrip and greater than 2 niles fron a road or railway. Land that noes not meet any of the above criteria. The second criteria of sui~ability is ownership. Only acres owned or selected by the state are included in the acreage summaries of resource supply. 4·5 D.Sapply The resu:ts of the capability and suitability analyses are shown in Table 4-2. This represents the total supply of state :and· in the Basin that is both capable and suitable for settlement. r1aps of the suitability areas Natural Resources, Fairbanks, Alaska. capability information and of the are available at the Department of 01 vis ion of Land and Water i'1anagement, TAIILE4-Z Estbaatetl A1Do1111t of State Chnaetlor Selected Laad Capa.le oiSapportbac,Settle-eat Ia tile T•••••...._ (Ia acres) Disposal Quality Class Total A 8 c D E 291,800 110,500 11,100 22,400 1,912,400 2,348,200 ------------ 4-6 [ [ [ E c [ [ [ c [ c c c D n u G [ [ L :::> ., ~ J 1 _) """; "' ..) ' -' -.., -" ' J j ' :3 ' i =' ] d ~ ~~ .J -, J APPENDIX4A Mapping Procedure: Vegetation was mapped by stereoscopic photointerpretation of 1:60,000 CIR photography. Black and white units were reformatted and delineated on a mylar overlay fixed atop the LANDSAT scene • Site specific projects and the sample plots were used where available in identifying characteristic signatures. The final vegetation overlay were rectified and registered to the U.S.G.S. basemap. Waterbodies and urban or disturbed areas were mapped to smaller resolution consistent with the land use variable. The classification was a modified version of L.A. Viereck et al. "Preliminary Classification System for Vege- tation of Alaska". Vegetation was generally mapped to level three of the Viereck system. Black spruce was mapped where possible. Vegetation complexes will be created for areas where two vegetation groups were mixed and where mapping resolution prohibited the delineation of separate vegetative units. Happing resolution was approximately 640 acres. Any vegetation type which occupied greater than 60% of the relative groundcover for an area with a homogeneous photo-signature was mapped as a single type with no secondary type identified. Under all other circumstances where two vegetation types occur in more equal proportions, the primary vegetation type was determined on the bas is of statur.e and absolute crown cover, or according to relative crown cover when life forns of similar stature shared an area. Thus, in a given area, the primary vegetation was the tal~est life form with at least 25% absolute crown coverage ('25% of maximum crown diameter coverage). In a situation with life forms of similar stature sharing an area, the primary vegetation was the life form which had the greatest relative crown coverage (the percentage of the absolute crown coverage). The secondary vegetation type was determined on the basis of relative crown coverage. Whichever life form han the next highest relative crown coverage was designated as the secondary veget~~ion type. Barren or Urban/Disturbed categories were ranked by the total percent of the area which they occupied. 4-7 Definitions: 1. Tall, intermediate and dwarf refer to the height of the vegetation found in that area. The terms are defined as fo:!.lows: Tall: Intermediate: Greater than 10 meters in height 3-10 meters in height Dwarf: Used only for spruce less than 3 meters in height 2. Closed, open and woodland refer to the canopy cover of the vegetation type. The terms are defined as follows: Closed: Open: Woodland: 60-100% canopy cover 25-60% canopy cover 10-25% canopy cover 4-8 [ [ r, b E c [- c [ [ [ c c [i u r w [ [ [ L ., ' -' ::1 ~ J '1 J ' ~ "l ,j ' ...) ' .J ' _) l _) 1 d ' --1 ::j "'"'! l ;j l .J " " J J ~ -' -~I MapSym Ea Es Gt Hyp IQph-r.t IQp-r.t K: Lp Mn Sol-g Su APPENDIX 4-B Soils With Very Severe Limitations For Low Buildings (Regardless of Slope) (Soil Conservation Service Categories) Soil Type Eas::..ey Ester Goldstream Pergelic cryofibrists His tic Pergelic Cryaquepts Pergelic Cryaquepts Kuslina Lemeta run to Lithic Cryorthods Sau::..ich Reasons for Very Severe Ranking Permafrost; high potential for fros-t action. Permafrost; steep slopes. High water table; permafrost common. Permafrost common; low stability due to humus, peat ·buildup. \letness; Permafrost common. Uetness; Permafrost Permafrost at shallow depth; settles unevenly when thawed. Peat buildup; permafrost common; high water table. Thermolcarst pitting possible; susceptibility to frost action; susceptibility to erosion. Steepness of slope High water table; permafrost comr.10n. 4-9 Rationale For Exclusion of Certain Soils From the ''Very Severe" Category The following soils were removed from the "very severen category for the reasons stated. IQph-m Gt Es Ea Kl Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts Goldsti"eam Ester' Easley Kuslina The soils limitation for' the above soils is the common presence of wetness and pei"mafi"ost. The Goldsti"eam and Ester' soil series can be found among these soils. The Goldstream and Ester' soils ai"e commonly used for' conven- tional I"esidential sites in the Faii"banks ai"ea. The Gold- s ti"ear.t sei"ies can support a very dense development (i.e. 8, 000 sq ft lots) by allowing the pei"mafi"ost to thaw and consti"ucting community water' and sewer, e.g. University West. The Ester' soils tend towai"ds steeper' noi"th facing slopes with shallow soil over' bedi"ock. Secondar-y \-Taste disposal systems ai"e cornr.tonly designed ai"ound these chai"actei"istics in the Fairbanks ai"ea. Accoi"dingly the Easley sei"ies is described as similiai" to the Histic Pergelic CI"yaquepts soil only moi"e acidic and the Kuslina sei"ies is desci"ibed as similiai" to the Histic Pei"gelic CI"yaquepts soi: only less acidic. IQp-n Pei"gelic Cryaquepts The soil limitation is wetness and pei"mafi"os t. The soil sui"vey indicates this sei"ies is better' than the Histic Pei"gelic.Cryaquepts and likens it to the Tanana Soil sei"ies which is comr.tonly used to suppoi"t I"esidential consti"uction in the Faii"banlcs ai"ea. In some cases, whei"e the vegetation has been sti"ipped and the pei"mafi"ost has been allowed to thaw !'or' one OI" two seasons, the Tanana series can support dense development, e.g. :Jnivei"sity \lest Subdivision. 4-10 [ [ [ E c c c [ c [ c c n t; bJ r w r; L [ [ [ L f ~. L L _r r '· t 1 3 --' -, -, ::> '!f ... j 3 .J ..., e' ~ ; "" ..., ...) -, .;, , -' ~ ...) -~ ;::j l -'; i d -, i j "'1 - ;.) -~ ~ d ..j -, _j INTRODUCTION This analysis program. section presents of net benefits preliminary results of the state land of the disposal For a detailed discussion of the methodology used, see the Forestry Element of the Tanana Basin Area Plan (DNR, 1983). The net benefits to producers, v1ho in this case are the landowners, are not itemized. This is becaus·e it is likely that the net benefits to existing landowners are probably negative in the short-run as state -sales lower the average price of land, but positive in the long-run as population growth anq land scarcity drive prices up again. It is assumed that the negative impact is likely to be off- set by long-run positive effects and therefore no net pro- ducer's benefits are anticipated in the long-run • Income and employment impacts have not been estimated in this study. There are like:i..y to be positive effects, however, due to increases in housing construction, real estate business, and even lodge and charter aircraft business. However, these effects depend on more than just land ownership. For example, interest rates will play the major role in how much construction actually takes place. Also, if a parcel was purchased for speculation, no income and employment effects may take place as a result of the purchase for many years: Finally, construction activity may be a short-term effect of land disposals with few long-term economic benefits. The fiscal effects of land disposals have been esti- mated for various scenarios and these are discussed in Section IV of this chapter. 5·1 I. Carreat Beaeflta to CODS'IIDiers The benefits of disposals to consuners are a result of the quantity of land made available at a lower effective price. This is shown graphically in Figure 5-l. p r i c e Po-.-...,.....,..,__ Demand Curve Pl qo ql Quantity Flpre 5-IA. Hypothetical DeDiaad for Laad In this graph, private-land was the on:y land available when the market price was at Po and q 0 parcels were sold. \fuen the state entered the market, the market price dropped to Pl on all land and the quantity available increased to ql· Although the state appraises land at the "market price", the state's terms are substantially better than those general:y available. Therefore, the effective price on state disposals is lower than the new market price. Because the price is lower and there is more land available, the consumer surplus has increased·by the amount shown in the cross-hatched area in Figure 5-l. There are several problems, however, in actually calculating this value for the disposal program. First, the demand curve must be estimated. Demand is a function of price, quality of land, population size, income, consumer tastes, etc. However, no estirtate of the demand curve is available for land disposals. Secondly, the effective price of state land must be known. This should take the lower down payment and interest rates into account as well as the possible lower search and purchase "costs" to the buyer (since all disposal information is in a single brochure). Because this information is not available, consumer benefits cannot be calculated at this time •. 5·2 c [ r-· b E c c c [ c [_ c c c 0 n ~ E [ L [ ~. 3 ·~' ' C3 "" :J ..J l J "'! ::j J ? .J ' _j "1 ...J "'"' _j 1 ..J ' ;;j l ~ .J l J .... j _j 0' .J ~ ~ II. Current Net Revenue to the State The state receives revenues from filing fees and sales of :and disposals and incurs costs in the form of administr- ation, travel, equipment, etc. To determine the net bene- fits, total revenues from sales and fees were estimated, then costs were esti~ated and the difference represents net bene- fits to the state. The data presented is for 1982 when the :and discount prograr:1 was used. The revenue to the State will increase now that this program has been eliminated. Using the mean actual price paid per acre, the average acres per parcel and the number of parcels in each disposal, it was possible to estimate state revenues from the sale of land. The revenues represent the present value of the loan payments to ADNR. Also, the number of subdivision applica- tions was multiplied by the $15 application fee to obtain an estimate of total fees. This information is shown in Table 5-1 for each quality class. State costs for the 1982 fiscal year on land disposals were estimated based on interviews \vi th Chris Guinn of the Disposal Section, DL\Jr1, and Curt Nelson of DTS. These are shown in Table 5-2. Costs were grouped by "overhead" costs which apply to all programs and surveying costs which are those for the subdivisions analyzed here. TABLES-I State Revenues froiD Subdivisions aDd ReJDote Parcels FY'82 Appli~ Sale cation Lease Revenue Fees Revenue(8 ) Total Subdivisions Class A 4,355,506 34,167 n/a 4,389,673 Class 3 -0--0--0- Class C 457,338 not avai:able 457,338 Class D 354,469 2,511 356,980 Class E 35,122 325 35,447 Remotes c:ass A 186,687 n/a 65,706 252,393 Class B 23,572 11,313 34,885 Class C 222,505 38,640 261,145 C:i.ass D 32,385 20,705 53,090 Class E 172,564 65 2 092 237 2 656 Total 5,840,148 37,003 201,456 6,078,607 (a)Present value of $10/acre received every year for 10 years ' discounted at 10%. -" 5·3 TABLE 5-2 Estbaated State Costs of Laad Disposals - IVCDO, FY'82 1. Overhead Appr"aisa:i.s Equipment and Tr"ave: Salar"ies, DL HM Salar"ies, DTS 2.Surveys Sur"veys of Subdivisions TOTAL 55,000 75,000 546,000 150,000 1,218,300 $ 2,044,300 Table 5-3 shows a summar"y by Quality Class. For" this table, weighted aver"ages of state over"head costs wer"e com- puted based on the par"centage of total acr"eage disposed of in each class. For" example; ther"e wer"e 3,030 acr"es of Class A. subdivisions offer"ed in FY' 82. This r"epr"esents 4 per"cent of the total· of 74,943 acr"es offer"ed in all pr"o- gr"ams in the Distr"ict in FY'82 (see Chapter" 3). Ther"efor"e, 4% of the total over"head costs wer"e attr"ibuted to Class A subdivisions. Over"head costs wer"e about $826,000 in FY'82. As shown in Table 5-3, the net .pr"esent value of the r"evenue to the State fr"om the FY 82 :and disposal pr"ogr"am is an estimated $4.8 mi::.lion for" the subdivision and r"emote pr"ogr"ams. The pr"ogr"ams which did not cover" costs include Class E subdivisions, and Class B and D r"emotes. 5-4 [ [ I' b 0 c c c [ c [ r u c_ o· D n L G [ [ [ 3 -.... "! -i _j ~ _j '"l =" , __} -! _j ~ J , _.) -, ' .) ] J __, J ~ ; J .... ~ ~ ::3 "1 J ' =' --" TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF NET REVENUE FROM DISPOSALS, FY 82 a b c d e NET BENEFITS TO THE STATE Net Acres EstO/H Survey Revenue+ DISPOSAL Offered Revenues Costs Cost or Cost- PROGRAM (acres) ($;000) ($,000) ($,000) (,000) (b)-(c)-{d) Subdiv Class A 3,030 4,390 33 705 4,350 C.J..ass B none so.J.. -------- C.J..ass C 202 457 11 57 389 C.J..ass D 1,037 357 11 311 (-) 35 C.J..ass E 413 35 5 113 (-) 83 Subtota.J.. 4,683 5,2g9 52 1,186 4,691 Remotes C.J..ass A 22,483 252 248 n/a 4 C.J..ass B 7,729 35 85 n/a -50 C.J..ass C :4,755 261 163 n/a 98 c:ass D 5,621 53 62 n/a -9 C.J..ass E 19,673 238 217 n/a 21 Subtotal 70,260 839 775 n/a 64 TOTAL 74,943 6,078 827 1,186 4,755,000 - -- - --- 5·5 m. Fiseal hnpaets of Subdivisions and Re~note Land Disposals on Loeal GoverJUDents The fiscal impacts of three types of land disposal were calculated under three scenarios or development patterns. The scenarios concerned the maximum, moderate or miniMum fiscal impact for each type of land use. The re- sults and certain key assumptions are presented in Table 5-13. These scenarios demonstrate a major gifference between net fiscal impacts of . land disposals, depending on the behavior of the uses and their needs for government infrastructure or services. Clear policy guidelines for future land disposal owners can channel the impact where it can be handled in ways consistent with DNR objectives. A. Class A Subdivisions The Class A subdivisions were assumed to be close to town and accessible and located within an organized borough. They were assumed to be 80% residential and 20% recreationa:-in use. A home plus land value of $70,000 was calculated as shown in Appendix 5B. This resulted in annual revenues of $380 per "built" parcel per year in property taxes. The services assumed for each scenario were composed of roads, schools and other general government services, as required by the landowners. It was assumed that mainten-' ance of 1/8 mi:e of road per parcel, average school expend- itures per student ($880/student in the FNSB), and most other government services would be required-for the maximum fiscal impact scenario. Fewer services would be required for a moderate fiscal impact, and if the roads were privately built and no new students involved, then there would be a minimum fiscal impact. The results show a rang~ from a net cost to the state and the Borough of $1260 per parcel to a $280 gain if no services are required except buses for students who other- wise would live closer to town. The moderate cost impact is estimated at $980 per year. B. Class B Subdivisions These subdivisions were assumed to be 50% recrea- tional, 25% self-sufficient and 25% residential in use. A home plus land va:ue of $41,000 was calculated as shown in Appendix 5B. 'rhis resul. ts in potential revenues to the Borough of $230 per year per parcel in property taxes. 5-6 [ r l I b=o E c [ [ [ c [_ c c c- b 0 n t_;j c L L [ _:;; ~ _j 1 .d ~~ =' ~ ~' ~J ~ _;. ~ _J ...., .J ' _) --, " J "1 ="' ~ _) .. , .... ) ..... J ~ The services assumed for this subdivision are the same as those assumed for Class A subdivisions described above, except that an additional student busing cost is added for the greater distance to school. The results shmv a net cost to the state which ranges from a minimum of $20 per parcel per year for no additional services, to $1500 per year for average residential ser- vices in the Borough (except public safety). The moderate estimate amounts to a net cost of $1280 per year per parcel built • C. Remote Parcels Remote parcels were treated differently from the above subdivisions. Their demands for services were assumed to vary from none to a road or airport plus a school. If a road or airport would be required, the fiscal cost jumps dramatically. The school cost is also significant. If on the other hand, the use is recreational or self-sufficient and no infrastructure is required, the fiscal cost is mini- mal, and a net gain could be realized, if a mill rate is levied. 5·7 TABLE 5-4 Flseal hu.paet Seenarlo AssUDlptlons and Results , Maximum Moderate I Minimum Land Type i Fiscal Cost Fiscal Cost : Fiscal Cost A. Class A Subdivisions 1 1. Value Per Parcel J 70,000 I 70,000 I 70,000 built I 2. Mill Rate i 5.5 I 5.5 I 5.5 3. Property Tax I Revenues Per Parce 1* 1 $380 S380 J :.380 4. Services Assumed !roads, schools roads, schools private ~oa: 60% general government 20~ general government no new stuaents or · general government costs 5. Costs Per oarceL'Jr+l' Sl ,640 Sl ,360 SlOO (busing) 6. Net Cost per I parce 1 i yr . Sl ,260 S980 ( +280) B. Class 8 Subdivisions 1. Value Per Parcel ' i 41,000 built 2. Mill Rate i 5.5 I i 3. Property Tax Revenues Per Parcel* I SZ30 4. Services Assumea 5. Costs Per Parcel• 6. Net Cost per parcel C. Remote Parcels 1. Value Per Parcel ouil t 2. Mill Rate 3. Prooerty ~ax Revenues ?er oarcei* !roads, schools 1 60~ general government I i ! I i Sl ,790 SJ ,560 26,000 0 (outside orgam zed borougn) 0 (outsiae ; borough) I I I I 41,000 5.5 SZ30 roads, schoo 1 s 20: general government Sl , 51 0 Sl ,280 26,000 0 0 4. Services Assumea 1lo '1 . . j :n1 e ~oad H a1rstr1o 10~ general government 5. Costs Per Parcel* 6. Net Cost per parcel :ana school cuilt, 120: general government \ s2 ,o4o 32,640 * Rounoea to ~earesU 510 5-8 $70 570 i I 41 ,000 5.5 S230 private roads, no new students or general government costs SZSO (busing) S20 26,000 5.5 (within borough) 140· (within borough) None ( •140) [ ,~ L [ E r [ [ c c r c c c 0 [l '=' G L r· --' L -=3 ' _, :::> "" ..., -~ _j 1 _j ~ "~ ' ' ... ~ -, j ~ -, _,; ~ _j , I d -, -~ =-i l ~ l ..l ~ ; J " --· j j IV. External Benefits and Costs External benefits and costs have been defined as those effects which are difficult to quantify but nevertheless, very important in ~aking decisions. These effects include social and environmental impacts of land use decisions. A thorough analysis of these effects is beyond the scope of this study, but it is important to highlight some of them. These and other impacts will be examined in more detail during Phase 2 (Alternatives) of this project. A. Social Effects On the negative side, these include disruptions of the local lifestyle. Land disposals are opposed by many villages because they are perceived to be a threat to the iifestyle and to the subsistence resources on which that lifestyle depends. In some urban areas, the local people see a possible disruption of the neighborhood as new people with possibly different values move in. On the positive side, some people are very much in favor of having more private land available in their com- munity. It is possible that there are psychological bene- fits from owning land, and because many people moved to Alaska with the hope of owning their own "homestead", it is possible that there are many social and psychological bene- fits of the disposal program. B. Environmental Effects The environmental effects of disposals are probably largely negative. This is because many of the disposals are located in relatively pristine areas where any change is likely to have some effects. Erosion due to land clearing, water quality degradation (due to poor septic systems on steep slopes or inappropriate soils) , forest fires and overcutting of timber and firewood resources are possible negative environnental effects. Also, wildlife resources can be overharvested and some habitat may be destroyed or migration routes disrupted. Recreational areas can be changed drastically by a disposal. 5·9 ({' -e APPENDIX SA -CALCULATION OF PRESENT VALUE OF REVENUES FROM DISPOSALS Total Total Present Present Value of Total (1) 5% Loan Annual (2) Value of (3) Payments Plus Subs Value Down Principal Payment Payments Down Parment A 3,84lt '728 192,236 3,652,491 488,991 4,163,270 4.,355,506 B 403,705 20,185 383,520 51,345 437,153 457,338 c D 312,900 15,645 297,255 39,796 338,824 354,469 E 31,003 1,550 29,453 3,943 33,572 35,122 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remotes A 427,434 21,372 406,062 . B 53,975 2,699 51,276 c 509,497 25 ,lt75 484,022 D 74,155 3, 708 70,447 E 395,141 19,757 375,384 . 1 From Contract Administration, DL\t1. Includes discount. 2 Calculated as payment = Principal i 1 -(1+i)-n \•here i = 12% interest and n = 20 years. _(X0.3855) PVPMT's Add _Discount to in Year 10(4) 5% Down YearO 54,363 462,847 484,219 186,687 6,865 58,447 61,146 23,572 64,800 551,710 577,185 222,505 9,431 80,299 84,007 32,385 50,256 427,879 447,636 172,564 · 3 Present value of 20 years of payments discounted at 10%. 4 Present value of 20 years of payments· beginning 10 years after staking. 5% down assumed to be paid 1n 10 years. r-: r-l r-:l r::-::1 C=-:1 r:t:J ITJl r:1 CJ r:-J r:::'l r-J r=l ~ rJ LTil rll rJ c-1 ""' d 1 _] APPENDIX 58 Backgroa.Dd Data and Scenario Ass'IUII.ptlons for Flacal hapact Calculations =l I. City Population Estimate J ~ .; , j "~ .J ., J _j 9 J 9 .J .... l ..i l -~ _. ~ i ;:i , ~ ~ "'1 --;; .J -~ -· .d __jj Fairbanks population North Star Borough Population Average number of people in household in the Fairbanks area 2. Budget Costs (operating expenses and Debt Service) 25,568(a) 58,313(a) 2.6(a) City of Fairbanks North Fairbanks (b) · Star Borough (C) General Government Public Safety & Fire Pub~ic Works Recreation and Other Services Debt Service Service Areas Total 3. Expenditures for Schools $ 8,497,808 3,465,691 2,381,_906 946,689 744,255 N.A. $16,036,349 $ 5,965,000 NeA. 2,589,332 3,361,000 5,125,575 791,554 $17,832,461 The North Star. Borough School District has an operating budget of $9,600,000. and the average size of the student body is 10,886 (N.S.B. Schoo~ District, personal communi- cation). The average number of school-age students per household is e~timated to be 1.255 (Burchel: and Listokin, (1978) p. 35). If there are.21 households, then the sub..:. division may contribute 26 students to the school popula- tion. The average cost per student is 9.6 million/10,886 or $822/student. Twenty-six students would increase shool costs by rough:y $23,000. 5-11 4. Scenario Assumptions Land Type A 8 c D E Average Parcel Value 27,000 15,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Type of Avg.House % of EaCh tana TYJJe Use Value Residen- tia: $50,000 80% 25% 10% 0% 0% se:f- Sufficient (incl. labor $25,000 0% 25% 40% 80% 100% Recreationa: /Seasonal $15,000 20% 50% 50% 20% 0% Average value per parcel built (rounded to nearest thousand) 70,000 41,000 26,000 25,000 26,000 Percent so:d of offered 100% 100% 100% Percent bui:t of sold (5 yrs.) 50% 40% 40% Percent bui:t of offered (5 yrs.) 50% 40% 40% Average Va:ue per Parcel Offered 35,000 16,000 10,000 5. Construction Costs1 1. 10 rni:e grave: road (275,000 x 10) 2. 1 roorn schoo: ($100,000 -150,000) 3. Airstrip ($1-2 mi::ion) Assumed Average Capita: Cost or $50,000/parce: or $ 2,500/parce: per year for a 20-year :1re 5-12 70% 60% 30% 20% 21% 12% 5,000 3,000 = 2,750,000 200,000 1,500,000 $2 million [ [ [ 0 c c· c [ [ c c c 8 D n i=> D [ [ L . .1 -, ~ J '1 ~ =! , ' ~ ...., _j ., J , _. -~ __. -, d """\ -~ "'"' l ; ;,j ~ .... .JI ' 6. Government Operating Costs/yr. 1. Road maintenance $2,700/mile earth or gravel (Interior Average)2 2. Schools $880/student (FNSB average) 3. Other Government Services (excluding public safety) $280/person or $700./househo1d (FNSB average)3 (a)Alaska Dept. of Labor, Alaska Population Overview, 1981 (1982) (b)City of_Fairbanks, FY82 Budget, costs represent 1981 Approved Approriation (C)Fairbanks North Star Borough, FY 81-82 Budget 1Estimates of range from DOT/PF staff, 1982 2Louis Berger and Assoc., and ATC, Interior Transportation Study, Highway Working Paper, May 1982, for a graded earth road maintained by the state 3Fairbanks North Star Borough 1981-82 Budget 5-13 - ._ r ' L ,. r L . F f--- F r L . .J ., c:> ~ _j "1 3 j :.; "l .J ' ~ ""0 j ... ., ' _j ..., ::J ' ~ -i ,-j l J l ...: ' " _j ; .... INTRODUCTION As shown in Tab:e 6-1, results of the demand assess- ment (Chapter 3) indicate that the gross area needed to meet demand in the next five years is 193,993 acres. This is divided into the various land quality types. Table 6-2 shows the supply of "capable" state owned land compared to demand. The supply includes _all state se:ected, TA'd and patented land in the Basin exclusive of those acres which have very severe soil limitations or which are located on treeless areas (see Chapter 4 for more detai:s). The supply does not consider land which may have value for other uses; only its value for settlement has been taken into account. The supply of private, Borough and Federal land which may be available to meet the demand was not available but should be noted ~n any policy decis- ions. 1. Supply and De:~nand for Land along Roads Quality Type A land is located within 2 miles of a road and-within 40 miles of Fairbanlcs or 25 miles from another community. There are an estimated 291,800 acres of state selected, TA' d and patented land of Type A in the Basin which is suitable for development. Much of this land is valuab::;_e for many ·other uses as \'fell. Huch of this land is selected or otherwise encumbered by mining claims etc. and is therefore not available for immediate disposal. In both Fairbanks, and the majority of the smaller communities, most of the Type A land is in either native, borough or private ownership. The Borough owns approximately 54,000 acres or Type A land. In most of the rural communi ties, native vi::;.lage corporations are owners of the majority of Type A land. Within the next five years, 109,600 gross acres of Type A land would be needed to meet the oemand for state land. This figure was ca::;.cu:ated based on land ·prices where the state discount ·t~as used. This figure does not represent the demand for land under the current pricing system where no discount is in effect. However, the figure does give an order of magnitude estimate of demand. r1uch of this demand may be met by the Borough and private sources. If no other resources are taken into account, there is a small surp::;.us of Type A land. 6-1 Quality Type B land is also located within 2 ·miles of a road but greater than 40 miles from Fairbanks and greater than 25 miles from other communities. There are an esti- mated 110,500 acres of state selected TA'd and patented Type B :and in the Basin suitable for development (not considering other resource va:.ues). The remaining Type B land is either in native or private ownership. Within the next five years, 12,350 gross acres of Type B :and would be needed to meet the demand at current state discounted prices. Huch of this may be met by the Borough or other sources. This indicates that there is likely to be a :.arge surp:.us of Type B land. II. Waterfront Property and Land near Airstrips The supply of state land in this category is esti- mated to be 11,100 acres in the Tanana Basin. The supply of this type of land in native owner.ship is fairly significant, particularly in the Upper Tanana Region. It can be expected that some of these lands will be sold over the next 20 years. The demand over the next five years is estimated to be 26,558 acres, and therefore, even if there were no resource conflicts on this type of land, the state does not have an adequate supply to meet the demand. m. Land within % mlles of Water or an Airstrip The state owns or has se:ected an estimated 22,400 acres of this type of :and. Additionally, there are significant amounts of this type of land in native ownership. The demand is estimated to be 12,875 acres and therefore, if there are few ~esource conflicts, there is like:iy to be enough land to meet the demand for Type D lanri.. IV. Rem.ote Land This land is greater than 2 miles from a road and greater than 1/4 mi:e of ~vater or an airstrip. The supply of this relatively inaccesible :and in the Tanana Basin is estimated to be 1,912,400 acres (selected, TA'd and patented). There is a significant amount of this type of land in native ownership in the Basin. The demand for this type of land over the next five years is estimated to be 32,632 acres. Therefore, if there are few resource conflicts in these areas, the supply is more than adequate. 6-2 [ [ [ B c c c c 0 [_ c c 0 Q n w G c [ [ L .. ~ ~ 1... ' ;; ~,....,,,!, '"li tJ ........ ,.J IIJ,. ...... J J,.l 'J ll '.J 1..' .! t. J \..L,,,' .J l. ,J L ,,,.i) u: .J t. ;;J l.. ,L"' rt'84 FY''85 & '86 FY'87 & '88 TOTAL TABLEG-1 SETTLEMENT GROSS ACREAGE DEMANDED FY'84-88 1 Type~ TypeD TypeC TypeD 20 '334 2,294 5,018 2,431 43,871 4,943 10,335 5,014 45,373 52113 11 2205 52340 109,578 12,350 26,558 12,87~ 1 From Cha.pter 3, Part 1 of. this report. TABLJE6-2 SUPPLY COMPARED TO DEMAND Demand 109,578 12,350 26,558 12,875 TypeE 6,168 12,700 13 2764 32,632 32,632 Supply of Capable, 2912800 110 2500 11 2100 222400 1,9122400 State-owned or Selected Land Difference Between 182,222 98,-150 -15,458 9,525 1,879,768 Supply and Demand Total -- 36,245 76,863 80,885 193,993 193,993 2 2 348 2 200 2,154,207 o.l .J SUOJ:tupuammoaall r !F Y- r r ' ~­ ' L r r r L r r-~ -., 3 -, ~ .., -1 .J q ..J j =' ..., ~ :J __, --' --: _j -, _J ~ _; -, d l d ~ , . d '"l ~ "'""' _J ..J -, ---" MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGNATIONS The following discussion describes what the state should do in each subregion of the Basin to provide adequate land to Basin residents for residential, recreational, and remote use • 1. Land Sales in the Fairbanks North Star Borough a. Land for Community Expansion Land for community expansion in the Borough is usually quite popular. If the site is within reasonable commuting distance (within 25 miles) and has good drainage, most of the parcels are likely to sell • However, most community expansion land in state o.~nership has already been sold or is otherwise encumbered. When the state land in the State Forest are excluded and when mining claims, past disposals, and poor soils are taken into account, there are only a limited number of areas of state land left in the Borough which are suitable for community expansion. The Borough population is expected to grow from 53,983 people in 1980 to 91,400 in the year 2000, an increase of 37,417 people (Socioeconomic Paper, RAS/DLWM, 1982). There is currently adequate land in private o.~nership to meet the needs of the existing population, assuming an average household requires 1 to 4 acres of land and that the average household contains 3.3 people. This additional population will need between 11,000 and 45 , 000 acres of land by the year 2000. There are three principal sources of land to meet this need: the state, the Borough and private land. The state currently has 1,182 acres of land suitable for community expansion available for sale over the counter. The Borough owns 110,000 acres, much of which is expected to be sold. Of this, approximately 54,000 acres are of "high quality" for community expansion (i.e. land that is well-drained, easily-accessed and within 25 miles of Fairbanks). This land is expected to be sold at a rate of roughly 2400 acres per year. There are also approximately 100,000 acres of private land principally in the Fairbanks area. Thus, there is a total of over 160,000 acres of good quality land currently available for community expansion, compared to a need of between 11,000 and 45,000 acres. Because there is an abundant supply of community expansion land, it is not necessary for the state to sell areas close to Fairbanks if there are very serious resource or public conflicts. There are a total of 5,500 net acres of .land that is relatively conflict free in the Borough that should be sold. 7·1 2 Lower Tanana Kantishna 3 ~ N '~ \/ --~, ~ I ? \ • {(? ~ 1 Fairbanks North Star Borough 5 Delta-Salcha Area Plan 9 TANANA BASIN AREA PIAN ~--... ., "'l Map 2. Subregion Boundaries Upper Tanana ~~~~~cr~u~c;~~~~~~~~~~~~ _J -, ~ "" -o ' =· ~ _J -, =--.!: ~ -" -, _; -, ~ ' ' _j ::;j ~. ""' ' -~ ~ ~ .J ' ~ _. ..; b. Recreational Subdivisions and BoJDesteads These sales are generally very popular if located in areas where recreational opportunities exist. Excluding land purchased for speculation, the cumulative need for recreational land in the Borough is estimated to be between 4,000 and 19,000 acres by the year 2000 (see the Settlement Element, DLWM,l983). The two principal c::rwners of this type of land are the Borough and the state. The Borough owns roughly 30,000 acres of land· sui table for this use, most of which is likely to be sold within 20 years. The state owns land along the Chatanika River, Chena Hot Springs Road and the Steese and the Elliott Highway which would be suitable for recreational parcels. There is a total of 5, 500 net acres of land in these areas that should be sold as subdivisions. An additional 20,000 acres should be offered for fee homesteading in this area. This will adequately meet resident's needs for land in the Borough. c. Agricultural BoJDesteads Land sales under the small agricultural program have been extremely popular. Of 23,012 acres offered for sale in the Fairbanks North Star Borough over the past four years, 22,039 acres or 96% have sold. An estimated 85,000 to 740,000 acres of land for small agriculture is needed over ·the next 20 years. Although need by subregion is not available, it is reasonable to assume that it is likely to be highest in the Borough where there is better access and a larger population. State-owned lands with agricultural potential which could be sold to meet this need are in short supply and · lie in two general areas: along ~'Jashington and Aggie Creeks and along the Chatanika. According to the exploratory soils survey, there are approximately 5500 acres of land, much of which is likely to be suitable for agricultural homesteads, in the ~~ashington Creek and Aggie Creek areas. These areas should be sold. 7-3 2. Land Sales in the Lower Tanana Subregion a. Land for Community Expansion The state owns land for community expansion near the communities of Tofty, Livengood and Eureka, but it does not own land that could be used for community expansion purposes in Manley or Minto. Due to the small population in Tofty, Livengood and Eureka (less than 50 people) , very limited land sales are recommended. b. Land for Recreational Use and Self-Sufficient Living The state owns large amounts of land between Livengood and Manley that could be sold for recreational use, but the sale of these areas would not be particularly popular. The land is not of very high quality and there are few recreational amenities that would draw people to the area. Consequently, only a few disposals should be offered between Livengood and Manley. The state land between Fairbanks and Livengood is more desireable for recreation. These areas are closer to Fairbanks, and are adjacent to the Steese vlhite Mountain Recreation Area. In this area, homestead areas and subdivisions will be offered for sale. c. Small Scale Agriculture/ Agriculture Homesteads There have been no previous sales of small agriculture parcels in this subregion. However, based on the popularity or small agriculture sales in other parts of the Basin and the need for between 85,000 and 740,000 acres of small agricultural lands Basinwide by the year 2000, it is likely that small agriculture disposals in this region would sell if offered. After completion of detailed soil surveys to verify the adequacy of the soils, areas with minimal conflicts should be offered for settlement under the small agriculture and agriculture homestead program. Areas closer to existing communities will be offered first, with lands farther away offered later. The sales should be distributed over 20 years. Since similar land has not been offered in this subregion, response to sales should be evaluated after 3 years and the pace and extent of sales adjusted according to local need. Approximately 20,000 acres should be offered for agricultural use in the region. 7-4 [' [ [ E c c c c c [_ c c u u r (..,; u c [ [ ' :::J ~ d "1 _J .., :..J 1 d -,. ' ~ -- l _;; -, ::;j l :J l j • ... ~ -~ ,..} ;; .J 3. Land Sales in the Kantishna Subregion a. Land for Community Expansion The only community in the Kantishna Subregion is Lake Minchumina. Parcels of land in this area are used for both recreation and year-round residential use. Further land sales in the vicinity of Lake Minchumina are therefore discussed in the section on land for recreational use. b. Recreational Land and Land for Self-Sufficient Living Of the total acres offered in the past four years for recreational subdivisions in this unit, approximately 40% have sold, but only 7% of the remote parcel offerings have sold. The ' state owns most of the land in this region, however the vast rna jori ty of it is inaccessible and of very poor quality. Popular land sale areas lie on fly-in lakes and along the navigable portions of the rivers of the region. Most of the lakes and a few of the rivers already have land sales on them. The remaining lakes and some of the remaining riverfront property should be sold. Approximately 30,000 acres should be offered for recreational land use in this region. This is more than double the maximum projected need for this type of land for the entire Basin to the year 2000. This abundant supply should allow for investment and provide buyers with a large degree of choice. c. Land for Agricultural Homesteads There have been no previous sales of small agriculture parcels in this subregion. Due to the lack of access, the distance from markets and the high cost of farming in this region, it is not likely to be feasible to meet the development schedules required on agricultural homesteads and small scale agriculture parcels. Therefore, none of these are recommended at this time. Meanwhile, lands in this subregion with agricultural potential should be placed in the resource management category with agriculture a primary value. 7-5 4. Land Sales in the Parks Highway Region a. Land for Community Expansion There are 5 communities in this region. Land should be sold in the vicinity of Nenana, Healy, McKinley Village and Anderson to meet the community expansion needs of those communities. The population of this area is expected to increase by 1900 people by the year 2000, and the land needs of this new population are estimated to be between 575 and 2,300 acres. In the Nenana area, land for community expansion is in both native and state ownership. Several areas of state land should be offered in the vicinity of Nenana. The amount of land offered will greatly exceed projected land conversion needs of the Nenana area, even if the Nenana Totchaket area is developed. In the Anderson area, people want more land sales irrrnediately adjacent to the town. To meet this need, several areas should be identified for sale. These sales would allow for a wide degree of consumer choice and provide abundant land in the Anderson area. In Healy, ~~e same situation exists. Although the state has sold large acreages of land in the vicinity of Healy, more land is ·...ranted. ~lew areas should be identified for sale in the Healy area. Along with the land that was sold in the past this should more than adequately meet resident's needs, even if the coal operations in Healy greatly expand. In ~cKinley Village, the limited amount of state land in the area should be ~sed for community ex pans ion. Land that is proposed for a land trade with the National Park Service should be sold. b. Recreational/Seasonal and Self Sufficient Land. Past land sales in the Parks Highway region for this type of use have not sold particularly well: 20% of past subdivisions and 27% of remotes were taken. The state has already offered for sale the majority of accessible state-owned land in the region and there are 29,000 acres left in past sale areas along the Parks Highway that will continue to be offered for sale. In addition to these past sale areas, approximately 2,000 new acres of subdivision and 20,000 acres for homesteads should be identified. 7-6 [- [ c E c c c [ 0 [ c c c Q n w E c [ [ ._., -' ...,. ;, ~ =; _j ~ .J ., d , i _ _J J ~ ..... ""1 j ' _J ---;) j "1 ,.. ...., ~ j 1 J -, ~ ;;Ji " _j ~ ~ ...J c. Agricultural Land In the past four years, 100% of the acreage offered under this program (4876 acres) has been sold in the Parks Highway Subregion. It is assumed that future sales will be equally popular. Approximately 27,000 acres of agriculture land should be identified in this unit. 5. Land Sales in the West Alaska Range Subregion Some additional land should be sold in this subregion • Because of the limited availability of high quality land, access · problems, and conflicts with minerals and fish and game Irore land should be offered in past sale areas in the region, rather than opening new areas. 6. Land Sales in the East Alaska Range Subregion a. Land for Recreational/Seasonal Use and Self-Sufficient Living Land available for settlement in this region is very limited due to terrain. However, there are some high quality settlement areas around the Summit, Tangle and Fielding Lakes that should be sold. The sales would be extremely popular. b. Small Scale Agriculture/ Agricultural Homesteads There are no soils suitable for agriculture disposals due to the elevations encountered in this area. 7. Land Sales in the Upper Tanana Subregion a. Land for Community Expansion The upper Tanana Region population is expected to increase by 425 people by the year 2000 (Socio-Economic Paper, RAS/DL'VJM, 1982). If the current population of 1,120 people has adequate land to live on, then be tween 425 and 1, 700 acres would be required to meet the building needs of the gra.ring population (Settlement Element, DL\·lM, 1983). Sales of community expansion land have been fairly popular in the past: 59% of the acres offered have sold. This leaves a total of 1,970 acres available over-the-counter for community expansion needs in the future: more than double the projected need under the high scenario. In addition to the land available over-the-counter. The Native Corporations also a.rn land in the immediate vicinity of most of the communi ties. Some of this land is likely to be sold over the next 20 years • 7-7 Native landholdings and past state sales are likely to create· a large surplus of community expansion land in the subregion for all of the villages except Northway, where no state land has been offered (the Native corporation is planning to offer some near northway, however). In this area, the state should offer a small subdivison of approximately 100 acres within the next 5 years, with an additional 100 acres set aside for possible disposal within 5 to 20 years. In the Tok area, the state should identify more land for sale~ however, the land should not be offered until more of the currently available areas have been sold. b, Recreational and Self-Sufficient Subdivisions and Homesteads Past state sales of this type of land· in the Subregion have not been particularly popular due largely to poor drainage -and difficult access. Only 10% of the available remote acreage has been staked. Native lands, however, may offer higher quality land on lakes and rivers. Dot Lake is considering offering land on Lake George and over the next 20 years othercorporations are· likely to offer recreational land. In this area it is proposed that the state continue to offer the 2,030 acres of land still available in past disposals before offering new projects. In addition to these lands the state should identify a moderate amount of new land for sale in the area. c. Agricultural Homesteads There should be no areas recommended for large scale agriculture in this subregion due to the high elevation and harsh climate. There is interest in agriculture in the area, however, and an area of at least 1,000 acres should be available for this purpose. 8. Land Sales in the Upper Goodpaster Subregion In the past, there have been no land sales in this region. The area is largely inaccessible. Because of this, only two areas should be identified for sale. Two projects of approximately 4,000 acres should provide adequate opportunity for those wishing to settle or recreate in this remote region of the Basin. 7-8 [ [ [ B c c c [ c c c c c D n w D [ [ L· ~ -, ....;,·. __., ::3 "! -'I _j ~ ---; :J , ~ '1 ,] ~ J ' J ' l ...2 ' d -, ::, ,J --, ~~ ~ ~ ~ -" ~ "'"" ' B. OTHER MANAGEMENT GUIDEUNES 1. Land Use Needs Regional demand assessments for settlement lands will include estimates of land necessary for projected conversion to residential, commercial, industrial, public facility and recreational uses, based on projected population levels. The disposal program will give a high priority to ensuring the availability of an adequate supply of land to meet these needs, including an amount necessary for market choice. The state also will make available a modest supply of land for investment beyond what is necessary for actual use. However, providing land for specific needs will be a higher priority. 2. Loag-TerJD Prop-am The disposal program will be designed to make land available for at least 'twenty years to ensure that Alaskans in the future have the opportunity to purchase public land. 3. Prlee and TerJDs The state will make land available to be earned by personal investment of time and effort in homestea..ds and h:>mesi tes. This will continue to result in acquisition of those lands at less than fair :tarket value. Aside from this, fair market value should be received for public land sold to private parties. This does not preclude offering generous payment terms. An exception to the policy of receiving fair market value may be made in areas where the price of land is judged exceptionally high based on the price of comparable land throughout the state. 4. Co:~~~petition with the Private Market The state ~ill not seek to minimize competition with private land markets by changing or reducing its land offerings. In fact, a legitimate objective of the disposal program is an anti-inflationary effect on land prices, which may mean selling enough land in certain areas to reduce the artificial rate of appreciation of private land values. The state, however, will not undercut the market with artificially low prices. 7-9 5 Proteetioa and ManageJDent of Natural Resources. In its settlement program, the state will protect the economic potential of public lands with high value for oil and gas development, minerals, coal, commercial forestry, tourism, agriculture and the production of fish and wildlife resources. Exceptions to this guideline nay be made where land is needed for corrmunity expansion or other important purpose and no other suitable land.is available. · ·when the state sells land in locations and amounts that have high potential for commercial agricultural use, only agricultural rights to that land should be sold. This policy is not intended to mean that· all land with high agricultural potential will be designated for agricultural use. Some of these lands may be retained for forestry management or other public uses. However, if lands with high commercial agricultural potential are to be sold they generally should be sold for agricultural use rather than alternative uses such as settlement. An exception to this policy nay be made where land is needed for community expansion or other important purpose and no other suitable land is available. Lands with high commercial forestry potential generally should not be sold for residential use. Also, land offerings generally will be avoided in areas of high mineral potential and where numerous valid active mining claims exist. 6 Protection of Ufe and Property. The state will, by retention of public lands, discourage development in areas of flooding, unstable ground, significant avalanche dsk, poor percolation for septic tanks and other hazards. Public lands within the surveyed lO~year floodplain should remain in public ownership except where a regulatory floodway and flood fringe have been identified through detailed hydrologic studies. ~'lhen such studies have been done, public lands within the flood fringe may te offered for sale. Land offerings within the flood fringe should be for low density development for example, private recreation cabins or agriculture rather than dense residential subdivisions. In drainages where the 100-year floodplain has not been surv9yed, the best available information will be used to determine the flood hazard zone which should remain in public ownership. In areas where no al terna ti ve land is available for development, the Director of the Division of Land and Water Management may ~e exceptions to these floodplain guidelines. 7-10 [ L [ ~ . 0 c· c c [ [ [ [ c D u r~ u [~ ...) [ [ [ ~j ' ' :::::; ~ --1i d ~ .J ' _j --, ~ ..., --" -. . ~ "l _; ~ .J ""' d -'1 ~ d ~J J '"l d " ..J • _. Lands generally will be retained where slopes are predominantly north-facing and steeper than 25 percent. This will hold in public ownership many lands where permafrost is prevalent, where shadows prevail for four months of the year, and where the vegetation is predominantly black spruce. These sites are among the least appealing residential environments. 7. Protection and Manage~nent of Valuable EnviroDJDental Processes The state will attempt to provide a publicly-c~.med open space system to preserve important fish and wildlife habitats. and natural areas such as estuaries, shorelands, freshwater wetlands, watersheds, and surface and ground water recharge areas. Wetlands with important hydrologic, habitat or recreational values and adjacent buffer strips will be retained for open space • Systems of publicly owned land will be designed to provide the necessary linkage and continuity to protect or increase values for human uses and wildlife movements • 8. Protection and Enhaneelllent of Seenie Features The state generally will retain in public ownership unique .. natural features such as cliffs, bluffs, waterfalls and foreground open space for panoramic vistas. Public access to such amenities also will be preserved • Land disposal offerings along scenic roads popular for sightseeing will be selected and designed to minimize their impacts on scenic vistas. Unusual landforms or scenic features will be retained.in state ownership for enjoyment and use by the public. Such lands include islands in lakes, rivers or ocean bays unless land disposals can be designed to prevent negative effeccts on the scenic and recreational values of the area. 9. Protection and EnhanceJDent of Recreational, Educational and Cultural Opportunities The state will retain areas for outdoor recreation, trails, campsites, boat launches, fairgrounds, historic sites, areas for scientific study, etc. Areas for both intensive and dispersed use will be preserved • 10. Providinc Public Land for CoJDJDunities The state will reserve greenbelts, public-use corridors, personal-use wood lots, buffer areas, commons, b..lilding setbacks, and other open spaces to help create a desirable land use pattern in developing areas. 7-11 11. Reservation of Land for Future Urban DevelopJD.ent Public lands will be retained as a transitional tool to help shape community development .bY precluding premature private development on sites intended for· schools, gravel pits, roads, parks, sewer treatment plants, etc. 12. Cost of PubUc: Services In accordance with. AS 38.04.010, the Department will attempt to guide year-round settlement to areas where services exist or can be provided with reasonable efficiency. State land that is located beyond the range of existing schools and other necessary public services, or that is located where development of sources of employment is improbable, may be made available for seasonal recreation purposes or for low density settlement with sufficient separation between residences so ·that· public services will not be necessary or expected. DNR will set a high priority on seeking funding to implement the provisions of AS 38.04.021 to assist municipalities in their disposal programs with the aim of making land available in and around established communities. 13. Provision of Ac:c:ess DNR will comply with the capital improvement provisions of local government subdivision ordinances. Where no subdivision ordinance is in effect DNR will ensure the existence of actual physical access (air, water, road or rail) to each new state subdivision. 14. Loc:al Plans DNR will comply with provisions of local regarding the pace, · location and development, except to the extent that discriminate against state land or overriding state interest. comprehensive plans density of land local requhrements violate a major 15. Carrying Capa:c:ity-Firewood and Bouselogs Sales in remote areas intended for recreational or seasonal use or homesteads will take into consideration the sustained yield carrying capacity of the area for production of firewood and houselogs. This policy applies only where there is no road access and where firewood is expected to be a substantial ~urce of fuel and/or houselogs are expected to be a substantial source of building material. 7-12 [ [ r, 1:::::; E c [ [ [ [ [ [ c L u r (...; t L [ L ~ "" --" ~J ""' cc3 ~ .., ~ -, __; -, ~ ' _ _. ""\ _; - J ' ~ ~ .J "';1 ~ J , ~ ~ ... _;: In remote areas DNR will attempt to cluster disposal offerings where sufficient public land exists for the gathering of firewood and houselogs and for hunting and fishing. By clustering these offerings, the state will maintain options for later decisions regarding neighboring public land when access develops. 16. Design Review Board A local design review board will be established when, in the opinion of the Director of the Division of Land and Water Management, it would be a constructive way to involve persons affected by a disposal project. A design review b:::>ard will consist of a maximum of eight citizens and local government officials appointed· by an appropriate local government official. Where local government does not exist or is unwilling to appoint such a board, DNR will nake the appointment, if sufficient interest exists. The design review board will participate in and review all stages of design, including location, design of parcel size, transportation routes, open space, etc. The board will make recommendations to the Director of the Division of Land and Water Management at appropriate points in the design process. 17. C11Dlulative Effects Chances for inadvertent and undesired cumulative effects will be minimized by a planning process that examines the impacts of various region-wide comprehensive land use scenarios. ~~·s statewide and area planning program attempts to do this and will be used to establish regional land offering and disposal policies for state lands (see Guideline No. 21 below). 18. Subdivision Design Subdivisions will be designed to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural setting and the recreational opportunities that rrake an area attractive to potential buyers. The following slope/lot size standards should generally be applied in state subdivisions (on-site waste disposal assumed): Percent Average Slope Minimum Lot Size 0-12 1 acre 13-20 4 acres 21-30 10 acres >30 No development 7-13 Other procedures and standards for subdivisions design will be as set forth in "Design of Residential and Recreational Subdivisions," in the Division of Land and Water Management's Policy and Procedures Manual. 19. EaseJDeats Easements will be used as a means to acquire rights to privately owned lands needed for public use. Easements generally will not be used as a means of retaining a public interest in lands within a subdivision. Exceptions to this policy may be nade where the expense of surveying lands for retention is prohibitive or where the interest protected is very limited such as for local pedestrian access. This policy will minimize confusion between public use rights and private ownership rights. 20. Owner Staking In areas where severe land use conflicts and inefficient use of resources are expected to result from owner staking, DNR will offer homestead parcels with prestaked or predesignated boundaries. 21. Statewide and Regional Disposal Plans The Department will publish annually a statewide land offering and disposal plan. It is important that Alaskans be able to review the amounts and locations of land disposals which would result from the application of DNR 1 s land disposal policies. The statewide disposal plan will incorporate regional land disposal plans and present recorrmendations for land offerings in each region of the state. The recommendations would be based on DNR 1 s land disposal policies as well as on analyses of land suitability, supply and oomand studies, consideration of competing land use values, transportation systems and other factors of regional concern. The statewide plan will present regional land offering recommendations for two planning periods. Five-year recommendations will be specific regarding location, acreage and project type for each year. A twenty-year disposal pool also will be established consisting of the areas where DNR anticipates future disposals offerings. Because of the need to respond to changing demands, fluctuating funding levels and new information, the statewide plan will be reviewed annually and modified as necessary. 7-14 [ [ I; I b ~­ L c [ c [ c c c c c D n i..J G [ [ L ~ ~ ~ d :] .,'! '"l ~ ; =' _, _.} ; ~ ...... -' ' ~ • ::::1 --, ~ l ;j ~ ----; J --~ _. -" 22. Coordination with Loeal GoverJUDents State land offering programs should be coordinated with similar programs of local government to best achieve comnon objectives. To this end, DNR proposes the annual development of a joint disposal plan with each borough (for both state and borough lands) • This plan would be based on consideration of the borough's road extension priorities and its plans for levels of services in different areas --in short, on local fiscal planning. If a borough has a comprehensive land use plan, that plan will provide direction for disposal priori ties. The disposal plan should demonstrate what community objectives are being net, and how the requested capital improvement funding would support a borough-wide set of priorities for roads and service extensions to benefit current residents as well as new ones. The disposal plan should demonstrate how increased access and development would serve other resources uses such as agriculture, mining, forestry and recreation, and thus have state as well as regional benefits. Joint borough/state disposal plans as described here would constitute sections of the statewide disposal plan discussed above. Where there is an ongoing DNR area plan, that plan would provide the neans of coordinating borough and state disposal planning. 7-15