HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1680I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
l
HC
107
.A42
T3
v.4
PHASE I
RESOURCE INVENTORY
October, 1983
RECREATION
EI.EMENT
STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
4420 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
L~
[
[
F: l~
[
E
[
[
L
r~
L
RECREATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tanana Basin includes 21 million acres of land
along the Tanana River stretching from the Canadian border
on the east to the Yukon River on the northwest. As shown
in Figure 1, it includes the most populated area of
Alaska•s Interior. The area which this plan addresses
includes all state selected, tentatively approved and
patented land within the Tanana Basin Boundary exclusive of
those areas which have had area plans completed or which do
not have state in-holdings. ·
This study indicates that there are a total of over 4
million user days spent on outdoor recreational activities
by Basin residents (excluding those days associated with
fishing or hunting). This is an average of over 70 user
days per person per year. In addition, tourists from
outside the state spend an estimated 258 thousand user days
in the Basin each year.
Outdoor recreation activities generate an estimated
$46 million in income in the Basin each year and over 1300
jobs.
-_,
CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Chapter2
Chapter3
Chapter4
ChapterS
Chapter&
Chapter7
Introduetion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Issues and Local Preferences • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-1
DeJDand for the Resource • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3-1
Supply of the Resource ••••••••• · • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 4-1
Benefit-Cost Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5-1
Dem.and vs. Supply ....... • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Reeo-.-.endatlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 -I
Appendices A. Total Expenditures on General Recreation in
the Tanana Basin
Bibliography
I. Introduction
D. Expenditures for General Recreational
EquipJDent
A. Number of Households Owning Equipment
B. Cost/Year of Equipment
C. Percentage of Total Expenditures Attributable to
General Recreation
D. Summary
DI. Expenditures on Travel
A. Total Number of Trips/Year
B. Average Cost/Trip
C. Summary
IV. Expenditures For Food and Lodging
V. Expenditures By Tourist
VI. S1umnary
_j
l
--"·
c
D
r
L
--
.dl
Chapter 1
Introduction
This report completes Phase I of the Alaska State
Department of Natural Resources Tanana Basin Area planning
process. The report analyzes background information on
recreation in the Basin 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 including fish and game, agriculture,
forestry, minerals, outdoor recreation, settlement (land
disposals) and water. The information included in this
report was gathered by the Tanana Basin Area Planning staff
of the DNR Division of Land and Water Management and the
Alaska State Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
People who participated in the production of this report
include Nat Goodhue (Planner, DNR Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation), Susan Todd (Project Manager, Tanana
Basin Area Plan), Delores O'Mara (Natural Resource
Officer), and Rob Walkinshaw (Natural Resource Officer).
The information presented here is not an exhaustive
study of recreation in the Basin. The recreation element
is designed to provide an overall view of the supply of,
demand for and value of recreational resources in the
Tanana Basin. The element also constitutes an advocacy
statement 'by the Division of Parks indicating how they
would prefer recreation resources to be managed in the
study area. These management recommendations, together
with related information about other resources, will be
used to formulate land allocations and management
guidelines for public land in the study area.
1-1
=
I'
L~
['
[
c
[
E
[
[
;
Li
Chapter2
Issues and Local Preferences
'~ \
;
I. INTRODUCTION
Issues and local preferences are important pieces of
information which must be incorporated into the planning
process. Issues concerning the use of a specific resource
provide a focus and framework for the planning process;
local pr-eferences show how the public feels these issues
should be resolved. In this section of this report, issues
and local preferences are documented for incorporation in
the planning process through the work of the Planning Team
Members.
A. Issues
An issue is something which is debated. For example,
the amount of land to be disposed of is an issue; some
people favor more land and others would prefer less.
Another issue is the effect of agriculture on fish and
game; some feel that the effect is positive, others feel
that it is negative or neutral. The purpose of this paper
is simply to report the issues objectively without siding
with any particular viewpoint. These issues are then to be
addressed in the Tanana Basin Area plan which will create
policies to deal with them. The issues reported here are
those which the plan can affect through classifications or
management guidelines.
The issues i~ent if ied in this chapter were collected
and summarized from three sources. The public meetings
that were held in the Tanana Basin during the spring of
1982 was the first source of issues used for this chapter.
Planning team members, after reading the comments from the
public meetings developed a series of issues concerning the
resource they represent. The Tanana Basin Plan sketch ele-
ments were a second source used to identify issues. The
sketch elements were developed in 1981 to provide a start-
ing point for the Tanana Basin Area plan. The issues iden-
tified in the sketch elements were based on conversations
with agencies, resource experts and public interest
groups. The third source was interviews with agency
representatives.
B. Local Preferences
Local preferences about how these issues should be
addressed were determined from two principal sources. One
of the sources which will be used in the planning process
for developing local preferences is a series of community
originated land use plans. Several communities are
currently working on proposed plans for state land in their
area; others have already submitted proposals to DNR.
2-1
These local land use plans provide a clear indication of
what a community prefers. This is
proposal receives endorsement of
councils, native corporations, and
the area.
particularly true when a
village councils, city
other interest groups in
, The possibility of doing land use plans was mentioned
at the public meetings and in a newsletter that was sent to
all communities. Only a few of the communities, however,
have decided to submit proposals. Most of these proposals
will not be completed until February, but some have been on
file with the State Department of Natural Resources and are
included in this report.
The Tanana Basin Public Meetings are the other source
of information on local preferences. Public meetings were
held in all communities in the Basin in the spring of 1982
to discuss the Tanana· Basin Area Plan. The notes from
these meetings were given to members of the planning team
who then developed the summaries included here. The sum-
maries represent the planning team members' understanding
of how residents want state land in their area managed for
a specific resource.
These sources of local preferences are not as accurate
as a public survey, but in most cases, they represent the
only information available. They should not be considered
to be representative of the entire community; they are
simply indications of the opinions of some of the resi-
dents.
A survey now being conducted by the Alaska Department
of Community and Regional Affairs will provide a better in-
dication of local preferences in the Tok area. The results
of this survey will be available to the planning team by
March of 1983.
2-2
l.
~I
II.ISSUFS CONCERNING RECREATION
The following issues concerning recreation were drawn
from the public meetings, sketch elements and interviews
with agency representatives:
ISSUE 1. High expectations for recreational opportunities:
the landscape and wildlife of the Tanana Basin
provide an abundance and diversity of recreation
opportunities which are one of the major
attractions for living in the Basin. "Recreation
opportunities" is the second most frequently
cited important reason for living in the Interior
Region of Alaska according to the Alaska Public
Survey.
Responsibility for providing easily accessible
recreation opportunities, by reason of land ownership and
constituencies, is with the State of Alaska and its
political subdivisions. The State owns seventy-five
percent of the acreage within the Tanana Basin, much of
which is located within one hour's travel time of
communities. In contrast, national parks are where the
outstanding natural features and extensive wilderness
sougnt by national and international constituencies are
located.
The highest recreation priority of the State of Alaska
is to ensure the continued availability of easily
accessible recreation opportunities for Alaska residents by
retention of a variety of types and sizes of land and water
areas in public ownership.
ISSUE 2. Need for recreational land base near population
centers: action by the State of Alaska is
required to maintain a recreation land base
easily accessible to Alaskans.
Due to limitations of time, funds and fuel outdoor
recreation participation within one hour's surface travel
time of people's residences is more than double
participation in more remote locations according to the
Alaska Public Survey. A considerable amount of outdoor
recreation activity occurs on lands which are not within
the State Park System or other public use areas. Many of
these lands, especially those near major population
centers, are no longer available for public recreation as a
result of conveyances of State, municipal and Federal lands
to private ownership under land disposal programs and the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and land developments
which prevent public recreation use.
2-3
To meet existing needs'for recreation opportunities
close to people's homes, schools, and work sites and to
anticipate future needs as the population increases, the
State of Alaska will identify recreation use areas, ·
designate those which will remiin in State ownership for
public recreation use (replace lands lost to public
recreation use by acquiring alternative areas through
purchase and land trades), provide technical and financial
assistance to municipalities and cooperativley prepare land
use plans with the private sector and other public land
owners.
ISSUE 3. Inter-agency cooperation: policies and actions
of many public agencies and private land owners
affect outdoor recreation opportunities.
The availability of outdoor recreational opportunities
is often dependent on the actions of various Federal,
State, and local government entities. Many agencies,
whether or not they are in the recreation busiriess, make
land use, facility design and other decisions which enhance
or detract from outdoor recreation opportunities.
Outdoor recreational opportunities can, and should be,
provided in conjunction with other programs such as road
and school construction, land settlement, community
planning, and forest and habitat management.
To significantly increase the benefits of public
programs and projects, agencies should use broader concepts
of their responsibilities, greater foresight in the
execution of projects, and additional cooperative
procedures. Realization of recreation opportunities
through other programs will require the Alaska Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation to initiate, coordinate, and
follow-up on a variety of projects.
ISSUE 4. Preserving and protecting Alaska's cultural
heritage: prehistoric and historic sites
contribute to the Tanana Basin's distinctive
identity.
There is an on-going and sometimes urgent need for the
State's heritage sites program to prevent needless
destruction and neglect. Due to a major misunderstanding,
what remained of the abandoned and historic gold mining
town of Denali in the Alaksa Range was bulldozed away. A
large gold dredge lies deteriorating on private lands north
of Fairbanks in the Chatanika Gold Mining District. These
are but a few of the historic resources from Alaska's past
being lost due to neglect and lack of management
capability. Not every historical resource worthy of
preservation can be saved, but an adequate representation
of the diverse prehistoric and historic sites must be
2-4
preserved so future generations will understand and value
the Tanana Basin's rich heritage.
ISSUE 5. Trails: the use of trails for transportation and
recreation has historically been and continues to
be a vital aspect of life in the Tanana Basin
which should be perpetuated.
A high percentage of Interior Alaska residents
participate in some form of trail-based recreation
activity. Many of these people and other residents and
visitors use trails as transportation routes to work,
school and residences.
Trails more than other recreation resources, due to
their linear configuration, are vulnerable to disruption
from other land uses. Cooperative planning is required to
prevent the loss of critical trail connections. Where loss
of a trail segment is unavoidable an alternate route should
be provided. Trails, when properly located and buffered,
are an asset to residential neighborhoods. Trails should
be loc~ted on lands in some form of common ownership with
enough space either side of the trail to avoid conflicts
between public use of trails and adjacent private
landowners.
Trail planning and dedication of greenbelts for trails
should be high priority of all land use planning and
management agencies.
ISSUE 6. The amount of state land classified and managed
primarily for recreation.
ISSUE 7. The effect of land classification, land disposals
and resource development on recreation
opportunities.
ISSUE 8. The effect of land classification, land disposal,
and resource development on access to rivers,
lakes, trails and backcountry areas used for
recreation.
ISSUE 9. The effect of land classification, land disposals
and resource development on cultural, historical
and archeological sites.
2-5
. ,
ISSUE 10. The effect of mineral-related activity on
recreation.
ISSUE 11. The effect of agriculture on recreation.
ISSUE 12. The effect of land classification for habitat on
recreation •
ISSUE 13. The effect of forestry on recreation.
ISSUE 1 4. Mainten.ance of greenbelts and setbacks near
resource developments and land disposals.
ISSUE 15. The effect of land classification for recreation
on fish and wildlife.
ISSUE 16. The effect of land classification for recreation
on minerals.
ISSUE 17. The effect of land classification for recreation
on agriculture.
ISSUE 18. The effect of land classification for recreation
on land disposals.
ISSUE 19. The effect of land classification for recreation
on forestry.
2-6
III. LOCAL PREFERENCFS FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT
A. CoJDJDunity Originated Land Use Plans.
The following section lists the various community
originated plans that have been completed, or are in pro-
gress for state lands in the Basin. For detailed informa-
tion on each plan listed here, contact the Division of
Research and Development.
I. MINTO FLATS
Minto Village Council passed a resolution in
1980 requesting that the state classify Minto Flats for
Wildlife Habitat and Forestry. The village council sent
the resolution with a "Summary Report" about Minto Flats to
the Department of Natural Resources. The Summary Report
discusses the fish and game resources, the village's utili-
zation of these resources, and includes a map which identi-
fies historic fishing spots and trails into the Minto
Flats.
The Department of Natural Resources sent the
Summary Report and classification request for interagency
review, but in late 1980 the proposal was put on hold so
that it can be addressed by the Tanana Area Basin Plan.
2. TOK RIVER BASIN
In 1979 the Department of Fish and Game, in
response to public opinion in the Tok area, requested that
land in the the Tok River Basin be classified as Wildlife
Habitat. DFLWM gave public notice of the proposed classi-
fication at which time the Tok Chamber of Commerce, Tetlin
Village Council and Tok Fish and Game Advisory Board voiced
their support of the classification. The Director of the
Department of Land and Water and Forests concurred with the
classification action and sent the request to the Commis-
sioner, at which time it was decided that the classifica-
tion should wait until the Tanana Basin Area Plan was under
way.
The Department of Fish and Game wrote a report
in support of the Tok River classification. The report
addresses population, economic considerations, wildlife
values, nonconsumptive recreation, timber harvesting, min-
ing, management objectives and procedures, and it includes
a legal description of the area proposed for wildlife habi-
tat.
2-7
3. LAKE MINCHUMINA
In August 1979, the Lake Minchumina Homeowners
Association sent the Department of Natural Resources a for-
mal classification request based on a Land Use Plan for the
Lake Minchumina Area. The community identified nearby
lands for wildlife habitat, watershed, public recreation,
forestry, greenbelts and dispersed open-to-entry disposal
classification. The community wrote a narrative justifying
their proposal.
The proposal went through in-house and inter-
agency review and public notice. The DFLWM supported the
classifications and felt that the proposal had generated "a
general scheme for dealing with state lands tht both the
public and the district can support". The District sent
the proposal to the Commissioner at which time the request
was put on hold pending the Tanana Basin Area Plan.
4. Y ANERT-REVINE CREEK AREA COMMUNITY
LAND USE PLAN
In December 1979, the communities in the Yanert-
Revine Creek area submitted a land use plan for lands adja-
cent to their community to the Department of Natural
Resources. The plan was "the result of efforts of the
entire community" and was developed over a period of three
months during which time the community conducted three
public meetings. The plan designated specific areas for
disposals, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and included
management guidelines for buffers, density of settlement
and public easements. The plan did not include any formal
classification requests, so it was not processed by the
Division of Land and Water. However, the cover letter from
the community stated that "We, as a community, strongly
urge the Division of Forests, Land and Water Management to
consider this proposal and adopt it as its guidelines for
land disposals in this area."
5. LOWER TANANA-MANLEY HOT SPRINGS AREA
The Forestry Section of DFLWM in response to a
proposal from Northland Wood, requested that certain lands
along the major river drainages between Nenana and Manley
Hot Springs be classified for forestry. The proposal
included a land use plan that discussed the following
topics: location, criteria for the recommendation, access,
vegetation, timber resources, soils, wildlife and fish
habitat, recreation, current use, reasons for state selec-
tion of the lands, adjacent land uses, benefit to the
public, expected impact of forest classification, proposed
management guidelines, and justification for requested
class if icat ion.
2-8
The request was sent for interagency review at
which time it was decided that the classification was pre-
mature since other resource potentials of the land had not
been assessed fully.
6. COMMUNITY STRATEGY PLANS
Tanana Chiefs Conference has worked extensively
over the past several years with most Village Councils in
the Doyon Region to develop Community Strategy Plans.
Strategy Plans identify goals and objectives for each
community. Most goals and objectives address social ser-
vices. However, there is a section in each strategy plan
that identifies land use concerns and priorities for each
area.
7. INTERIOR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION PLANNING PROJECT
Interior Village Association, an organization
based in Fairbanks, which specializes in helping village
corporations do corporate planning, is currently working
with Manley Hot Springs and Tanana to develop corpot::"ate
plans for the village's lands. These plans should be done
by September. At that time, the village corporations will
begin doing feasibility studies on the pt::"ojects they iden-
tified in their plan. IVA is also encouraging other
Village Corporations to do similar plans.
8. BEAN RIDGE CORPORATION CLASSIFICATION REQUEST
Bean Ridge Native Corporation of Manley Hot
Springs on October 15, 1982, requested the state to clas-
sify lands surrounding Manley Hot Springs as wildlife habi-
tat. Bean Ridge feels it is critical to protect habitat
lands in the Manley area, since the land is used for sub-
sistence by residents of Manley, Minto, Tanana, Nenana and
Rampart and sport hunters from residents of other areas.
9. UPPER TANANA LAND USE PLAN
The Upper
rently working on a
Upper Tanana region.
ated efforts of all
in the area.
Tanana Development Corporation is cur-
community and land use plan for the
The plan will be based on a coordin-
local governments and interest groups
The Upper Tanana Development Corporation hopes
to have some information from their planning effort avail-
able in time to be used in the Tanana Basin Area planning
process.
2-9
10. LOWER TANANA LAND USE PLAN
Tanana Chiefs Conference is currently working
with the village councils, city councils and village cor-
porations of Minto, Manley, Tanana and Nenana on a set of
classification requests for state land in the lower Tanana
River basin. Classification requests are for forestry,
minerals, and fish and wildlife habitat. Also included in
the plan is a description of areas that should be off
limits to disposals, and lands where some settlement might
be acceptable. This effort should be completed in time to
be used in the Tanana Basin Area planning process.
11. LAND BANK NOMINATIONS
The states land disposal program allows the public to
nominate lands that they would like to see sold to the
public. During September 1982, DNR received 7 different
nominations for land in the Tanana Basin that should be
sold. The decision on these requests was deferred to the
Tanana Basin Area Plan for planning team review.
B. Tanana Basin Public Meetings
Nat Goodhue, the Tanana Basin Planning Team member
from the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Parks is responsible for incorporating
recreation concerns into the planning process. After
attending several of the public meetings and reading the
meeting notes, he listed the following local opinions for
each community in the Basin:
ANDERSON
Traditional traplines, access and ski trails are
valuable land uses and should be protected.
Green spaces that are not going to be developed are
needed between disposals, including farms. Land disposals
should enable development of profitable commercial
recreation enterprises such as ski lodges.
CANTWELL
Opinion was polarized: 11 no more parks in this area ...
versus 11 unique areas should be protected,. or 11 the state
does not belong in the recreation business,. versus 11 pave
the Denali Highway because this will encourage tourism ...
Popular trails should be recognized by providing a
greenbelt between trails and disposals. Moderate setbacks
to allow for public use along rivers should suffice.
2-10
DOT LAKE
Consider public value of state retention of land.
Classifying it Wildlife Habitat will protect recreation
needs of people. Public recreation classification draws
too much attention to i~ resulting in degradation from
concentrated use.
Put in buffer zones between private lands. Disposals
should not be located in trapping areas because trapping
furbearers depends on the protection of an area not just a
linear trail. Furthermore, trap lines are ruined when they
are used as an access route to land disposals.
Interest was expressed in the recreation value of
Craig Lake and careful scrutiny of area between Johnson and
Robertson Rivers.
HEALY
Leave the land the way it is and recreational needs such as
dog sledding, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing will be
met.
Public access and trails through disposals should be
insured. Areas of particular concern are the Yanert
Valley, Eight Mile Lake, trumpeter swan nesting sites and
caribou habitat.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS
Local residents use a lot of land around Manley for
recreation -subsistence purposes, and have an extensive
sled dog trail system and trapping area. There is
sentiment against these lands being over-run by people from
outside the area.
State should create rights of way for trails to avert
violence ("Don't tread here or your dog will be crippled
for life.") Continued trapping opportunities depend on an
area not just a single line through the woods. Minto Flats
should be left alone.
MENTASTA LAKE
Hunting is the major concern; also there are problems
with people on traplines.
Every village needs an adequate area for their hunting
which should not be sold but retained as habitat. Streams
in general and the Tok and Slana Rivers in particular are
valuable areas. Public use of native lands should be by
permission only.
2-11
MINTO
Perpetuation of traditional lifestyle is dependent on
extensive, uninter~upted hunting , fishing and trapping
areas and trails which are "all over the land." Intrusions
such as hunters and trappers coming by road, boat and plane
from outside the village and the planned road from Murphy
Dome to the Chatanika threaten their lifestyle.
Areas which should be protected include the Minto
Flats, Chatanika Valley and ridgelines to Dunbar, Murphy
Dome, Wickersham Dome~ and the Sawtooths.
NENANA
Greatest interest is in trail dependent recreation:
snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and dog mushing.
Recreation values can be perpetuated through combina-
tions of multiple use designations and dedication of public
easements. Trails should be insured through farmland to
other private property and to re~reation use areas.
Separate trails should be provided for motorized and non-
motorized trail users. Buffers and setbacks should be
provided along rivers.
NORTHWAY
Subsistence activities including moose hunting
trapping and berry picking are the main concern. Canoeing
and hiking are compatible with subsistence but anything
which attracts outsiders is not.
Everything within the Northway area is used for sub-
sistence with special mention of the area around Paradise
Hills.
TANACROSS
Interest was expressed in perpetuation and expansion
of a permanant sled dog trail system.
If the state will commit the land to sled dog trail
use, local residents will brush it. Tok Hills are impor-
tant for caribou.
2-12
TANANA
Interest exists in trails for dog mushing and snow-
mobiling and cabins to facilitate canoeing, horseback
riding etc. Dependence -of 66% of residents on subsistence
hunting and trapping activities means they would like to
see the "land left alone" for a considerable radius around
the village.
Interest was expressed in opening up historic mail
trails and a new trail along but separate from the
Tofty/Manley road.
TETLIN
They like to see wild country and want to be able to
live the Indian way 100 years from now.
Midway Lake and the trail to Chicken and Dawson were
identified as important for subsistence activities.
TOK
Dog mushing, trapping, hunting and fishing are impor-
tant recreation activities. Interest was also expressed in
a ski hill providing something to do in winter and in
access to recreation opportunities by means of boat
launching sites and airstrips.
Recommendations were made for buffers along water bodies (a
few hundred yards wide) around agricultural disposals and
along easements in disposals.
FAIRBANKS
State's role should be to perpetuate some of the finest
recreation opportunities in the world which are found in
the Tanana Basin. High interest in trails because lots of
recreation involves movement from one place to another.
Reasons for living in the Basin are space and freedom that
is close to horne. Keep it that way with buffer zones
around town and natural areas near cities which have educa-
tional as well as recreational value. Consider future
population increases and economic values of recreation in
land use plan.
2-13
State should retain lands for dispersed recreation
experiences; private enterprise can provide for winter
sports resorts, ski areas and cabins. Preference for
reserves for a variety of recreation uses over the more
restrictive State Park System designations and management
was expressed. Existing access routes and additional
public access to lakes and rivers and into and through sub-
divisions, remote and agricultural disposals should be set
aside. Individual parcels should not straddle public
access routes because of interference with private use of
the parcels. Rivers and creeks should be protected with
300 foot greenbelts. Greenbelts for trails should be wide
e·nough to provide adequate buffers between trail users and
abutting property owners and to accommodate separate trails
for incompatible activities. Interest was expressed in
trails north and south of Chena Hot Springs Road with 1000
feet wide greenbelts either side of trails and around water
bodies.
2-14
Chapter3
Demand for the Resource
--
~
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the current and projected level
of demand for general recreation (not including hunting and
fishing) in the Tanana River Basin for 1980, 1985, 1990,
1995 and 2000.
The first part of this chapter provides a brief over-
view of this type of recreation in the Tanana Basin. The
second part of this chapter discusses the method used to
evaluate the current and projected level of demand for
recreation The last part of the paper presents the
results of the analysis.
These results represent the best estimate of demand
currently available. Although the estimates are not abso-
lutely precise, they do represent an order-of-magnitude
estimate, which is useful for the evaluation of general
recreation in the Basin.
II. CURRENT AND PROJECTED USE
A. Methods
In this section, current and projected demand for
general recreation in the Basin is estimated for residents
and tourists to Alaska. The current and future demand for
recreation in the Basin was estimated by approximating the
total number of user days spent by Alaskans and non-
residents recreating on State land. First the number of
occasions residents and tourists in the Basin spent in
certain types of recreational activity were estimated.
These current levels of activity were then increased on a
per capita basis to project the increase in demand for the
years 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000.
Information on the particular sites where residents
are recreating is not available. For this reason, demand
for general recreation is calculated for the Basin as a
whole, not for specific sites. Residents' current level of
recreational activity was estimated from the results of a
statistical survey done in 1979 by the Division of Parks
(Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, ADNR, 1981). This survey
has general information on the average number of 11 0cca-
sions11 each adult participates in certain recreational
activities. "Occasions," when translated into user days,
provides an estimate of the total user days per year spent
by residents in the Basin.
The average leng_th of each recreational occasion was
estimated from a recreational survey that was done in 1979
by the Bureau of Land Management for the Denali Highway.
This survey determined that the average length of a recrea-
tional trip in that area was 1. 2 days. Due to a lack
3-1
of information on the number of user days per trip in the
Basin as a whole, the Denali Highway estimate was used in
this report to estimate the level of recreation demand in
the rest of the Basin.
This assumption probably overestimates the amount of
time spent by residents in the Basin because the ave:rage
length of an "occasion" may be less than 1.2 days since
many trips are close to home. Also, it overestimates the
amount o~ time spent by residents since it does not account
for the time they spend recreating outside the Basin bound-
aries. However, there was no data availabl~ concerning the
amount of time which other Alaskans spend in the Basin;
people from Anchorage, the Susitna area and elsewhere also
recreate in the Basin. Therefore, although the figure may
overestimate the time spent by residents, it greatly under-
estimates the time spent by people from the largest popula-
tion center. Consequently, the assumption of 1.2 days per
occasion was considered to be the best estimate available.
The current level of recreational demand served as the
basis for projecting demand in the years 1985, 1990, 1995,
and 2000. Projected demand was calculated by increasing
current demand on a per capita basis. The estimated popu-
lation increase in the Basin was taken from the Tanana
Basin Socioeconomic Paper (ADNR, 1982). The analysis
assumes that residents in the future will have the same
demand for general recreation per capita which they do
today.
An estimate of the average number of days spent by out
of state visitors in general recreation on State land was
made in two steps. First, the total number of days per
year which tourists spend in the area was estimated from
the results of a study done by Louis Berger and Associates
on tourism in the Tanana Basin (Working Paper on Tourism,
Interior Transportation Study, Louis Berger and Associates,
1982). This study estimated the total user days spent in
the Interior by tourists who take tour packages or are
independent highway travelers, fly and drive visitors, and
recreational vehicle renters.
Not all of the visitor days that tourists spend in the
Basin can be attributed to state lands. Tourists often
never set foot on state land, but focus their visit on the
communities in the Basin and Denali Park. For example,
tourists who take a tour package spend most of their time
in Fairbanks, driving the Parks Highway and visiting Denali
National Park. The following assumptions were made about
the percentage of total visitor days that should be
attributed to State lands.
3-2
Travel Method
Tour Packages
Independent Highway
Fly-Drive Visitors
RV Renters
Percentage of Days Attributable
to State Land
0%
40%
30%
40%
Visitor days for state lands were calculated by multi-
plying this percentage by the total visitor days in each
category (Step 2). The current level of use calculated in
this process then served as the basis for projecting demand
for the years 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000. Projected demand
was calculated by increasing 1980-81 current demand figures
by the same percentage by which visitor days increased over
the last 10 years. The trend in tourism over the last 10
years was found in the "W::>rking Paper on Tourism" (Louis
Berger and Associates, 1982).
B. Results
1. Residents
a. Current demand
According to the Alaska Public Survey, 88% of Tanana
Basin residents feel recreational opportunities are very
important in Interior Alaska. Recreational opportunities
are the second most frequently given reason by Interior
residents for why they came to live in the Tan~na Basin,
and why they stay.
Alaskans on the average engage in recreational activi-
ties 5 times more than residents of other states in the
u.s. (Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981). Calculations
based on the Alaska Public Survey indicate that the average
resident of the.Basin spends 1.5 days each week involved in
some type of land-based recreational activity. Residents
·spend a total of approximately 4.2 million days each year
involved in general recreation (see Table 1 for details).
The most popular winter activity in the Basin is snow-
mobiling, with the average adult spending approximately 1.9
days a month in this activity. 1 Closely following
lrt is assumed that residents participate in winter recre-
ational activities 7 months of the year, and summer activ-
ities, 5 months of the year.
3-3
snowmobiling in popularity is cross country skiing with the
average adult spending 1.7 days per month in this activity.
The most popular summer recreational activity is
motorboat ing with the average resident. spending about 2. 6
days each month in the activity. This is followed in popu-
larity by driving a motorcycle or some other ORV with resi-
dents spending 1.9 days each month in this activity. Tent
camping closely follows in popularity~ with residents
spending 1.8 days a month camping.l
Table 1 summarizes the estimated total user days in
the Basin for various types of recreation ac~ivity.
b. Projected demand
By 1985 there will be approximately 5.3 million user
days spent in the Tanana Basin by residents engaged in
general recreation activity. By the year 2000 there will
be approximately 7. 5 million user days. These estimates
are based on population projections contained in the Tanana
Basin socioeconomic report (ADNR, 1982). Table 3-2 shows
the basis for these estimates and projected user days for
1990 and 1995.
2. Tourists
a. Current demand
Tourists spent a total of approximately 258,500 user
days in Interior Alaska during the 1980-81 tourist season
involved in general recreation activity on state land.
This estimate was based on the assumptions outlined in the
methods section on the percentage of total visitor days
that can be attributed to state lands. Out of a total of
776,500 user days spent in the Basin (tour packages--
129,500 days; independent highway travelers--630,000 days;
fly-drive travelers--3 ,000 days; recreational vehicle
renters--14,000 days) 258,500 of these user days or 33% of
an average visitor's stay is spent in activities associated
with state land.
b. Projected demand
There will be approximately 438 thousand user days
spent by tourists in Interior Alaska on state land by
1985. Byh the year 2000 there will be approximately 2.1
million user days. These projections are based on the
assumption that the number of user days will increase 170%
lit is assumed that residents participate
recreational activities 7 months of the year,
activities, 5 months of the year.
3·4
in winter
and summer
'
_1
-~
"' ---
:3
TABLE3-1
CURRENT GENERAL RECREATION USER DAYS PER YEAR
ALL BASIN RESIDENTS
OCCASIONS USER DAYS TOTAL USER
ACTIVIlY PER RESIDENT 1 PER RESIDENT 2 DAYS IN BASIN 3
Motorboating 11 13.2 792,000
Snowmobile/Other
Winter ORV 11.2 13.44 806,400
Cross Country Skiing 10 12 720,000
Motorcycle/Other
Summer ORV 8.1 9.72 583,200
Tent camping 7.6 9.12 547,200
Hiking with a Pack 4.2 5.04 302,400
Kayak/Canoe 3.4 4.08 244,800
Alpine Skiing .8 .96 57,600
Horseback Riding 1.0 1.2 72,000
Other Inland
Activities 2.4 2.88 172,800
TOTAL 59.70 71.64 4,298,400
lAlaska Public Survey Exhibit 27 (Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan,
DNR, Division of Parks, 1981). In this analysis it is assumed that
the pattern of recreational activity of children is the same as
adults~
21.2 user days per occasion is used, based on the Denali Highway
Study (Off Road Vehicle Use and Its Impact on Soils and Vegetation
on Bureau of Land Management Lands Along the Denali Highway, Alaska:
A Report on the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey, University of Alaska
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1976).
3Basin population and user days per resident. The population of the
Basin is currently 60,000 people (Tanana Basin Socioeconomic Report,
DNR-DRD, 1982).
3-5
~
~
TABLE3-2
PROJECTED RESIDENT USER DAYS
FOR GENERAL RECREATION
PROJECTED POTENTIAL
POPULATION TOTAL
OF TANANA USER DAYS
BASIN USER DAYS/ IN BASIN
YEAR (fHOUSANDS)1 ADULT2 (MILLIONS)
1985 75 71.6 5.3
1990 85 71.6 6.0
1995 95 71.6 6.8
2000 105 71.6 7.5
1see Tanana Basin Socioeconomic Report (ADNR, 1982).
2see Table 4-1.
YEAR
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
TABLE3-3
PROJECTED USER DAYS FROM TOURISTS
IN 1985, 1990, 1995 AND 2000
PERCENTAGE
INCREASE OVER
1980USER
DAYS 1
170
340
510
680
TOTAL USER DAYS
(fHOUSANDS)2
258
438
745
1267
2154
1170% for each 5-year period.
:~ ~ ~ ~--~ -2veYc,e-n"tage-increase times 258 (current user days) divided by 100.
Source: Working Paper on Tourism, Louis Berger and Associates,
1982.
3-6
j
every 5 years. This is the same rate of growth that has
occurred in tourism over the last 8 years. Between 1973
and 1980 tourism grew 279%, or 34% per year, or 170% every
5 years {Tourism Working Paper, Louis Berger and
Associates, 1982). Table 3-3 shows how these estimates
were calculated along with the projected visitor days for
1990 and 1995.
Ill. CONCLUSIONS
There are currently a total of almost 4.5 million user
days spent on state land in the Tanana Basin on
recreational activities {Residents--4.2 million and
Tourists--258 ,000). This current demand for recreation is
likely to increase as population increases in the Basin,
and as Alaska becomes a better-known vacation stop for
out-of-state residents. By the year 2000, there will be
roughly 9.6 million days of recreational activity on state
land. This increase in user days is likely to put pressure
on existing recreation facilities in the Basin and increase
the use of areas that currently receive only moderate use.
3-7
1_, ~'
l
-,
-·--i
l
_j
l
" __j
l
J
..J
Chapter4
Supply of the Resource
.,
j
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the supply of land for recrea-
tion in the Basin. It estimates the amount of land of dif-
ferent quality which is available in the area for support-
ing recreational activities.
Summaries of the various recreational resources in the
Basin have been made by planning unit. These units have no
significance in themselves but are used strictly for con-
venience in inventorying the resources; it was felt that
acreage summaries could be more useful if done by smaller
units rather than for the Basin as a whole.
II. PHYSICAL CAP ABILITY OF THE TANANA BASIN
FOR RECREATION
This section of Chapter 4 is divided into two parts:
(1) criteria used to produce the maps of physical capabil-
ity, and (2) a summary of the various recreational sites in
the Basin by planning unit.
A. Criteria Used to Produee the Maps of Physieal
Capability. ·
The process used to develop a capability map for
recreational areas in the Basin had two steps. The first
step was to identify all sites in the Basin that have rec-
reational values. The second step was to attach a relative
value to each of these sites, so that the more important
and critical areas were highlighted.
The first step in mapping recreation in the Tanana
Basin was to identify specific areas with significant rec-
reational values. The various recreational uses that were
considered when identifying sites were as follows:
Trails:
Waterways:
Large Areas:
Small sites:
ORV use, horses, backpacking, cross
country skiing, dog mushing, snow-
machining.
Motorboating, rafting, kayaking, canoe-
ing.
Backpacking, camping, mountain climbing
ORV use, dog sledding, cross country
skiing, wildlife viewing, berry picking,
snowmachining.
Boat launches, campgrounds, waysides,
historic and archeological sites, sites
with unique geological, ecological or
other values; points of access.
4-1
Other items that were considered in the mapping
process were prominent landscape features and scenic views.
This map, and the accompanying narrative, was
developed by Nat Goodhue, the planning team member from the
Division of Parks and was based on the following sources of
information.
1. The Tanana Basin Land Use Atlas --This
atlas, published as a part of the Tanana
Basin Area Planning process in 1982,
includes an inventory of backcountry
areas, trails, waterways and sites less
than 160 acres (historic and archeo-
logical sites, highway turnouts, and
access points to trails, rivers and
backcountry) currently used for the
following activities: Cross country
skiing, dog sledding, hiking, horseback
riding, bicycling, four wheel drive
vehicles, off road vehicles, motorcycling,
snowmachining, boating, mountain climbing
and wildlife viewing.
2. State Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Parks Public Interest Land
identification and classification request
files.
3. Consultation with state park personnel.
4. Interviews with local residents.
The inventory map which was based on these sources
was then used to rank the various recreation sites which
have high, medium or low value.
The following criteria were used to determine these
different values.
4-2
CRITERIA
Existing Use
(Intensity of
existing use in
identified
site).
Location in
relation to
population
centers (Pro-
vides for
recreational
experiences
within certain
travel time
away from
residences).
Irreplaceable
nature of site.
HIGH
Area currently
receives inten-
sive use; or
moderate use
that is likely
to become
intensive in
the short term
(by 1985) •
Easily acces-
sible and with-
in 1 hour
travel of com-
munities (boat
or vehicle not
airplane).
Natural or cul-
tural feature
or recreation
opportunity
provided by
site is or will
be irreplace-
able in the
next 15 to 20
years.
RANKING
MODERATE
Area receives
moderate use
which is likely
to stay same
over the short
term (by 19 8 5) ;
or low use that
is likely to
be,come moderate
use in the
short term (by
1985).
Moderately
accessible
(road, trail or
water access
existing or
proposed within
5 miles of
site) with same
travel dis-
tances as in
high category.
OR Easily
accessible and
further than 1
hour travel
from commu-
nity. OR
Difficult
access within 1
hour travel
distance.)
Recreation
opportunity
provided by
site not irre-,
placeable in
short term, but
will be 20
years from
now.
LOW
Area receives a
low level of use
which is not
likely to change
over the short
term (by 1985).
Difficult access
(road, travel or
water access
greater than 5
miles from
site). Greater
than 1 hour
travel distance
from population
center.
Recreation
opportunity pro-
vided by site is
abundant and not
irreplaceable.
: = ~ ~ = ~ = Economrc =var,ue ~---Hi-gn--~po-ten~t_i_a_l~ --.---Moa-eraEe ~pot e-n------t-ow--po-tential---------
of Site for for tourism. tial for for tourism.
Tourism. tourism.
4-3
_I
--'
These four criteria were chosen for several
reasons. The existing use of an area was used to rank
sites since the current level of recreation activity is a
direct indication of the popularity of the sites. The
location of a site in relation to population centers was
based on the results of the Alaska State Outdoor Recreation
Plan (ADNR, DOP, 1982). It was determined in this plan
that residents in Interior Alaska highly value recreation
opportunities close to where they live. To account for
sites that are inaccessible, and do not currently receive
heavy use, but nevertheless are extremely unique and valu-
able, the last criterion was developed. Sites of this type
usually are highly valuable because they are irreplaceable.
A check list for each of the four considerations
listed above was filled out for each site. The final rank-
ing given to the site was then based on the highest ranking
of the four criteria. For example, if a river is ranked
high in the existing use category, but low in all three
other criteria, the final ranking of the site is high. All
sites, regardless of whether they were a campground, river,
or mountain climbing area were ranked in this manner.
The map developed using these criteria provides a
starting point for team members to develop a map that shows
the ·actions the state should take to protect the recrea-
tional resources in the Basin (see Chapter 7). The map in
this section indicates both the high priority areas and the
areas that have a less pressing need of protection.
B. Summary of Recreational Sites in The Tanana Basin
The following summary shows how the Division of
Parks applied the criteria discussed in the methods section
to sites identified on the inventory map to determine
whether the site was of high, medium or low value. Includ-
ed for each site is the final ranking it received for
existing use, location, the irreplaceable nature and eco-
nomic value of the site.
The map identifying the specific location of the
recreational sites included in the following summary is on
file at the Department of Natural Resources in Fairbanks.
Also included with the map is background information about
the various recreational values and uses of the site.
~-----------------------------------------------
4-4
EXa.USIOHS FROM TANANA AREA PLAN
~ 01..., Stolt Pion•
~ F....,ol or .. 111..., Lor>d
~iii§ NoiiYe Rt..,.,ollcoo·
........
J l., ,,j .J l .... J
N.C.A.
( ;:
' -·--' / ·-\
j
RIVERS
PRESERVE
' J
·,
WRANGELl· n ELIAS NAT'l. PARK II PII£SE.RVE
4-6
-, Reference Rank-Manage-
Unit Number Name of Site ing ment
--UNIT3
A 058 Tan an a River L 623
-,
c 049 Manley Hot Springs Road H 621
050 Manley Hot Springs M 601
066 Manley Hot Springs Trail H 622
221 Sawtooth Mountains Tr a i 1 H 622
243 Wolverine Creek Site t4 423
325 Tanana-Woodchopper Tr a i 1 L 622
326 Bean Ridge L 622
327 Roughtop Mountain L 622
328 Wolverine Creek L 622
D 048 Sawtooth Mountains L 601
065 Dugan Hi 11 s Tra i 1 M 622
239 Hutlinana Hot Springs_ H -425
' 240 Baker Creek Recreation Site H 415
329 Eureka Dog Mushing Trails M 424
330 Hutlitakwa Tr a i 1 M 424
., 331 Hutlitakwa Creek Trail L 622
-"'
UNIT4
'
A 032 Tolovana River H 417
035 Tolovana Hot Springs Dome H 425
333 Minto-Livengood Tr a i l L 622
334 Tolovana Hot Springs Trail M 424
'"" B 016 Deadman Lake Access M 415
C1 009 Chatanika River H 417
028 Lake Within Island H 425
030 Minto Lakes M 610
_ _;; 064 Dunbar to Brooks Terminal Tr. M 622
068 Fairbanks to Gibbon Ra.ad M 622
114 Alaska Railroad H 621
188 Nenana -01 d Minto Tra i 1 M 622
332 Old-New Minto Tr a i 1 M 424
335 Minto Lakes Tra i 1 M 424 -::
~ C2 164 Tatalina River M 623
394 Washington Creek Tra i 1 L 622
'i
D 156 Wickersham Dome H 460 ---' 157 Dalton Highway Greenbelt M 621
159 Tolovana Campground H 460
=~-~ ~ = -= ~ = ~ = ~ ~ ~ 161 Snoshoe Pass Campground H 460
4-7
.Unit
UNIT4
D
E
UNITS
A
_j
Reference
Number
264
265
309
155
163
245
353
010
045
046
052
057
072
073
074
076
078
080
091
092
112
115
132
133
200
235
236
246
247
248
281
319
337
344
345
351
356
357
358
Name of Site
Brown Lake
Tatalina River Access
Wickersham Burn
White Mountain Access
Rank·
ing
M
M
M
H
Amy Dome
Livengood
Livengood
M
Gold Mining Camps M
Archaeological Dist. M
Parks Highway
June Creek
Healy Campground
Stampede Road Trail
Nenana River
Rex to Bonnifield Trail
Rex to Bonnifield Alt.
Healy to Rex Trail
Nenana Foothills Trail
Rex to Nenana Trail
Toklat River to Lake
Minchumina Trail
Rex
Yanert River
Bear Creek
Panguingue Creek Historic
Dry Creek Historic Site
Otto Lake Historic Site
Kobe
Little Panguingue Slate
Creeks Trail
8 Mile Lake Trails
Suntrana Mine Safety Car
Panorama Mountain Landmark
Dry Creek Ridge Trail
Carlo Creek Archaeological
Nenana Canyon
Anderson Ski Area
Carlo Creek Trail
Carlo-Yanert Trail
Moose Creek Archaeological
Healy Access Site
Denali Park River Access
McKinley Village Access
4-8
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
L
H
M
H
H
Site H
H
H
H
H
M
M
L
M
SiteM
M
M
M
M
SiteM
H
H
Manage-
ment
415
423
425
424
421
440
422
621
415
423
622
417
622
622
622
424
424
622
415
623
415
413
413
413
416
416
424
440
425
424
422
425
421
424
424
422
415
415
415
-.
Reference Rank-Manage-
Unit Number Name of Site ing ment
'l ---
UNITS
' B 051 Rex Dome Area L 601
145 Denali Highway H 621
-' 237 Reindeer Hill M 421
249 Jonesville Bridge Access H 415
346 Wells Creek Access M 415
347 Jack River Trail M 424
359 Wells Creek Trail 424
-,
---' UNIT-6
-,
352 Cantwell Trails L 435
-----
"l UNIT7
-"
A1 021 Totatlanika River Trail L 622
l 250 W::>od River H 623
251 Gold King Trailhead M 624
.J 252 Japan Hills Trail M 424
267 Nenana Dog Mushing Area M 421
A2 349 Blair Lakes Trails L 622
B 071 Bonnifield-Trail M 622
_j 075 Liberty Bell and Daniels M 622
201 Rex Dome M 425
338 Walker Dome M 421
339 Healy Creek Trail L 622 _.
c 340 Dean Creek Trail M 424
341 Yanert Trail M 424
342 Moose Creek Trail M 424
343 Revine Creek Trail M 424
D 199 Mt. Hayes, Hess, Deborah M 425
-"' 350 Dry Creek Trail L 622
j 367 Black Rapids Trail M 424
-----------· _.
UNITS
._._.j A 230 WAMCATS Historic Trail H 416
253 Volkmar River M 417
254 Shaw Creek M 424
~~--~~~~~--~~~--382 Shaw Creek Trail M 424
4-9
--~
Unit
UNITS
A
B
c
UNIT9
A
B
Reference
Number
384
385
386
300
381
383
387
255
256
379
380
089
142
372
054
093
103
104
109
126
141
143
198
205
231
257
258
261
373
375
376
378
Name of Site
Volkmar River Trail
Goodpaster Trail
Black Mountain Trail
Healy River
Billy Creek Trail
Healy River Trail
George Trails
Fish-WJlf Lakes Waterway
Lake Mansfield Access
Mansfield Trail
Mansfield-Dot Lake Trail
Robertson Lakes
Alaska Highway
Knob Ridge Trail
Old Tetlin Trail
Tok River
Eagle Trail
Mt. Neuberger
Little Tok River
Tanana River Access
Taylor Highway
Glenn Highway
Tok Greenbelt
Tok River Rec. Site
Clearwater-Yerrick Trail
Mentasta Mountains
Mentasta Lake
Mineral Lake
Sheep Creek Trail
Mineral Lakes Trail
Tetlin Lakes Trail
Tanacross Trails
Rank-
ing
M
L
L
M
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
H·
M
H
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
~------------------·--------
UNIT 10
A 105
119
148
242
392
Panorama Peak St. Trail H
Monte Lake M
Robertson River M
Macomb Plateau St. Trail H
Robertson River Spruce Forest M
4-10
Manage-
ment
424
622
622
623
622
622
622
623
423
622
622
414
621
424
424
623
424
421
623
415
621
621
435
416
421
423
421
424
424
622
622
416
423
623
416
425
Reference Rank-Manage-
Unit Number Name of Site ing ment
'
UNIT IO
, B 113 Forrest Lake M 423
260 East Alaska Range M 610
374 To k River Trails L 622
UNIT II
-, A 223 Nabesna River f4 623
232 Chi sana River H 623
23 3 Island Lake flj 415
234 Paradise Hi 11 t4 415
26 2 Cheneathda Hi l 1 Tra i l M 424
377 Ba 1 1 Point Trail M 424
B 206 Ea g 1 e Tra i 1 Re c. Site H
-" ---------· ··-----
-.. UNIT I2
A 006 Murphy Dome Ridge Tra i I H 424
007 Murphy Dome H 421
008 Murphy Dome s k; H 440
027 Chatanika Ridge Trail t4 424
209 Lower Chatanika Rec Site H
~ 297 Elliot Highway 1'1 621
336 Chatanika Canyon H 425
393 Murphy Shovel Trail H 622
c-;
IH 174 Goldstream to Murphy Dome H 424
Greenbelts
175 Cache Creek-Left Fork Tr. H 424
17 6 Linco-ln Creek Tr a i l H 424
B2 226 Goldstream Access f4 415
C1 011 Goldstream Valley Greenbelt H 436
097 Nenana Ridge M . 415
~ 298 Bonanza Creek Stratigraphic A M 425
314 Bonanza Creek Ex p. Forest t~ 425
_j
C2 173 North Nenana Tra i l H
01 113 Bonanza Forest Tra i 1 H 424
1)2 107 Nenana Community Park M 432
= --= = ----= ---- ----~
~ E 002 Fairbanks Crescent H 436
012 Ester Dome H 601
4-11
Unit
UNIT12
E
j
F
G
Reference
Number
013
015
124
19 2
227
266
268
307
311
023
070
160
207
270
271
003
017
024
135
136
139
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
190
191
202
228
272
273
274
275
276
277
-.., 278
~-- - - -.. ---. -. .. . 305
308
Name of Site
Ester Dome Ski
Ester Community Trails
Dunbar Trail
Equinox Trail
Ester Dome Nugget Trail
Ester Gold Mining Camps
Aqueduct Trail
Ester Dome Mining Recovery
Ester Tailings
Chena Slough
Fairbanks 100 Mile Loop Tr.
Tanana Valley Overlook
Chena Lakes
Cripple Creek-Rosie Creek
Tanana River Access at
Bonanza
Rank-
ing
H
H
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
Chena River H
Pedro Dome H
Davidson Ditch H
Fairbanks Public Reserve H
Heritage Park H
Tanana Valley Railroad H
Spinach Creek Trail H
Dome Spur H
Moose Creek H
Moose Ridge H
O'Conner Creek H
Airfield Ridge H
Eldorado Creek H
Eldorado Ridge H
Silver Creek Trail H
Fox Ridge Trail H
Skyline Trail H
Jeff Studdert Dog Mushing Tr. H
Skarland Ski Trail H
Chena River Recreation Site H
Noyes Slough L
Fox Gold Mining Camp M
Big Dipper H
Birch Hill H
Creamers Dairy Wildlife Refuge H
Ski Boot Hill Expansion H
Musk Ox Public Reserve H
Pearl Creek School Park H
Spinach Creek Res. Watershed M
Ballaine Lake Aquatic Study A. M
4-12
Manage-
ment
440
434
424
435
424
440
434
425
425
435
435
415
414
434
423
436
425/413
416/413
433
433
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
435
436
435
440
432
432
610
440
431
431
425
425
Unit
~ UNIT 12
G
H
'1
I
J
K
Reference
Number
312
165
279
280
282
283
284
005
152
158
211
285
286
287
288
289
153
208
212
213
214
216
217
218
219
222
304
391
149
1 51
196
220
229
Name of Site
Fox Tailings
Rank-
ing
M
East Fairbanks Reserve H
Potlatch Ponds Public Reserve H
Little Chena River M
Chena Lakes Trail M
23 Mile Slough Trails H
Chena Trail Camp M
Chena-Gilmore Trails H
Fairbanks-Circle Corridor H
Steese Highway Greenbelt H
DOT Trail 73c M
Iowa Creek Trail M
Anaconda Creek Trail M
Colorado Creek Trail M
Governer's Cup North Tr. M
Chatanika Gold Dredge H
Mt. Ryan Ridge Trail M
Chatanika Rec. Site H
DOT Trail 303 (Old Chatanika M
Freight Trail)
DOT Trail 286 (Moose Creek) M
DOT Trail 262 (Nome Creek) H
DOT Trail 297 (Fairbanks Cr.) M
DOT Trail 288 L
DOT Trail 293 (Faith Creek) L
DOT Trail 294 (Montana Creek) L
Haystack Mountain Trail M
Caribou-Poker Creeks Research M
Watershed
Cripple Creek Trail M
Far Mountain Trail M
Chena Dome Trail H
Mt. Ryan M
DOT Trail 203 (North Fork M
Valley Trail)
West Fork Ridge Trail H
4-13
Manage-
ment
425
433
623
435
423
433
424
416/622
621
622
622
622
622
424
440
424
405
424
622
622
622
622
622
622
424/622
425
424
424
416
423
622
416
--
Reference Rank-Manage-
Unit Number Name of Site ing ment
UNIT 12 .
l' K 290 Middle Fork Chena River M 417
291 Jenny M. Trail M 424
L 004 Grange Hall Access Site M
1 241 Chen a Hot Springs ~'linter Tr. H 416
M 020 Chena Dome M 425
-~ 313 Granite Tors H 425
N 026 Salcha River Water Trail M 623
150 Chena Sunny H 440
" 197 Far Mountain M 421
292 Salcha Caribou Trail M 622
388 Salcha Trails M 622
-~ 389 Middle Fork Chena Trail M 424
390 West Fork Valley Trail M 622
d
-, 0 000 Eielson
p 000 Wainwright
"" ---
UNIT 13
::> 039 Black Rapids M 415
085 Delta River Corridor H 417/416 -• 123 Fielding, Summit Lakes H 414
125 Tangle Lakes H 460
144 Richardson Highway H 621
147 Canwell Glacier H 421
293 Tangle Lakes Archaeological H 460
Site
294 Tangle Lake Access H 460
302 Gulkana Glacier H 421
~ 303 Black Rapids Glacier M 425
368 Sugarloaf Mountain Trail M 424
-ii 369 Gulkana-Canwell Trail H 424
370 Castner Glacier Trail H 424
371 Robertson River Trail M 424
,.
4-14
1
1
,
1
_j
l
1 _,
_j
)
J
' J
l
J
n w
1
l
ChapterS
Benefit-Cost Analysis
.....:;.·--= = = = = = = = =-= =-=---~--=~----~-~----------------
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the relative economic value of
managing state land for general recreation in the Tanana
River Basin. It is part of a study of the economic value
of managing state land for six different resources:
settlement, fish and game, forestry, agriculture, mineral
development and general recreation. Each of the resources
is examined separately first and then combinations (due to
multiple use) will be discussed in a separate paper.
The first part discusses both the method used to
evaluate the economics of all the resources and the
specific application of this method to general recreation.
The second part of the paper presents the results of the
analysis. Due to lack of data on specific locations of
general recreation activities only part of the economic
analysis methods could be applied. Only net benefits to
state, income and employment effects could be estimated for
general recreation.
The results of this analysis represent the best
estimates currently .available. Although they are not
precise, they do indicate an order-of-magnitude estimate
and the method is significantly more detailed than any
previous evaluation of general recreation activities to the
economy of the Basin.
5-1
PART 1. METHODS
I. General Approach to Eeononlie Analysis
Before discussing in detail the method used to evalu-
ate recreation some background is necessary on the general
approach to the consistent evaluation of all of the land
management alternatives and the reasons for examining the
economic value of these alternatives.
There are three basic reasons for examining economic
value. First, economic information complements the physi-
cal information presented in Chapter 3 of this report and
gives perspective on both what is happening now in the
Basin and what the potential is. Secondly, economic data
supply important information concerning the profitability
of resource development; if a resource cannot be developed
profitably, it probably will not have a lasting effect on
the economy. Finally, because two objectives of the state
government are economic development and diversification,
economic information is needed to make decisions which may
benefit the economy.
The economic value of a resource has several mean-
ings. Economists define economic value as the worth of an
item or activity to society. This value can be measured in
monetary prices in the market place or it can be non-
monetary. In the case of a business, its economic value
can be measured in a relatively straight-forward way, in
the form of a financial analysis of the profitability of
the enterprise. In other cases, such as recreation or
hunting activities, there are economic values to the soci-
ety which are not measured directly in monetary terms, but
are imputed. in people's behavior and spending patterns.
Economic analysis attempts to measure people's values,
or the worth they place on different things, in terms of
their behavior. It assumes that if people cherish some-
thing their economic behavior will reflect this, and thus
their behavior can be used to indicate the worth which the
people attach to something. In this respect, economic
analysis is analogous to an attitude survey which attempts
to measure people's values.
For example, a view of Mt. McKinley may be considered
a priceless experience. However, many people place a great
deal of worth on this experience and expectedly, this worth
is reflected in their economic behavior: the prices of
homes with a good view of Mt. McKinley are significantly
higher than those without such a view. Thus, the differ-
~ ___________ ence _ in the_ value of these homes compared _to others __ of
= similar quality can indicate the minimum worth which people
at tach to the view. If the view were obstructed by some
development, the property value decreases significantly.
5-2
A. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
There are two common methods available for determining
the economic effects of public policy decisions. The first
is referred to as cost-effectivenss and the second is
benefit-cost analysis.
Cost-effectiveness is simply a method for finding the
least cost alternative for meeting a single objective. For
example, if the objective is to improve public health there
may be several alternative ways to meet this: more hospi-
tals, better health instruct ion in schools, etc. Each
approach would be casted out and the least cost alternative
would be chosen. Unfortunately, this method is not of use
in choosing between objectives. If there is not enough
money to meet all objectives, then choices between objec-
tives will have to be made and this method will not be of
assistance.
For this purpose, benefit-cost analysis has long been
the preferred approach.
Engineers in the 1930's,
common to all types of
1950's, it was adapted
and is now used by most
investment decisions.
First developed by the Corps of
the method has become increasingly
public policy decisions. In the
to private sector decision-making
of the major corporations to make
It is not a panacea, but it does provide a systematic
approach and there is extensive literature which documents
the ways in which benefit-cost analysis has been used to
examine a vast variety of public policy questions. There-
fore the benefit-cost approach is used in this report.
B. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS APPLIED TQ LAND MANAGEMENT.
ALTERNATIVES
The approach used below determines net benefits (bene-
fits minus costs) of each of six alternative ways to manage
land (mineral development, recreation, agriculture, fish
and game, settlement and forestry). Each of these alterna-
tives is examined separately at this stage, and combina-
tions will be discussed during the next phase (Alternative
Development) in order to evaluate the benefits of multiple
use.
First it is necessary to define who gains and who
loses from a particular land management alternative. Three
groups are generally identified: producers, consumers and
government. Producers are those who provide goods and/or
services for a monetary return. Consumers purchase these
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~go.o~dos_ and .. services. The government .often. incurs a. cost for .
..c-· any land management approach and this is often offset by
revenues received from user fees. For each of these three
groups, it is necessary to know what their situation is now
and what the effect of a change in land management policy
would have.
5-3
.,
-,
=~ ~ --= ~ ~ ~
.J
For example, recreational users are receiving some
benefit from the use of state land. What effect would a
decrease in the amount of state land open to recreation
have on these "consumers"? Likewise, what would be the
effect on local sawmills of an increase in the state's
allowable cut? Also, how much would it cost the state to
increase the amount of land disposals and what would be the
return to producers and consumers of doing so? Benefit-
cost analysis attempts to answer such questions.
The results of the analysis are ·aggregated over a
period of 20 years. This period of time was used for three
reasons. First, the time horizon of the plan is twenty
years. Secondly, forecasting for a period beyond 20 years
is very speculative and thirdly, the operation of the time
value of money renders cash flows after 20 years insignifi-
cant. For example, $1000 received 40 years from now is
worth only $22 today at a discount rate of 10%.
The net benefits of any action must be discounted to
arrive at their present value. The need to discount the
net benefits arises from the fact that a dollar received
several years from· now is not worth as much as a dollar
received today. Before the dollars received in different
years can be added together, they must be converted to
today's dollars by discounting. This process is similar to
converting measurements in yards and feet, into inches
before adding them together.
The discount rate is generally set at the interest
rate on borrowed funds. For this study, a discount rate of
10% was used which is the average interest rate charged on
agricultural loans. Because it is important to be consis-
tent, this rate was also used for the other resource
evaluations.
Each major step of the analysis is described below.
Producers, consumers and the state government are examined
separately first and then the results are totaled.
1. Net Benefits to Producers
First it is necessary to define who the producers
are. In this study, they are defined as those who expect
to make a financial return on the use of a resource. For
many resources, more than one product may be involved, in
which case the producers of each product are examined
separately first and then the results are summed. For
example, there are producers of lumber and producers of
fuelwood. The profits of each are examined separately and
_then the results _are summed.
5-4
1
For each type of producer, net benefits are measured
as profits.l The profits of an operation, such as a saw-
mill or farm, are measured in purely monetary terms.· The
first step in the analysis, is to determine if the resource
development is financially feasible. If the development
has been taking place for many years, this step is very
straig):'ltforward: what are the estimated profits of the
venture right now and what is the capacity for expansion?
If, however, there is no current operation or if the
development is expected to expand beyond current capacity,
then a detailed financial feasibility analysis must be done
to determine if the venture would be financially
profitable.
For example, if local sawmills have been turning a
profit for many years, they can be assumed to be feasible.
The next step is to determine the likely timber supply if
all available forest land were managed for timber. If the
sawmills can already handle this increase in supply, then
it is simply necessary to estimate profits. If they could
not handle the supply, then it would be necessary to do a
financial analysis of the expected costs and revenues to a
new sawmill.
A brief summary of the financial analysis required for
each resource is given below:
Settlement is unique as the purchase of a homesite is
assumed to be "financially feasible". It is assumed that a
person would not buy a parcel for more than its financial
value to him.
With forestry, preliminary estimates indicated that
current capacity is likely to be able to handle the fore-
seeable increase in timber supply and therefore no detailed
financial feasibility analysis was necessary. Only current
and projected profits of existing operations were used.
With fish and game, the producers were defined as
those whose ~principal" objective was financial return
(guides, commercial fishermen, and trappers). These
ventures are expected to be able to handle the foreseeable
supply and therefore no detailed financial feasibility
analysis was necessary. Only current and projected profits
of existing operations were used.
, lThe analysis is complicated by the fact that a producer
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ _m..a_y: also be .. con t rib uti n_g__t_~_h.e._e_c_o.num.¥--b¥-s_u_cb_thin_g_s_as__
d hiring people who may otherwise be unemployed. Due to
limited time and data, these opportunity costs were not
evaluated in this ·study.
5-5
...... - - - ---- - -
---
In mineral development, some types of minerals may be
developed or expanded and a preliminary financial feasibil-
ity analysis was performed to estimate the likely returns
to this industry.
With agriculture, the Delta farming area is now oper-
ating so it is assumed to be feasible for present opera-
tors. Other areas in the Basin may not be feasible so it
was necessary to perform a detailed financial feasibility
analysis.
For recreation, there is currently no large group of
producers dependent on state land for recreational enter-
prises. There is some interest in commercial alpine skiing
ventures, and a preliminary examination of the financial
feasibility of this type of venture has been included.
2. Net Benefits to Consumers
Consumers also stand to gain or lose due to changes in
public policy. Consumers are defined in this study as
those who purchase goods, services or "experiences" (as in
the case of hunting or recreation). Benefits to consumers
arise from two factors: 1) a decrease in the price of a
good or an experience and 2) an increase in the quantity
available of the good or of the experience. As in the
analysis of producers, it is necessary to determine the
status quo and/or potential and then the effect of a change
in policy on consumers.
The benefit to consumers is an increase in the welfare
or standard of living of the State's citizens (benefits and
costs to non-Alaskans have not been counted in this analy-
sis since state policies are generally aimed at only the
citizens of this state). If a state policy changes either
the price of a good or experience or the quantity avail-
able, then the welfare of the consumers is affected.
The analysis of consumers' net bene£ its requires an
understanding of the demand curve for a resource. As an
example, consider the market for fuel wood in Fairbanks.
You may find someone who would be willing to pay $120 per
cord for a few cords because it is that valuable to them.
Someone else might pay up to $110 per cord for a few cords,
but if the pice went any higher, they would burn another
fuel. Yet another person would consider $90 their upper
limit. If you could find each of these people and graph
their maximum willingness to pay against the cumulative
number of cords they would buy, the curve might look like
the one shown in Figure 1. If the supply were 20,000
cords, then all of the people who would pay $70 or more
--would have pur-chased-wood. The-person who considered the
wood to be worth only $69 per cord would not buy wood until
the supply expanded and the price fell to what she
considered the wood to be worth.
5-6
The most difficult aspect of the analysis of the bene-
fit to consumers is to estimate the demand curve. Ideally,
information could be obtained in different people's
willingness-to-pay {their upper limit) and this would be
graphed against the quantity of the good or experience
which they purchase. However, in many cases this informa-
tion is not available.
Willingness to pay information is generally obtained
from one of two sources: {1) through direct questions in a
statistical survey and { 2) indirectly through records on
how much people actually paid for different quantities.!
No accurate survey of the willingness-to-pay was available
for any of the resources. However, it was possible to
estimate the willingness-to-pay for hunting. in the Basin
through analysis of fish and game records.
For the other resources, a less desireable but neces-
sary substitute was used, called replacement cost. This
technique assumes that people would be willing to pay an
amount equal to the cost of the next best alternative. For
example, if no firewood were available, people may have to
switch to fuel oil and the cost of an equivalent amount of
heat in the form of oil could be used as a proxy for the
willingness-to-pay.
This technique is less than ideal for two major
reasons. First, it will underestimate what some people
would be willing to pay. Someone may want to burn wood for
aesthetic reasons and they will pay a lot for this pleas-
use. The willingness-to-pay approach should reflect the
lifestyle or aesthetic values which people obtain from a
resource. The replacement · cost method assumes that only
financial reasons are involved in the value consumers place
on an activity or item, and is therefore a less desireable
approach.
Secondly, the replacement cost value is not accurate
for those who would not switch to the assumed alternative
but who would use some other replacement. Therefore, the
replacement cost is not a precise estimate of the true
benefit to consumers {which is represented by triangle ABC
in Figure 2). However, it is often the only alternative
short of a detailed and expensive survey and it has been
used· in this study to estimate the benefits to consumers
for each resource except fish and game {which had adequate
data available to use the willingness-to-pay approach).
!This occurs only when people pay different amounts to
---------obt-a-in the same good, service or experience-,-a-s in-the case
of hunting or recreation when non-residents generally pay
~ much more to enjoy the same experience which Alaskans can
enjoy everyday.
5-7
._'"!
---,
,..;;
-~
Dollars
10,000 20,000 CORDS
Figure 1. De~nand Curve for Fuelwood
The shaded area i~ Figure 1 represents the value to each of the
consumers. The person who was willing to pay $120/cord has gotten a
bargain because she only had to pay $70. The same is true for the
person who would have paid $110 and the one who would have paid
$90 •. The one who would have paid only $70,. however, must consider
the deal just marginal; there is no "surplus" for him as he ~aid
just what he thought it was worth. If the "surplus" for each
individual who was willing to pay more were added together, the
total value would be equal to the area of the triangle ABC shown in
Figure 2. This shaded area determines the net benefit to the
consumers.
120
110
90
Dollars
70 .r
10,000 20,000
Figure 2. Hypothetical ConsUJDer Benefits froiD Fuelwood
5-8
CORDS
3. Net Benefits to the State ·
The net benefit (or net cost) to the state was also
estimated in order to give decision-makers an indication of
what it costs the state, if anything, to provide beneftts
to producers and consumers.
The net return to the state from the land disposal
program, for example, is determined from the revenues
obtained from the sale of land less the costs of adminis-
tering the program and surveying the land.
If the costs of a program exceeded the revenues to the
state, then the decision maker should examine the total net
benefits or costs (the sum of net benefits to producers,
consumers and the state) to determine if the program has a
positive effect overall.
C. OTHER IMPORTANT INDICATORS OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Although benefit-cost analysis is the most thorough
single method available for determining the benefits and
costs to society, it does not cover all of the important
economic effects which decision-makers need to consider in
allocating land to different uses. Other important meas-
ures of the economic impact of resource use are also evalu-
ated in this study in order to give a more complete picture
of the contribution of each resource to the economy.
I. Income Effects
Income effects are an important measure of the impact
of a particular industry on the economy. These effects are
important for the economic development of a region, which
in many cases is an objective for the management of a
resource. Therefore, these effects have been estimated for
each resource.
2. Employment Effects
Another concern of many decision-makers is the effect
on employment of a change in pol icy. Estimates of these
effects are therefore included in the evaluation of each
resource.
------------------------------------------3~--Nef-FiSCaJ.-EHCCfSOD[Oi~&l GOVernment
Although this study focuses on the benefits and costs
to Alaskan consumers and producers, the effects of state
decisions are also felt by local governments. Increases or
decreases in tax revenue to local governments, balanced
against changes in costs due to t.he policy·, give ari ·Iridic<i-~
tion of the net fiscal effects to local governments.
5-9
4. External Costs and Benefits
External benefits and costs are defined here as those
social, environmental and economic effects which are not
quantifiable but which are very important to decision-
making.
No analysis is ever truly complete in documenting
every possible effect and evaluating each of them in some
standard unit of measurement. This inadequacy is nowhere
more evident than in the evaluation of external costs and
benefits. These include the effects which even the most
sophisticated analysis cannot quantify with ease. Yet they
are as important, if not even more important, than the
effects which are more easily quantified.
This study includes qualitative discussions of some of
the possible effects of resource use which must be consid-
ered by decision-makers in determining land use alloca-
tions. These discussions are inevitably inadequate because
the effects cannot be measured in dollar terms and there-
fore it is not possible to indicate their magnitude rela-
tive to the effects discussed earlier. Also, it is not
possible to predict all of the possible external effects of
resource use.
However, we have attempted to document what some of
the possible non-quantifiable social, environmental and
economic benefits and costs may be for each resource and we
hope that this serves at a minimum to indicate the impor-
tance of these considerations.
5-10
II. APPLICATION OF THIS METHOD TO GENERAL RECREATION
A. CURRENT NET BENEFITS
General recreation is defined here as those activities
which require a natural setting and which do not involve
hunting, trapping or fishing. These activities include
backpacking, cross-country skiing, boating, snowmachining,
mountain climbing, dog sledding, horseback riding and use
of off-road vehicles (ORV's).
Recreational uses of land are compatible with other
uses such as forestry or fish and wildlife habitat. In
this chapter, however each resource is examined sepa-
rately. At a later stage the effects of combined uses will
be calculated to show the cumulative effect of multiple
land use in Alaska.
1. Net Benefits to Producers
In this analysis it is assumed that the majority of
general recreational producers, such as tour operators, are
not dependent on state land for their revenues. Although
there are groups which offer tours of Fairbanks and the
highway and railbelt areas, these operators do not depend
upon state land. Therefore, an analysis of producers is
not included in this report.
The benefits of Tanana Basin recreation are mainly to
people employed indirectly as a result of recreational
activities on state land (such as sport shop and cafe
owners). These benefits are discussed under· income and
employment effects.
2. Net Benefits to Consumers
As discussed in the general approach section, the
benefits of recreation to consumers are best estimated in
terms of the difference between what people would be
willing to pay for a recreational experience and what they
actually pay. However, several pieces of information which
are necessary for this approach are not available.
To estimate consumer benefits of general recreation,
it is necessary to have the following information:
1) The origin(by community) of the consumers;
2) The destinations of these people (as site-
specific as possible);
3) The cost of travel, food, lodging and equipment
to ~ach person1 and
4) The number of user days spent on the trip.
5-11
Information on origins and destinations is lacking.
Since the origin and destination information is essential
to the analysis, it was not possible to estimate the bene-
fits to consumers.
3. Net Benefits to the State
The cost to the State of managing general recreational
land was estimated from current operations in the North
Central District of the Division of Parks. This was done
by adding together ·a small percentage of the . Division's
overall planning budget and a large percentage of the oper-
ating budget of the Division's North Central District
Office.
4. Income Effects
Each year, th~ residents of the Basin and other Alaska
residents and tourists spend thousands of dollars on equip-
ment, travel and lodging for recreational purposes. This
spending contributes to the local economy in two ways: (1)
it has the direct effect of boosting the revenues of sport
shops, lodges, gasoline stations, etc., (2) it has an
indirect effect which occurs when these establishments buy
materials or services locally.
To estimate income effects, it was assumed that
expenditures on general recreational activities represent
income to the trade sector of the economy. This income
then served as the basis for estimating indirect income.
The multiplier that is used to determine indirect
income to the trade sector is 1.69 (Logsdon, et al.,
1977). This means that for every dollar spent in sport
shops, and cafes; another sixty-nine cents is spent in
Alaska by the owners of these establishments. The direct
revenues, multiplied by this factor gives an order-of-
magnitude indication of the contribution which general
recreation makes to the economy.
Not all of these expenditures on general recreation,
however can be attributed to state land. Much of the
income effect is due to recreation which occurs on private,
borough or federal land. Also, many of the expenditures
may occur outside the Basin or even outside the state.
Therefore, the income effect reported here represents only
a rough estimate of the importance of recreation to the
regional economy and cannot be attributed only to State
land.
5-12
5. Net Employment Effects
To provide a rough estimate of the employment effects
of recreation, the labor/output ratio of the trade sector
was used. it is estimated that there are 45 man-years in
this sector for every million dollars of income (Logsdon,
et al., 1977). Thus, if recreationists spend one million
dollars largely to businesses in the trade sector, then
· almost 45 man years of employment can be attributed to this
spending. (Although these ratios date back to 1972, it is
felt that the trade sector has not changed significantly
since then.)
In turn for every 100 jobs in the trade sector, there
are roughly 10 jobs in other industries (Logsdon et al.,
1977). Thus, the direct jobs were multiplied by 1.1 to
obtain a rough approximation of total man-years due to
expenditures made by general recreationists in the Basin.
6. Net Fiscal Effects on Local Governments
The types of general recreation activities discussed
here which occur on state lands are unlikely to have a
significant direct fiscal effect on local governments since
no tax revenue is generated and few if any services are
required of local governments.
7. External B~nefits and Costs
The social and environmental benefits and costs of
outdoor recreation cannot be_ estimated precisely. These
effects vary from individual to individual. A few of these
possible external effects are mentioned in this analysis.
B. POTENTIAL NET BENEFITS
I. Potential Costs to the State
It is difficult to estimate the cost to the state of
new recreational management responsibilities for two major
reasons. First, the cost to the state of managing for
recreation is not directly tied to population increases.
Second, the future cost to the State of managing land for
recreation is subject to how much land the state manages.
For these reasons no estimate of the potential cost to the
State is given in this analysis.
2. Potential Income Effects
Potential income benefits to the economy from recrea-
tion were estimated for the years 1985, 1990, 1995 and
:::~~~~~-~~--~2-0~o-o-:~~~TfiTs-was-done by using t~popuTat~ion projections-------
5-13
found in the Tanana Basin Socioeconomic Report (ADNR,
1982). The current income figure determined previously in
this report were increased by the same percentage as the
increase in the population of the Basin between 1980 and
1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000.
The resulting potential income effects of recreation
as estimated in this analysis is a rough approximation,
since it is based on the assumption that in the future
there will be no change in spending pattern of residents
for recreational equipment, travel, choice of recreational
activities, nor in the cost of equipment, travel, food or
lodging. At present no better assumption is available.
Potential income effects from tourists were also
estimated for 1985, 1990, 199 5, and 2000, and added to
resident income effects. This was estimated by increasing
the 1980 income from tourists by 170% every 5 years.l
3. Potential Employment Effects
As in current employment estimates, potential employ-
ment was based on the potential income effects as calcu-
lated in the previous section. Total mean years of work
that are generated in the Basin due to recreational
spending was calculated by assuming that every million
dollars of direct spending produces 45 man years of work
(Logsdon et al., 1977) s In turn, for every 100 jobs that
are created from direct spending, there are another 10
indirect jobs created in the Basin (Logsdon et al., 1977).
PART2.RESULTS
1. Recreation in the Basin
Residents in Alaska participate in outdoor recreation-
al activities almost five times as much as residents of
other states in the United States. 2 Much of the general
recreation in the Basin occurs on State land, and basin
residents spend a total of approximately 4. 2 million user
days every year on general recreation. This comes to
approximately 71.6 user days per resident. (See Chapter 4
on Demand and Current Use for details on recreation
a~tivity in the Basin.)
!Economic Development: Tourism's Vital Role, Alaska
V1s1tors Associat1on, 1981. The report states that
between 197 3 to 198 0 tourism has increased 279%. This is
-: 34% per year increase or a 170% increase every 5 years.
::-------------2XIas-:Ka_o_uE-door-Recreat:1on-P-ran.;--Aras:Ka -D-ivn,-rc,-n--<H--P-arxs-,-------------
Department of Natural Resources, 1981.
5-14
A. Current ·Net Benefits to Producers
As explained in Section II, this part of the analysis
was not applicable, since there are very few, if. any,
producers who are dependent solely on state land. (The
income effects for local businesses, however are given
later. )
B. Current Net Benefit to Consumers
As explained in Section II, there was not enough
in format ion available to estimate the benefit to consumers
that result from recreational activities on state land in
the Basin.
C. Current Net Benefits to the State
The State currently manages land for general recrea-
tion in the Tanana Basin. The Division of Parks has an
office in Fairbanks that maintains and polices designated
recreation areas in the Bas in, and also has a planning
staff that spends some of its time addressing recreational
concerns in the Basin.
In calendar year 1981, the state expenditures on
salaries, equipment and travel to adm~nister and plan for
general recreation in the Basin was approximately 590,000
dollarsl {D. Snarski and N. Goodhue, Division of Parks,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, personal communi-
cation, Oct~ 1982). During this time the state received no
revenues from general recreation on state land in the Basin
from permit or other fees. The net cost to the state from
recreation in the Basin is therefore approximately 590,000
dollars.
If this expenditure continues every year for the next
20 years, the State • s direct cost of managing land ·for
recreation would be $5 million dollars {at a discount rate
of 10%).
lAlaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, Alaska Division of Parks,
Department of Natural Resources, 1981.
3--- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------~ ----------------------------·---------- -~ ----~----------------,------~-
5-15
D. Current Income Effects
As explained previously in Part 1, Section II, current
income can be estimated by calculating the total amount of
money spent in the Basin by Alaskans and non-residents for
general recreation.
Residents in the Basin spend approximately 17 million
dollars every year on recreation. This means that the
average resident in the Basin spends approximately
$28 3/year on equipment, travel and food and lodging (see
Appendix A for details).
Total direct expenditures by both residents and tour-
ists for recreation is approximately 27 million dollars;
including 17 million from residents and 10 million from
t.ourists (see Appendix A).
Total indirect income from general recreation in the
Basin was calculated by multiplying this total expenditure
by 1. 69. This results in a total direct and indirect
income to the Basin from general recreation of 46 million
dollars. This income however, should not be attributed
entirely to state land since much of the general recrea-
tional activity in the Basin occurs on non-state lands.
E. Employment Effects
According to Logsdon, the labor to output ratio for
the trade sector is 45 person years for every million
dollars of revenue. Using this ratio the total number of
direct jobs in the Basin as a result of recreation is
approximately 1,240 man-years.
There are a total of about 1360 indirect and direct
jobs in the Basin that result from general recreation on
state land. This was calculated by using an employment
multiplier of 1.10.
F. Net Fiscal Effects on Local Governments
General recreation has no direct fiscal effect on
local governments.
5-16.
G. External Benefits and Costs
The principal external benefits of general
(non-hunting and fishing) recreation are· psychological.
Recreation provides residents in the Basin with an
opportunity to have unique and diverse experiences in a
natural setting. Residents seem to value these
opportunities highly, as is indicated by their high
participation rates in general recreational activities.
The reasons for participation in these activities vary
from individual to individual. The following is a list of
reasons voiced by participants for their involvement, and
indicate the nature of some of these external psychological
benefits from recreation, and the percentage of residents
in the Interior who cite each reason for their involvement.
TABLES-I
IMPORTANT REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAVORITE
RECREATION ACTIVITIFS
REASONS
1. Getting away from usual demands
of life
2. Being close to nature
3. Being with friends and family
4. Keeping physically fit
s. Doing something exciting
6. Experiencing new and different
things
7. Experiencing more elbow room
8. Testing your abilities
9. Developing skills and abilities
10. Gaining self-confidence
11. Being in control of things
12. Identifyin~ with Alaska heritage
13. Being alone
INTERIOR
90%
79%
82%
81%
79%
79%
78%
75%
73%
75%
69%
51%
48%
Source: Alaska State Outdoor Recreation Plan, ADNR,
Division of Parks, 1981.
-......------- - - - - - --------------------------~-~------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------_,
5-17
Closely related to these external psychological benefits,
is the contribution that recreation makes to the overall
quality of life in the Basin. Residents often say that
having diverse recreation opportunities within a day's
drive of their home is one of the major reasons they live
in the Basin.
Ill. POTENTIAL NET BENEFITS
As explained in Sect ion II above, the potential net
benefits from recreation for producers, consumers and the
state, were not calculated. The only potential benefit
calculated in this analysis is income and employment •.
A. POTENTIAL INCOME EFFECTS
The potential net income effect to the State from
recreation on State land in 1985 is roughly 64 million
dollars and in the year 2000, about 190 million dollars
(see Table 5~2). The table also includes income estimates
for 1990 and 1995.
As discussed in the methods section, these estimates
assume that the principal factor affecting future recrea-
tional spending is population growth. No adjustments were
made for changes in recreational patterns, prices or
supply. Therefore, these results should be used to indi-
cate only a very rough estimate of potential income effects
in 1982 dollars.
B. POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS
The potential number of jobs in the Basin by 1985 that
are a result of general recreation spending is approxi-
mately 1900. By the year 2000, the total number of jobs is
likely to increase to 5600 jobs. Table 5-3 gives estimates
of the number of jobs that are likely to be generated from
recreational spending every 5 years to the year 2000.
PART 3. CONCLUSIONS
As shown in Table 5-4, the total present net benefits
of general recreation in the Basin for producers and
consumers was not determined due to data limitations. Net
benefits to the State, income and employment effects were
calculated however.
--=----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o:..i
5-18
Cfl .... cc
, .. ) ,J L ~ , J L 'J \_ '' ,,L, l ' ~ ,)
TABLE 5-2
POTENTIAl. INCOME EFFECTS FROM RECREATION IN 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000
Potential Potential
% Direct Direct Total
Increase in Income Income Direct
Population 1980 Income in Millions in Millions Income
1980 Projected Over 1980 in Millions of Dollars of Dollars in Millions
Population Population Population of Dollars from Residents from Non-of Dollars
YEAR (thousands) (thousands)! (b/a) from Residents2 (cxd) Res1dents3 (e+f)
(a) ------rEi> (c) (d) (e) (f) (9)
1980 60 17 17 10 27
1985 60 75 125 17 21 17 38
1990 60 85 142 17 24 29 53
1995 60 95 158 17 27 49 76
2000 60 105 175 17 30 83 ll3
______ I ---------------
1
!Tanana Basin Socioeconomic Paper.
2see Appendix A.
3This is based on the assumption that there is a 170% increase in non-resident recreation every 5 years (see text).
4The mult~plier for the trade sector is 1.69 (Logsdon et al., 1977).
'J J
Total
Direct
and
Indirect
Income in
Millions of
Dollars
(gxl.69)4
(h)
46
64
90
128
190
~
N
Q
L ,I .J .:,J/
I
I
I Y1EAR ($
I
i
1:980
I
1:985
I
I
I 11990
I
I
i
11995
I
2:!ooo I
I
'
i
I
1lsee Table 1.
Direct
'~) ~ ' JJ l ' "J \._ " ' .. i...l
TABLE 5-3
POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS FROM
RECREATION FOR 1980 THROUGH 2000
Income 1 Direct Jobs2 Total Jobs
Millions) (Man Years) (Direct + Indirect)3
17 1200 1400
38 1700 1900
53 2400 2600
76 3400 3800
113 5100 5600
2:iAssumption used to calculate Direct Jobs is that for every million spent there
a1re 45 man months created in the economy (Logsdon et al., 1977). Rounded to
I nearest 100.
lA 1.10 multiplier was used to get total jobs (Logsdon et al., 1977).
The yearly cost to the State to manage recreation in
the Tanana Basin is approximately 590,000 dollars. The
current contribution of general recreation to the local
economy is roughly 46 million dollars, and the potential
contribution recreation will make to the local economy by
the year 2000 is approximately $190 million. Current
employment effects are roughly 1400 jobs, or about 6% of
total Basin employment. By the year 2000, employment due
directly or indirectly to general recreation may be in the
range of 5600 person-years. These current and projected
benefits cannot be attributed only to state lands, however,
since much of the recreational activity in the Basin occurs
on Federal, Borough, and private lands.
The external benefits of recreation reside principally
in the psychological value people gain from participating
in recreation and the contribution recreation makes to the
overall quality of life in the Tanana Basin.
5-21
TO CONSUMERS
$/YEAR PRESENT VALUE
OVER20YRS
Resident Not Applicable
" ~ Tourist (See Part I,
Section llA) u
Total
Resident
"' 00 Tourist ~
Total
Resident
0
"' Tourist ~
Total
Resident
"' "' Tourist ~
Total
r---
Resident
0
0 Tourist 0
N
Total
~ I
' l,
TO PRODUCERS
$/YEAR PRESENT VALUE
OVER20YRS
Insufficient
Information to
Complete Analysis
(See Part I,
Section liB)
Not Possible
to Calculate
(See Part 2,
Section A)
• .J .J '-' ' j
TABLE 5-4
NET BENEFITS
NET RETURN TOTAL TO THE STATE
(f)
(lj PRESENT VALUE $/YEAR PRESENT VALUE
$/YEAR OVER20YRS OVER20YRS
-----590,000 -5,000,000
----
----
----
----
DIRECT& NET
INDIRECT DIRECT& FISCAL
VALUE INCOME INDIRECT EFFECTS EXTERNAL PER EFFECTS EMPLOYMENT ON LOCAL COSTS ACRE MILLIONS EFFECTS GOVERNMENTS AND OF BENEFITS PERSON (f)
$/ACRE $/YEAR YEARS $/YEAR
29 841
Psychological
--17 495 quality of 0 life
46 1336 beneiits.
35 1039
--29 842
0
64 1881
41 1188
--49 1435 0
90 2623
45 1335
--83 2425 0
128 3762
50 1485
--140 4108 0
190 5593
n _j
n
l.J
L.-'
c
n u
n u
D
D
D
c
D
c
r:
6----------------·-----
Chapter&
Demand vs. Supply
,
INTRODUCTION
A quantitative comparison of supply and dernana for
recreation as a resource is not available at this time.
The demand assessment (Chapter 3) was based on user days by
activities rather than by estimates of acreage required to
support demand. Supply areas (Chapter 4) were given a
high, medium or low ranking based on their existing use,
proximity to population centers, the irreplaceable nature
of the site and the site's economic value for tourism. No
estimate was made of the number or types of users for a
given site or area. Therefore it is not possible to
correlate supply and demand information at this point.
6-1
1
i
j
_j
l
J
9
1
!
_j
[}
0
D
c
n ......
LJ .. - -
Chapter7
Recommendations
I. STATEWIDE GOALS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATION
MANAGEMENT IN THE TANANA BASIN
A. Introduction
The Statewide Natural Resources Plan is the broadest of the plans
developed by the Department of Natural Resources. It provides the
context for the area plans, such as the Tanana Area Plan, by setting
forth goals and objectives for each resource. The Statewide Plan is
used in formulating ADNR's budget and setting inventory and planning
priorities.
1. Provide Easily Accessible Outdoor Recreation
Opportunities for Present and Future Generations of
Alaska Residents.
A high proportion of outdoor recreation in the Tanana Basin requires
extensive areas which are publicly owned and in which recreation
ex peri nces are not degraded by other uses. The highest proportion of
outdoor recreation occasions occur close to people's homes. Therefore
from a use viewpoint the most critical areas for recreation are within
and adjacent to population centers. As communities become increasingly
urbanized, people's need for places which enable a contrast in setting as
afforded by an accessible and extensive natural environment is
increasingly important. Dedication of land for public recreation is
necessary to ensure that land is available for present and future
generations.
In the Tanana ~asi n, this may not necessarily mean that lands wi 11
be placed in the State Park System. While it is important to retain a
publicly owned land base for recreation, traditional outdoor activities
may not require the additional protection afforded by legislative
designation.
2. Provide Easily Accessible Opportunities for Outdoor
Enjoyment of Outstanding Natural Areas for Present and
Future Generations
Outstanding natural areas and features contribute to ttle diversity
of the landscape. Where these areas are easily accessible to residents
and tourists, they deserve protection through public recreation
classification in order to ensure their long term enjoyment. The Tanana
Basin exhibits a substantial number of outstanding features which add to
recreational variety in the Basin and are worth protecting for future
generations.
3. Encourage Appreciation of Alaska's Heritage Resources
~ __________ t.r~as __ ~i_t]l ___ h~r:i_tage value _Rroyi<i_e historj c_<tl _knowledge that ___ can _____ _
~ contribute significantly to the Tanana Basin's distinctive identity.
7-1
-,--
-'
Interior residents recognize their unique cultural heritage which is of
interest to interior residents and tourists alike.
There are two legislative designations for areas with historic
resources and another non-legislative designation recommended for some
areas in the Tanana Basin. Additional sites may exist that are not yet
i dent ifi ed or protected. Estab 1 i shi ng adequate inventory programs and
project planning processes that give early consideration to these
resources wi 11 be a high priority.
3. Encourage Outdoor Recreation on Lands Outside the State
Parks System
This goal is especially important in the Tanana Basin, where
recreational needs and desires are often linked to subsistence and other
activities not normally pursued within the confines of a state park.
Large acreages are needed to rneet interior residents' demand for uses
such as trapping, snowmachining, backpacking and hunting. The continued
use of many large areas is threatened by land disposals, development of
private lands and concurrent loss of access. A prerequisite to non-park
recreation is protection of the recreational land base. In Tanana many
different types of recreation areas and trails are important to
preserve. Th·e proposed designations in this chapter are intended to
create a system with, for example one trail leading to another and open
spaces to break up urban and resident i a 1 areas in order to create the
feeling of open space and recreational opportunities instead of a few
scattered recreational sites. ·
To achieve this goal for the Tanana Basin, it wi 11 ·be important for
the Tanana ljasin to keep abreast of people's recreational needs and
desires. Encourage implies to make available but what is made available
should always be tempered by a reasonable attempt to find out what people
have in mind in terms of recreation and providing lands to fulfill those
needs first. Also since needs will change it's very important to reserve
enough recreation lands and open spaces to be able to use or develop new
types of areas or opportunities as recreational patterns change or an
increase in population creates nev~ demands in recreational systems.
4. Provide Support and Contribute to Alaska's Tourism
Economy
One of the reason's people come to Alaska as tourists is to
recreate. The unique and varied recreational· opportunities attract many
recreationists. An additional attraction is the possibilities for
wilderness and backcountry experiences, possible because the state is not
yet highly populated.
It is important to protect these resources because they provide a
source of income for state residents as well as recreational
opportunities. The potential revenue by 1985 is $17 million in annual --ar red-fncome -rroln-touriSts-recreat: fng-in the Basin and up fo $83 m-i l1 ion--
annually by the year 2000.
7-2
j
~.
For recreation to support and contribute to Alaska's tourism economy
recreation land must be
recreation opportunities
facilities is needed.
Conclusion
available and accessible. A
from wildlands to developed
variety of
recreation
In the Tanana Bas in exists one of the world • s great opportunti es to
live in close proximity to Doth the benefits of a developed community and
the freedom of a vast and wild hinterland. The {reedom offered by room
to roam to heights unsurpassed on the continent, and the shelter of the
birch and sp~uce forests and abundant wildlife along the numerous rivers
are important reasons for living in and visiting the Tanana Basin.
Although the continuing increase of human residents and transfer of·
lands from pub 1 i c to private ownerships threatens the freedom of the
past, implementation of the recommendations for retention of an extensive
and diverse array of land and water areas for public recreation use will
enable a cherished lifestyle and attractions for visitors to continue.
The recommendations for achieving recreation and tourism goals
within the Tanana Basin shall be implemented in the following methods:
legislative designation of variety of geographically well
di stri Duted and outstanding recreation a 1 and historic resources
as units of the State Parks System.
Transfer of valuable state-owned recreation areas and greenbelts
within communities to municipalities .or local jurisdictions for
community and neighborhood recreation area and trails.
Private developnent and management of recreation resources such
as lodge sites and winter sports resorts which provide
recreation opportunities not as effectively provided by public
agencies.
7-3
__ ,
,_j
0
lJ
' l
I
~
1
=""""""'-- - ----_.
Recommendations
for how Tanana Basin
will Contribute Toward
Meeting Goals
J
II. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
I. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGNATIONS
1. Legislatively Designated Inclusions into the State
Park SysteJD
These lands are identified in the element map as meeting certain
criteria and are recommended for inclusion into the State Parks System.
The criteria and specific areas recommended for state park status are
listed in the following sections by type of state park unit. ·These are
as follows:
A. State Park
B. State Historic Park
c. State Historic Site
D. State Recreation Area
E. State Recreation Site
F. State Trail
G. State Recreational River
H. State Preserve
Tb further clarify the intent for management of land and resources
within state park units, all lands within each park unit are classified
in one or more of the following zones.
NaturalZone -Natural zones are established to provide for moderate
to low ~ct and dispersed forms of recreation and to act as buffers
between recreational development and wilderness zones.
These zones are relatively undeveloped and undisturbed, and are
managed to maintain high scenic qualities and to provide visitors with
opportunities for significant, natural outdoor experiences. An area's
natural landscape character is the dominant feature within this zone.
Landscape modification may be· allowed to enhance, maintain or protect the
natural setting according to the unit management plan.
Cultural Zone -Cultural zones are established to preserve,
invest1gate, document and interpret Alaska's cultural resources and
heritage.
Cultural zones are designated to provide crlequate protection of
historical, cultural, archaelogical or anthropological resources. These
zones may contain a single feature or an assemblage of historic features.
7-4
R~creationalDevelopmentZones -Recreational development zones are
estab 11 shed wi thl n the state park system to meet the more intensive
recreational needs of the public with convenient and well defined access
vi a roads, rail roads, boati ny anchorages, airstrips, and hi gil standard
trai Is; ·witll more intensively developed recreational facilities such as
campgrounds or ~icnic areas; with guided activities; and with information
centers to orient the visitors to the unit•s special features.
The landscape within this zone can be modified to suport educational
and recreational activities and/or to enhance wildlife habitat and scenic
qualities. These zones are established where soils, slope, drainage and
vegetation can support more intensive recreational activities.
WildernessZones -Wilderness zones are established to promote, to
perpetuate and where necessary to restore the wilderness character of the
land and i~s specific values of solitude, physical and mental challenge,
scientific study, inspiration and primitive ·recreational opportunities.
These zones are characterized by the natural landscape, its
vegetation and geologic forms. Resource modification can occur in this
zone only to resotre areas to a natural state. Natural processes will be
allowed to operate freely to the extent that human safety and public and
private property are protected.
A. STATE PARK
1. Criteria for Recomm.ending
a. State Park (SP)
A state park is a relatively spacious area possessing outstanding
and distinct natural, cultural, scenic and/or scientific values. The
dominant management objective of the unit is to maintain the park•s
natural and cultural resources for long-term use and enjoyment by the
public. A level of recreational opportunities, which is compatible with
the unit•s resource values, shall be provided. In most cases, the
primary purpose of the state park unit is set forth by the legislature
through its enabling legislation and accompanying reports.
State parks have statewide or regional significance. State parks
should be of sufficient size to insure long-term protection of an area•s
primary resource values.
The majority of lands in a state park normally will be classified as
natural and wilderness zones. Recreational development zones will be
strategically located to provide public access to, and enjoyment of, park
resources.
2. Sites Identified to be Included
·~ ____________ ~()_ ~ !~~e_ p~ ~~s _ ~~ r:_e i de_n_t] !i_E!_'!_ ~~ t_h~ _I_a_11a_~a ~a~i!:'~ ______________________ _
~
7-5
.J
3. Justification
The outstanding natural features in the Basin which meet the
criteria for "Parks" status are presently under some form of managernent
which has or could potentially ~otect the resource for enjoyment by
future generations. These include:
Mt McKinley or Denali within Denali National Park
Dolomite Tbrs within Chena River Recreation Area
W1ite Mountains within the National Recreation Area
Tangle Lakes· within BLM management
Wickersham Dome within BLM management
B. STATE HISTORIC PARK
1. Criteria for RecoiDJDendation
A state historic park is an area containing an assemblage· of
significant historical, cultural, archaeological or anthropological
resources from representative eras of Alaska's history or prehistory.
The dominant management objective of a state historic park is bo ~eserve
and interpret historic resources for Alaskans and visitors to the state •
State historic parks possess cultural resources of statewide or
regional significance. A unit's size should be capable of ~oviding
adequate protection of historical, cultural, archaeological and/or
anthropological resources. State historic parks are generally larger, in
terms of land area, than state historic sites.
In most state historic parks, a majority of the land area will be
classified as a cultural zone. Recreational development zones will be
designated for the development of visitor support facilities {i.e.,
parking lots, interpretive centers, and toilets). The natural zone
classification may be used for lands whici1 are managed as buffers between
the unit's historical or cultural resources and existing or anticipated
adjoining land uses.
2. Sites Proposed to be Included
The Delta State Historic Park (Rikas Landing) is an example of this
category of management. No additional State Historic Parks were
recommended in the Tanana Basin.
3. Justification
The historic areas in the Basin do not meet the criteria for State
Historic Parks in terms of their size and focus. Areas with historic
value are recommended for protection either as State Historic Sites or as
~ _______ .. _Histor_ic_S_ites_oot_legislati~ely_designated. ___ . ________ -------------------·---------·---
7-6
-.i
l
C. STATE HISTORIC SITE
1. Criteria for RecollliDendations
A state historic site is a relatively·small area established and
managed to preserve, interpret and/or conmerrorate a structure, object
and/or event of historical, cultural, archaelogical or anthropological
value which represents an era of Alask's history or prehistory.
State historic sites possess a cultural resource of statewide or
regional significance. They differ from state historic parks in terms of
size and general focus; sites are smaller and focus on single items or
events rather than on a complex or assemblage of historic resources.
In most state historic lists, a majority of the land area will be
classified as a cultural zone. Recreational development zones will be
designated for the development of visitors support facilities {i.e.,
parking lots, interpretive centers, and toilets). The natural zone
classification may be used for lands which are rnanag.ed as buffers between
the unit's historical or cultural resources and existing or anticipated
adjoining land uses.
2. Sites to be Included
Davidson Ditch Historic Sites
Pedro Dome Historic Sites
Dry Creek Historic Site
otto Lake Historic Site
3. Managem.ent Guidelines
The intent of these areas is to preserve and interpret historic
resour~s for Alaskans and visitors. No other resource activities are
permitted with the exception of those which are part of the unit's
history or which support adaptive reuse and enhance the historical scene.
4. Justification
Significant events and landmarks which don't require the
preservation of the entire historic setting should be oommernorated
through the designation of specific sites of limited size. These sites
enrich the lives of residents arrl visitors, and should be actively
maintained so as to maximize the educational benefits.
---,----~ ~ ~---------------~ ~--~ ~-----., ~----------~-----~-----~ -~----~-~---~---------------·
7-7
D. STATE RECREATION AREA
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendations
A state recreation area is a relatively spacious unit and possesses
a diversity of outdoor recreational opportunities. The dominant
management objective of the unit is to ~ovide a maximum level of outdoor
recreational opportunity based on the natural values of the unit and its
ability to sustain use without significant adverse effects on natural
systems.
A state recreation area possesses recreational and/or natural
resources of statewide or regional significance. A state recreation area
represents diverse natural landscapes capable of supporting a wide
variety of outdoor activities.
The majority of the lands within a state recreation area will be
classified as natural and recreational development zones. Cultural zones
will be established where app~priate. Only in special cases will any
lands be classified as wilderness zones.
2. Sites to be Included
.Ebbertson Lakes
Island Lake
Paradise Hill
Lake Minchumina
· Yanert Recreation Area
Murphy IX>me
Fielding, Summit Lakes
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
These areas will maintain fish and wildlife population at or above
current levels and ~ovide for human use of these resources. Personal
firewood cutting is allowed where, with careful planning, it will
contribute to enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities. New trails are
pennitted and so is habitat enhancement. other resource uses are not
permitted.
4. Justification
Designation of State Recreation Areas is needed where recreation
values are so great that legislation to insure term long protection is
merited. Areas for active recreation will satisfy high participation in
a number of activities. Reconmended areas are intended to satisfy the
current population which participates in activities such as fishing,
7-8
J
camping, riverboating, and winter sports nore frequently than the
national average, a reflection on the opportunities which attracted
people to stay or oome to the basin. Also the distribution and number of
recreation areas with long term protection must meet the needs of the
projected increase in population. Designation must occur in advance of
irretrievable loss to other uses.
E. STATE RECREATION SITE
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
A state recreation site is a relatively small area that provides one
or nore outdoor recreational opportunities. A state recreation site ma.y
also be established to provide access to outdoor recreational lands and
opportunities rot managed as }?art of the State Park System. Management
objectives are site-specific, but generally emphasize recreational use
over resource protection.
State recreation sites possess recreational resources of statewide
or regional significance. 'Ihe unit should be of sufficient size to allow
for future expansion of recreational facilities, to provide an adequate
buffer to adjoining land uses, and to provide an adequate buffer for the
protection of the quality of recreational·opportunities in the unit.
Normally, from one-quarter to three-quarters of a state recreation
site's land area will be classified as a recreational development zone.
Sensitive areas such as wetlands, beaches or streambanks r:ormally will be
classified as natural zones. Cultural zones will be identified and
established where the presence of historic and archaeological resources
is significant enough to warrant this designation.
2. Sites to be Included
· Baker Creek
Deadman Lake Access
Brown Lake
June Creek
Rex
Bear Creek
Healy Access Site
Denali Park River Access
McKinley Village Access
Nenana River Access
Jonesville Bridge Access
~lls Creek .Access
Tanana River Access
Goldstream Access Sites
Nenana Ridge
Tanana Valley ~erlooks
-~ -~ ~ ~~ ~, --~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~· ~ ~ ~ ~ ~&l1aek~-Raf)i€1s~~~--~·~~"~-~--~-·~--.. ~~ ~ ~ ·~ ~ ~~~ ----~~.~~~ ~. ~----~ ~ .~ ~ -·-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -·-~ ~
Grange Hall Access
7-9
"'·
~.
:o.
3. ManageJDent GuideUnes
Timber cutting and sales are allowed where they will help achieve a
management objective such as clearing for recreational facility
development or prevention of forest loss from disease or bark beetles.
Habitat enhancement is allowed for the purposes of enhancing outdoor
recreational opportunities while protecting natural and cultural values.
These sites will often promote road access to recreation opportunities.
4. Justifieation
Designation of relatively small sites for trailheads, bOat launching
sites, campgrounds and rest areas will in many locations provide
extensive recreation opportunities in the back country and on the
rivers and lakes. Heavy use of these departure and congregating p:>ints
requires active management which can be provided within the State Park
System.
F. STATE TRAIL
1. Criteria for ReeoJDJDendation
A state trail is a land and/or water-based linear recreation use
oriented corridor which possesses significant recreational, natural,
cultural, wilderness a~d/or scenic resource values. The management
objective of this unit is to provide for the use and/or protection of
recreational, educational, historical, scenic and natural values and
opportunities for which the unit was identified and established.
State trails are of statewide or regional significance. Where
possible, the width of the state trail corridor on land will be from 100
meters to one-half mile on each side of the trail centerline. There will
be circumstances, such as easement purchases on ron-state land, where it
will be "necessary to establish corridors of less than the desired width.
A trail can be established on state land or may be designated in areas
where other entities manage the surrounding land. The trail corridor
shall be acquired in fee simple public ownership wherever practical and
shall be of sufficient width to protect the values and opportunities for
which the unit is established.
Since state trails are linear corridors, sections of a trail and
adjoining lands will be ~ned as necessary to protect the associated
resource values. The annunt of land classified per ~ne will vary from
trail to trail depending on the nature of resource values present and the
desired public use of the trail.
~-----~----
_;;
7-10
l
'
l
l
)
l
_J
2. Trails to be Included
North Sork Valley Trail
Little Panguingue Slate Creeks Trail
Kobe Trail
Eagle-WNMCATS Historic Trail
Clearwater-Yerrick Trail
Panorama Peak State Trail
Davidson Ditch
Chena Dome Trail
vest Fork Ridge Trail
Chena lbt Springs Winter Trail
Fairbanks-circle Corridor
Macomb Plateau State Trail
Reindeer Mountain Trail
White Mountains Access Trail
3. ManageDlent Guidelines
Permitted resouree uses are access across trail corridors, habitat
enhancement with the exception of pcescribed fire, and removal of fallen
trees for firewood.
4. Justification
Extraordinarily high participation by Basin reside_nts arrl visitors
in trail related recreation opportunities require designation of a
diverse trail system. Geographic distribution is needed to serve
residents and travellers throughout the basin and crljacent to comnunities
arrl major travel routes. Separate trails are needed for incompatible
activities in order to e1sure the enjoyment of all users. Designation of
some trails as units of the State Park System is warranted to perpetuate
the most outstanding trail experiences.
G. STATE RECREATIONAL RIVER
1. Criteria for RecoDlDlendation
A State Recreation River is a continuous or, where necessary, a
discontinuous corridor encompassing a river, or portion of a river, and
the associated upland area which possesses significant recreational,
natural, cultural. wilderness and/or scenic resource values. The primary
management objective of the unit is to pcovide for the use and pcotection
of the recreational, educational, historical, aesthetic and natural
values and opportunities that are associated with the river and its
related upland.
State recreation rivers possess recreational, natural and/or
cultural resources of statewide or regional significance. Wherever
practical, the unit corridor should be from 200 feet to one mile beyond
each riverbank, allowing a natural buffer. between the river and crljacent =---------lalif uses~~~~---~~-~~~-~=--~ ~T---~~~-----~-,------~ -------~ -~=---~ ·-=-------------~~-~------------------~ ~ ~~---------
7-11
Since state recreation rivers are linear corridors, sections of the
rivers and adjoining uplands will be zoned as necessary to protect the
associated p.Iblic use and resource values. 'file percent:,ages of land
classified per zone are variable depending upon the resources present and
the desired public use of the river.
2. Rivers to be Included
Chatanika River
Nenana River
Volkmar River
Middle Fork Chena River
Delta River
Salcha River
Goodpaster River
~. Managem.ent Guidelines
In addition to recreational uses, this category intends to maintain
fish and wildlife populations at or above current levels and provide for
human use of those populations. Timber cutting is allowed where it will
achieve a management objective such as clearing for recreational facility
developnent, habitat enhancement, or prevention of loss of forest from
disease. Other forms of habitat enhancement are permitted including
prescribed fire. 'Ihe aorridor is recomnended to be roadless except that
new rights-of-way and utility corridors are permitted at designated
crossings.· Trails are permitted.
4. Justification
Recreational use of interior Alaskan waterways has always been an
imp::>rt~nt part of interior Alaskan life. In certain waterways the
quality of the recreation experience can be seriously degraded by
siltation. The most outstanding and vulnerable waterways therefore
require single purpose management as part of the State Park System. Some
waterways should be managed for the primary purpose of enabling
participation in outdoor recreation activities in a natural setting.
waterways selected for state recreation rivers should possess high scenic
values and be reasonably accessible.
H. STATE PRESERVE
1. Criteria for Recom.m.endation•
A state ~eserve is an area having outstanding biological,
paleontological, geological or ecological values of scientific or
educational interest. The primary management of the units is resource
protection. The purpose of these units is to provide for applied
research, basic research, and/or outdoor envirorunental education.
A state preset::<J_e_has_ a ~rB.sour_c.e __ oc_r_eso_ur_ces _of _st_atewidB __ oc _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ _
regional significance. The unit should be of adequate size to provide
protection of the natural feature(s) for which it is established.
7-12
J
The natural zone will be the primary land use zone within a state
preserve, thus helping to guarantee protection of the unit's resource
values. If there are cultural values associated with the preserve, a
cultural zone will be established to protect ·these values. Wilderness
wnes may also be designated to help insure a high level of land arrl
resource protection. Recreational development zones will only be used to
allow the provision of scientific or educational support facilities.
2. Sites to be Included
No areas within the Tanana Basin are recomnended for inclusion in
this category.
3. Justification
As exploration by scientists occurs, sites needing this degree of
protection by the state may be identified. Ibwever, at this p:>int m
areas meeting the above criteria have been identified.
D. OTHER STATE MANAGED AREAS WHERE RECREATIONAL
VALUE MUST BE PROTECTED
Most areas identified in the Recreational Element that are mt
recommended for inclusion in the State Park System are recommended for
recreation use in one of several categories.
The following categories include areas of regional significance
which are recommended for public retention and management by the state:
A. Public Recreation Reserve
B. Historic Site
C. Public Recreation Site
D. Public Recreation Trail Corridor
E. Natural Feature
F. Multiple Use Area
A. PUBUC RECREATION RESERVES
1. Criteria for RecoiDID.endations
Public recreation reserve status is recommended for areas is which
recreation use and values are pararrount but where public preferences and
resource capability allow a variety of other compatible uses. The high
recreation values require a degree of protection afforded by
gubernatorial designation or p..Iblic recreation classification.
7-13
.,
...
2. Areas to be Included
Moosehart Mountain
Kobe
Wlale Lake
Amy D:>me
Reindeer Hill
Wilker D:>me
Mt. Neuberger
Mentasta Mountains
Mineral Lake
Castner Glacier
Mt. Ryan
Far M:>untain
Canwell Glacier
Gulkana Glacier
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Personal use timbercutting and material sales are allowed where they
will not detract from and may enhance recreational opportunties.
r~nerals are subject to leasehold location. Leasing is also open for
comnercial use of land where it contributes· to recreational
opportunities. Habitat enhancement is allowed. New row, utility
corridors and trails are permit~ed.
4. Justification
A high proportion of outdoor recreation in the Tanana Basin requires
extensive areas whidl are publicly owned, and in whidl recreation
experiences are not degraded by other uses, but which do oot require a
high degree of land management by a government agency.
Public reserves provide the needed degree of permanence and
management for an important aspect of Tanana Basin recreation needs.
B. HISTORIC SITE
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
These sites are managed to protect historic resources which although
significant are not suitable for inclusion in the State Park system due
to the nature of the resource or its location.
2. Sites to be Included
Lake Minchumina Archaeological Site
Panguingue Creek
Moose Creek Archaeological Site
Carlo Creek Archaeological Site J., ~ ~---·~ .. ---~ -~-~~~ ~~~-~ L1vengood ArchaeOlogical o1stnc1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-~~~---~~~
7-14
. 1
.J
J
l
J
j
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Other resource uses which do not harm historic features are
allowed. Specifically, personal use timber sales, leasehold location for
minerals, new access voutes, leasing for oommerical use and habitat
enhancement are pennitted wherever they do not detract from historic
resources •
4. Justification
Historic and archaeological resources at many sites warrant
protection but not active display. Those sites should be classified for
the primary p..1rpose of protecting cultural resources but do not require
the active interpretation which could occur if included in the State
Parks System. Protection of these cultural resources is important to
insure their availability for research and should a site be found to have
greater significance, the option for future inclusion in the State Parks
System is assured •
C. PUBUC RECREATION SITE
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
'Ihese sites provide public recreational opp::>rtunities in conjunction
with other resource uses on state lands retained in public ownership.
2. Sites to be Included
Tanana River Access at Bonanza
Wi.en Lake Access
west Twin Lakes Access
East Twin Lakes Access
Wblverine Creek Site
Tatalina River Access
Healy Camp:Jrourxi
Lake Mansfield Access
Mentasta Lake
MJnte Lake
Forrest Lake
Tblovana River Access Sites
Chatanika Access Site
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Other resource uses which do not detract from recreation are
allowed. Specifically permitted in this category are personal use timber
-. sales, voads which enhance recreational opportunities and habitat
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~E~f\Og(l-~~!1~~~~~~~-~-~~~-~--
7-15
J
4. Justification
Present and foreseeable use at many access and oongregating sites is
so low that only limited land management is required. Classification of
these sites for public recreation will accommodate present low levels of
use and preserve the option of future inclusion in the State Park System
when and if increased use requires a greater degree of management to
maintain recreation opportunities.
D. PUBLIC RECREATION TRAILS
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
Tb provide long term protection of trail related recreation
activities and foreground scenery. These trails should have a minimum
corridor wiqth of 100 meters to enable separate trails for incompatible
uses and buffers between trail users and crljacent land uses. 'Ihese
trails should be retained in public ownership and managed by DNR.
2. Trails to be Included
23 Mile Slough Trails
Goldstream to Murphy Dome Greenbelts
Governer's Cup NOrth Trail
Robertson River Trail
caribou Pass Trails
Eureka Dog Mushing Trails
Hutlitakwa Trail
Tblovana Hot Springs Trail
Old-New Minto Trail
Minto Lakes Trail
Stampede Road Trail
Nenana Foothills Trail
Rex to Nenana Trail
8 Mile Lake Trails
Dry Creek Ridge Trail
Carlo Creek Trail
carlo-Yanert Trail
Jack River Trail
wells Creek Trail
Japan Hills Trail
Dean Creek Trail
-Yanert Trail
Moose Creek Trail
Revine Creek Trail
Black Rapids Trail
Shaw Creek
Shaw Creek Trail
-----------No1krnaE"-R-iver-~'l'rca-i-l~---------------------------------------,---------------
Knob Ridge Trail
7-16
Old Tetlin Trail
Eagle Trail
Sheep Creek 'frail
Mineral Lakes Trail
Cheneathda Hill Trail
Ball Point Trail
Murphy Dome Ridge Trail
Chatanika Ridge Trail
Cache Creek-Left furk Tr.
Lincoln Creek Trail
Bonanza Forest Trail
Dunbar Trail
Ester Dome to Murphy Dome Trail
Ester Dome Nugget Trail
Chena-Gilmore Trails
Mt. Ryan Ridge Trail
oar Trail 303
Cripple Creek Trail
Far Mountain Trail
· Jenny M. Trail
Middle furk Chena Trail
Sugarloaf Mountain Trail
Haystack Mountain Trail
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Personal use firewood cutting is permitted where it will not detract
from recreation experience within the corridor. Material sales are
allowed for use for public Unprovements within the trail corridors.
Intermittent crossings for roads and utilities are allowed. Habitat
enhancement is permitted.
4. Justification
High participation in trail related activities and extensive
opportunities for trail activities on existing and proposed trails
necessitate the classification of corridors for public recreation in
order to insure that incompatible uses do not detract fvom recreation
trail experiences.
E. NATURAL FEATURES
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
These sites are managed to provide for research and outdoor
environmental education. The sites should be of adequate size to provide
protection of the natural feature(s) for which it is established.
7-17
2. Sites to be Included
Lake Minchumina Upland Birch Forest
caribou-Poker Creeks Research watershed
Soda Creek Springs
Iblomites ·
Cripple Creek Vertebrates
Dry Creek Dall Sheep Research Area
Hutlinana Hot Springs
'Iblovana Ebt Springs Ibme
Lake Within Island
Wickersham Burn
Nenana Canyon
Rex Dome
Mt. Hayes, Hess, Dei::x>rah
Healy Lake and River
Robertson River Spruce Forest
Bonanza Creek Stratigraphic Area
Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest
Ester Dome Mining Recovery
Ester Tailings
Spinach Creek Research watershed
Ballaine Lake Aquatic Study Area
Fox Tailings
Chena Dome
Granite 'Ibrs
Black Rapids Glacier
Shaw Creek Experimental St.
Harding Lake Birch Fbrest
Salcha River Fisheries Study Area
Salchaket Moose Range
Panorama M:>untain Landmark
Chatanika Canyon
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Other resource uses which do not harm natural features are
permitted. Personal use timber sales and material sales, leasehold
location for minerals, agricultural leasing and grazing are all permitted
if they contribute to educational and recreational use or value of the
natural feature. Habitat enhancement is allowed where it does not
detract from recreation opportunities and natural features. New
rights-of-way, utility corridors and trails are allowed or disallowed
depending on the natural feature to be protected.
7-18
4. Justification
Prese~ation of a variety of unique natural features ensures
diversity of the landscape for the future. For those sites which are not
easily accessible to the public or which do not merit active
interpretation as units of the State Park System the natural feature can
be protected through public recreation classification.
F. MULTIPLE USE AREAS
1. Criteria for RecoiDID.endation
These areas are intended to remain in public ownership for the
protection of multiple resources, of which one is recreation. The areas
will be managed aonse~atively to protect eKisting values while allowing
compatible activities to occur.
2. Areas to be Included
Manley Hot Springs
Sawtooth Mountains
Rex Dome Area
Alaska Range Recreation Area
Ester Ibme Area
Minto Lakes
East Alaska Range
Creamers Dairy Wildlife Refuge
Pedro Ibme Area
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Guidelines will vary arrong these areas deperrling on the specific
resources to be protected.
4. Justification
In. rome areas there are imp::>rtant recreation values which occur in
conjunction with other resource values in the area. It is ~rtant to
recognize each of the values and identify the qualities which need
protection in order to develop guidelines which will allow the values
present to coexist.
Ill. MUNICIPAL PARK SYSTEM
The following areas contain recreational values of local
significance. They may or may not be currently in state ownership.
These designations are intended to provide the land and water base for
open space and trail systems serving community residents.
A. Neighborhood Recreational Area
B. Conmunity Recreational Area -- -----------c-. -Mun-.tci-pa-t-Pab-~i-c-Re-serv_e __ _
D. Neighborhood Greenbelt
E. Community Greenbelt
F. Metropolitan Greenbelt
7-19
-,
--'
A. NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREA
1. Criteria for RecoJD:ntendation
These areas are intended to provide recreational opportunites within
neighl:x:>rhoods, perhaps in conjunction with existing or future elementary
school sites. Tne sites should be 20 acres or larger in order to
accommodate an elementary school. Sites may be smaller if there is
little or no likelihood of a school on the site. Land in this category
should be owned by municipal government, conveyed to municipal government
if it is in State ownership or managed by a homeowners association.
2. Areas to be Included
Musk 0% Public Reserve
Pearl Creek School Park
Alder Creek School Park
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Primary land uses are recreation and education. New utility
corridors may be permitted if they are needed to serve the neighborhood.
Habitat enhancement is allowed.
4. Justification
These areas are needed to provide a common area to residents of the
inrnediate neighlx>rhood. As long as undeveloped larrl surrounds a
neighborhood the need for a close to horne recreation area may not seem
great, but where eventual residential development could result in the
loss of existing natural areas it is critical that neighborhood
recreation areas large enough to als6 include an el~mentary school be
reserved.
B. COMMUNITY RECREATION AREA
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
These areas provide recreational opportunities within the conrnunity,
perhaps in conjunction with an existing or future secondary school site.
The sites should be 30 acres or larger in order to accommodate a junior
high school or 100 acres or larger if to be developed in conjunction with
a high school. Land in this category should be owned by or conveyed to
municipal government if it is in State ownership.
7-20
.i
l
-'
-,
2. Areas to be Included
Wigwam Ski
Nenana Ganmunity Park
Big Dipper Expansion
Birch Hill Expansion
Manley Hot Springs
McKinley Village
Healy
IX>nnelly
3. ManageJDent Guidelines
Primary land uses are education and recreation. New trails, utility
corridors and habitat enhancement are permitted in these areas.
4. Justification
These reasonably large areas are needed to .serve multiple
neighborhoods or, an entire small village and should b: large enough to
include a fairly extensive natural area, intense use playfields and in
some cases a secondary school site.
C. MUNICIPAL PUBLIC RESERVE
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDeli.dation
These areas are set aside to provide open space for recreation
activities which require a large area close to where people live and to
prevent residential or commercial development in natural hazard areas.
Either management or ownership of state lands in this category should be
conveyed to municipal government.
· 2. Areas to be Included
Anderson Ski Area
·Nenana Dog Mushing Area
Potlatch Ponds Public Reserve
Fairbanks Public Reserve
East Fairbanks Reserve
Heritage Park
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Primary land uses are recreation and education, floodplain
management and management of other areas to be retained in public
ownership to pr-event inhabitation due to natural hazards in the area.
_______ ~~S_9_!1M_l.l§~~tj.ml:~_L§~les,_~l}_ew __ rights-of-wayr uti_i:ity_ cort":ldor~ and~~-------~-----_______ ~_
trails, -afrl habitat enhancement are allowed.
7-21
.1
l
-'
_,
-'
4. Justification
As a community becomes increasingly urbanized people's need for
places which enable a contrast in setting as afforded by an accessible
and extensive natural environment is increasingly linportant. A former
chairman of the Fairbanks Recreation Council succinctly stressed the role
of municipal public reserves YJhen he stated, "Maybe there should not be
any parks in Fairbanks, maybe Fairbanks should be in a park" •
D. NEIGHBORHOOD GREENBELT
1. Criteria for RecoiiUilendation
'Ihese areas provide close to home recreation opportunities and
travel routes serving with all homesites. A minimum width of 30 meters
is recommended to provide a buffer between neighborhood residents and
trail users. Tracts should be retained in public ownership and
management or be conveyed to homeowners for their management.
2. Areas to be Included
Aqueduct Trail
3. Managem.ent Guidelines
Material sales are permitted for public improvements within
greenbelts. 'lbe area is intended to be roadless with the exception of
intermittent road crossings. Underground utility corridors are allowed.
Habitat enhancement is permitted with the exception of prescribed fire.
4. Justification
A linear configuration to community open space has the advantage of
providing places to recreate and travel routes within residential
neighborl:'ioods.
E. COMMUNITY GREENBELT
1. Criteria for Recom.m.endation
These areas are to provide recreation opportunities and travel
rol:l~es for residents of multiple neighborhoods. A minimum width of 100
meters is recommended both to provide separate trails for incompatible
uses and to provide a buffer between trail users and adjacent land uses.
These areas should be retained in public ownership and managed either by
municipal government or by user groups.
7-22
=>l'
2~ Areas to be Included
Cantwell Trails
'Ibk Greenbelt
Equinox Trail
Chena Slough ·
Ester Community Trails
Cripple Creek-Rosie Creek
Baldry Creek Trail
Straight Creek Trail
Allen Trail
Glenn Trail
Tanana Valley Railroad
Spinach Creek Trail
D:xneSpur
Mx>se Creek
M:x>se Ridge
0' Conner Creek
Airfield Ridge
Eldorado Creek
Eldorado Ridge
Silver Creek Trail
Fox Ridge Trail
Skyline Trail
Jeff Studdert Dog Mushing Tr.
Skarland Ski Trail
Noyes Slough
Chena Lakes Trail
North Nenana Trail
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Material sales.are allowed where the materials are used for public
improvements within the greenbelt. The area is recommended for a
roadless area except for intermittent ~ad crossings. However, new
rights-of-way, utility corridors and trails are allowed. Habitat
enhancement is permitted with the exception of prescribed fire.
4. Justification
A community greenbelt system provides opportunities for trail
related and access to other recreation and subsistence activities and
contributes to an aesthetically pleasing community design. They also
provide a buffer between incompatible land uses.
-~ ""' .--• .--o ..,.._ = _ __,. = = =-= ~ = = = -=-= ~=== =-=-=--=~=~="=-=-= = ~~-=~=-·-= -==~===-= ==-~===~= === =--~= =-==-~-=-=-=~-~--=---=-=-==~--=~~--==~~~~=:=
7-23
_I
_,
F. METROPOUTAN GREENBELT
1. Criteria for Recoaunendation
These areas pcovide recreation opportunities and travel routes for
residents of multiple communities. A minimum width of 200 meters is
recommended to provide separate trails for motorized and non-motorized
trail uses, off-trail recreation activities and to provide a buffer
between p.Iblic recreation uses and a::ljacent land uses. 'Ihe areas should
be retained in public ownership and managed by·municipal or state
government.
2. Area& to be Included
Fairbanks 100 Mile Loop Trail
Goldstream Valley Greenbelt
Fairbanks Crescent
Chena River
Tanana Valley Railroad
3. Managem.ent Guidelines
Personal use firewood sales are permitted if the firewood removed
and the route and means of removal do not detract from recreation
experience within the greenbelt. Material sales are allowed for public
imp~rovements within greenbelts. The areas are reoommended for roadless
areas with the exception of intermittent road crossings. However, new
rights-of-way, utility corridors and trails are allowed. Habitat
enhancement is permitted with the exception of pcescribed fire.
4. Justification
A metropolitan greenbelt system pcovides opportunities for trail
related-~ecreation activities and helps to define the boundaries of the
metropolitan area through the provision of open space.
G. PRIVATE RECREATION
1. Criteria for Recom.m.endation
These areas possess recreation resources and opportunities which are
suitable for private management. Wilderness lodges and remote lakes,
winter sports resorts and living history are examples of recreation
opportunities which are effectively provided by the private sector.
==-= ""'"=->;; ..-= = _.,. = = = =-"-""" = ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~-=~~-~~~-~~-=-~~~=~-==--=-=--~~~ ~~-~ =--~-=~=-=~~~--=--~=-=-=--=-~-·~~~=--~-=--=-~-~~=-~~·-~-=-~-= ==-----~-==-o~--~-==~
__ 1
7-24
-'
2. Areas to be Included
Sheep Creek Park School
Livengood Gold Mining Camps
Suntrana Mine Safety Car
Murphy Ibrne Ski
Ester Dane Ski
Ester Gold Mining Camps
Fox Gold Mining Camp
Wigwalll Ski Area (Ski Boot Hill Expansion).
Chena Sunny Ski Area
Wien Lake Lodge Site
East Twin Lake Lodge Site
west Twin Lake Lodge Site
John Hansen Lodge Site
Lake Minchumina Lodge Site
3. Managem.ent Guidelines
1b ensure that the private owner or manager of outstanding
recreation resources actually provides recreational opportunities to the
public, conveyance of interest by the state will require recreation
development and operation.
4. Justification
State management of these areas is analoguous to its management of
agriculture and mineral resources by which conveyances of interest in
high potential resource areas requires a private party to utilize the
resource.
IV. REGIONAL CORRIDORS
The following categories are of regional significance and should be
retained in public ownership. Management authority will vary depending
on location and specific needs of areas reconrnended for these types of
management.
A.
B.
c.
Highway/Railway Greenbelt
Multiple Use Trail Corridor
Multiple Use River Corridor
A. HIGBW AY /RAILWAY GREENBELT
1. Criteria for Recom.m.endation
These areas are recommended for both recreation and transportation
use. They are dedicated to protect the natural foreground scenery for
enjoyment of the travelling public and to buffer adjacent land users from
major. traffic by rentetion i_Tl__~lj~_Q~~~§_I}_ip_gf_lOQ_~met:g_r_~e!t_h_~:r:_s_i_d_e ____ _ ::; --------of-ilie-ii911E.::Of=wa:Y.-------- --· -
7-25
-'
2. Areas to be Included
Manley Ebt Springs lbad
Alaska Railro.:rl
Parks Highway
Denali Highway
Alaska Highway
Taylor Highway
· Glenn Highway
Elliott Highway
Steese Highway
Richardson Highway
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Personal use timber sales are allowed where they will enhance views
from road or railroad. Material sales are allowed if for improvements of
highway, railway or intersecting side roads within the greenbelt. New
rights-of~way are permitted at intersection with section lines or where
designated by DOP and DOT. Utility corridors are allowed where whey will
not detract form views from highways, railways or trails. Leasing for
commercial use may be allowed as may habitat enhancement.
4. Justification
Travel corridors are the location of a high proportion of people's
sightseeing, departure points to the back country and in general outdoor
living. 'lberefore preservation of foregrourrl scenery along all highways
and railroads makes a disproportionate contribution to the quality of
residents and tourists outdoor experience.
B. MULTIPLE USE TRAIL CORRIDOR
1. Criteria for RecoiDIDendation
'lbese areas are managed for both recreation and transportation and
provide access to a variety of resources. 'lbe minimum corridor width is
100 meters to enable separation of incompatible trail uses and possible
conversion of trail to a road with parallel trail and utilities. Trail
corridors would be retained in public ownership and managed by DOT.
2. Areas to be Included
Tbklat River to Lake Minchumina Trail
Manley Ra~part Trail
Willer Creek Trails
Delta Creek Trails
Chi tanana Trail
Cosna Trail
7-26
Clearwater Creek
Tbklat River Trail
Nenana-Kantishna Trail
Mile 400 to Tbklat River Trail
Rex-Tbklat Trail
Black Bear Lake Trail
Manley Hot Springs Trail
Sawtooth r.buntains Trail
Tanana-Wbodchopper Trail
Bean Ridge
Roughtop Mountain
W:>lverine Creek
Dugan Hills Trail
Hutlitakwa Creek Trail
Minto-Livengood Trail
Dunbar to Brooks Terminal Tr.
Fairbanks to Gibbon Road
Nenana-old Minto Trail
washington Creek Trail
Stampede Road
Rex to Bonnifield Trail
Rex to Bonnifield Alt.
Healy to Rex Trail
Tbtatlanika River Trail
Blair Lakes Trails
Bonnifield Trail
Liberty Bell and Daniels
Healy Creek Trail
Dry Creek Trail
Goodpaster Trail
Black Mountain Trail
Billy Creek Trail
Healy River Trail
George Trails
Mansfield Trail
Mansfield-Dot Lake Trail
Tetlin Lakes Trail
Tanacross Trails
Tbk River Trails
Murphy Shovel Trail
oor Trail 7 3c
Iowa Creek Trail
Anaconda Creek Trail
Colorado Creek Trail
DOT Trail 286 (r.bose Creek)
DOT Trail 262 (Nome Creek)
DOT Trail 297 (Fairbanks Creek)
~ "~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~·~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~·~-~~~~~~~Trail~28 . .u,8~~~
7-27
.J
DOT Trail 293 (Faith Creek)
DOT Trail 294
Salcha Caribou Trail
salcha Trails
west Fbrk Valley Trail
3. Manage~nent Guidelines
Personal use fire~ sale is permitterl if ~ rerroverl arrl method
of removal does not interfere with transportation and recreation.
Material sales are not permitted except for use for public improvements
within the trail corridor. New trails are permitted to provide parallel
trails for incompatible trail uses; to provide parallel trails if
original trail becomes a ~ad and to allow unlimited side trails to
provide access to adjacent lands and waters. While other resource uses
are not permitted, access to other reosurces is a primary use of these
trails.
4. Justification
The trails of Interior Alaska are used extensively both as
recreation experiences and as access to hunting, fishing and other
recreational pursuits. The high recreation value of the above trails
warrants their classification for public recreation in conjunction with
other compatible uses which do not detract from the trail experience.
C. MULTIPLE USE RIVER CORRIDORS
1. Criteria for RecoJDJDendation
Tb provide for water based recreation arrl transportation and to
maintain fish and wildlife populations at or above current levels and
provide for human use of fish and wildlife. In general, corridors
extending 100 meters beyond riverbanks will be retained in public
ownership.
2. Areas to be Included
Clear Creek
Twin Lakes waterway
Kantishna River
Tbklat River
Teklanika River
Tanana River
Tatalina River
WxXi River
Fish-W:>lf Lakes W:tterway
Tbk River
Little Tbk River
Robertson River
Nabesna River
-------ehisana--River---------
Little Chena River
Tolovana River
7-28
3. Manage10ent Guidelines
Most resource uses are allowed. Both commercial and personal use
timber sales are allowed. In general a leave strip along riverbanks will
be included in timber harvest. Exceptions include places where riverbank
erosion will eliminate leave strip and selective cutting for firewood and
personal use. Material sales are permitted except where permanent scars
would remain within sight of the river. Minerals are open to leasehold
location and land may be leased for agriculture or commercial uses.
Trapper cabins, rem::>te cabin permits and scattered small tracts are
allowed if there is public retention of lands within 30 meters of
riverbanks. New rights-of-way, utility corridors and trails are
allowed. Habitat enhancement is also permitted.
4. Justification
The rivers of interior Alaska provide extensive boating, fishing,
and recreational travel opportunities for interior Alaska residents. The
high recreation value of some waterways warrant their classification for
public recreation in conjunction with other uses which do not detract
from water quality and foreground scenery.
7-29
' J
"'!
i
J
l
_j
l
t
_j
_j
' ' __ .#
l
' ~
_j
-'
c
c
0
c
c
c
E--------------
C
[
Appendices
I. INTRODUCTION
Income that circulates in the economy of the Basin
because of general recreation on state land can be esti-
mated by calculating the total expenditures by residents
and tourists for equipment, travel, food and lodging. This
appendix estimates those expenditures. The estimate is
then used in the results section of the general recreation
chapter to indicate the economic and employment effects of
general recreation in the Basin.
II. EXPENDITURFS ON RECREATION EQUIPMENT
Total expenditures for general recreational equipment
can be estimated by multiplying the number of households in
the Basin which own a particular piece of recreational
equipment by the yearly cost of that equipment.
A. NuJDber of Households Owning EquipJDent
The number of households that own equipment was found
by using data from the Alaska State Outdoor Recreati<:m
Plan. These data include the percentage of Interior house-
holds that own a backpack, tent, cross country skiis, boat,
snowmachine, dirt bike, snowshoes, climbing equipment,
raft, dog sled, or horse. By multiplying the number of
households in the Basin by the percentage of households
owning a certain piece of equipment, the number of back-
packs, boats, or dog sleds owned in the Basin was esti-
mated. Table A-3, columns 1 and 2 summarize this
information.
B. Cost/Year of EquipJDent
The expenditures for each piece of equipment per year
was found by averaging the cost of the equipment over the
number of years that the equipment lasts. The cost of
equipment was estimated by obtaining the local price of the
most popular brand or size of equipment. In addition to
the cost of the equipment ·the amount of money spent for
operating and maintaining the equipment was computed.
Table A-1 shows the cost/year of owning various types of
recreational equipment.
C. Percentage of Total Expenditures Attributable to
General Recreation
The entire cost of a piece of equipment should not be
attributed entirely to general recreation. Some types of
equipment are used for fish and game related activities.
::-----------'I'ne-port:i_o_n_o_f-eh-e-co-s-e--att-rt-but-ab-J:-e-to-f-i-s-h-and-~ame--i-s---------
counted in the fish and game element, and excluded here.
Backpack Equip.
Camping Tent
and Gear
Cross Country
Ski is
Boat
Large
Sma 11
Snownachine
0 i r t Bike I
3-\.lhee1er
Snoshoes
C1 imbing
E9uipment
Rafts
Dog S 1eds
ltorse
TABLEA-l.EQUIPMENTCOST/YEAR
a b c d e f 9
Annua 1
Operating
Misc. l He of Capita 1 Cost
Purchase life of Capita 1 Equip. Misc. Cost/ (Maintenance,
Price Equipment Cost/Year Cost Equip. Year Gas, Food)
.100 10 10 300 10 30 0
100 10 10 200 10 20 0
125 10 12.50 125 10 12.50 0
4500 1 10 450 200 10 20 900
900 2 10 90 100 10 10 0
2000 10 200 150 10 15 450
1500 10 150 100 10 10 450
80 10 8 0 0 0 0
1000 10 100 0 0 0 0
1000 10 100 100 10 10 0
750 3 10 75 500 10 50 720 4
1500 10 150 150 10 15 800
Source: Conversations with local sports shops and recreationists.
NOTES FOR TABLE A-I
1rotal cost includes, 2,000 for boat; 1,000 for the trailer and 1,500
for the motor.
2This is a we{ghted cost. It is based on the assumption that 60% of the
people own large boats and 40% own small boats.
3rotal cost includes 5 dogs at S75/~og.
4rota 1 cost includes $12/month food for each dog, or S120/dog each year
and $120 for vet bills.
h
Total'
Cost/
Year
40
30
25
1370(60)
100(40,62
660
610
8
100
110
845
965
1
l
~
'
.,
_J
.,
---=--------------
-·
TABLEA-2
PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLD RECREATION
EQUIPMENT COST ALLOCATED TO
GENERAL RECREATION (NOT
FISH AND GAME)
Backpack 80%
Tent Camping 50%
Cross Country Skiing 100%
Boat 50%
Snownachine 80%
Dirt Bike/Motor 50%
Snowshoes 80%
Climbing Equipment 100%
Rafts 100%
Dog Sleds 90%
Horses 75%
------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-2 summarizes the percentage of the total cost that
is allocated to general recreation for a given piece of
equipment.
D. Su~n~nary
Total expenditures by Basin residents for equipment is
calculated in Table A-3. The table is based on assumptions
and information that are discussed in the three previous
sections of this appendix.
III. EXPENDITURES ON TRAVEL
Total travel costs can be estimated by multiplying the
total number of times a household uses a vehicle for a
recreational trip, by the average cost of that trip.
A. Total Nu~nber of Trips/Year
The number of trips made each year by a household was
estimated using information from the Alaska Outdoor Recrea-
tion Plan Survey. The survey included a summary of the
number of occasions each year that an adult participates in
a certain recreational activity. Only some of these activ-
ities, however, involve travel costs. For example, cross
country skiing is usually done close to home and does not
require any significant travel. Other activites such as
back packing usually requires driving-to an area away from
home. The percentage of each type of activity that
involves travel is summarized in Table A-4 (Column d).
Also estimated and summarized in the table (Column f) is
the percentage of occasions that are for fish and game
related activities and should not be attributed to general
recreation.
Table A-4 shows how these assumptions are used to
estimate the total number of general recreation trips. The
number of trips identified in this table is probably under-
estimated, as it does not include information on all types
of recreational acivities. Information on dog mushing and
motor boating, for example, was not available and are
missing from this part of the analysis.
The number of trips children take in the Basin are not
added into the total figure in Table A-4. Trips by
children are assumed to be part of family excursions.
During family excursions children travel with the adults
and therefore they do not add any additional trips to the
total trips estimated in Table A-4 that require travel.
B. Average Cost/Trip
No direct information was available on the length of
the average trip, and therefore very general assumptions
.J
were required. If and when better data is available, these
assumptions should be updated._ This analysis assumes that
residents on the average travel one hour each time they
take a trip requiring travel, or two hours round trip.
Assuming two hours is equivalent to 100 miles (50 miles per
hour) at 30 cents per mile, the total cost per trip is $30
dollars. Also it is assumed that two people on the average
split this expense so that the total cost per occasion, per
person is $15.00.
C.S1UDID.ary
Total expenditures on travel can be determined by
multiplying $15 dollars/trip by 456,408 occasions. This
means that the total amount of money spent on travel is
about $6,846,000 dollars when rounded to the nearest
thousand dollars.
IV. EXPENDITURES FOR FOOD AND LODGING
It is assumed that on the average, for each trip a
resident takes in the Tanana Basin, they purchase one meal
from a local cafe or lodge at $5.00/meal. This means that
·a total of $2,282,000 dollars is spent on food per year by
recreationists (456,408. occasions x $5.00 = $2,282,040),
rounded to nearest $1000.
It is assumed that on one out of every 20 occasions,
the recreationist spends a night in a lodge or motel at
$50/night. This means that a total of $1 ,14i ,000 dollars
is spent for lodging every year by recreationists (456,408
occasions/20 x $50/night= $1,141,000).
V. EXPENDITURES BY TOURISTS
Expenditures by tourists can be estimated by
multiplying the total number of visitor-days spent in the
Basin by tourists by the amount of money that a tourist
spends every day. As detailed in Chapter 3, approximately
258,500 tourists participate in general recreation in the
Basin. Each of these tourists spends an average of 40.37
dollars per day according to a report by Louis Berger and
Associates entitled "Interior Transportation Study, Tourism
Working Paper."
t. "j L1 \.,_, .. J ,J .J,
TABLE A-3. TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR RECREATION EQUIPMENT
%of Total 11 of
Households in #of Households Cost of Total %of Total
Basin Households Owning Total Equipment! Expenditure Attributable to
Owning in Basin Amount of Equip. Year In Basin Recreation
Back packing 48% 18,349 8,808 40 352,328 80%
Camping Tent 50% 18,349 9,174 30 275,235 50%
Cross Country Skiing 31% 18,349 5,688 25 142,200 100%
Boat 30% 18,349 5,505 862 4,745,310 50%
Snowmachine 23% 18,349 4,220 660 2,785,200 80%
Dirt Bike/Motorcycle 20% 18,349 3,670 610 2,238,700 50%
Snoshoes 28% 18,349 5,130 8 41,104 80%
Climbing Equipment 5% 18,349 917 100 91,700 100%
Rafts 9% 18,349 1,651 110 181,610 100%
DogSleds 7% 18,349 1,284 845 1,084,980 90%
Horses 1% 18,349 183 965 176,595 75%
TOTAL
3.27 people/household into 60,000 population = 18,349 household. This figure is based on the 1980 Census of
Population Supplementary Report (No. PC80-51-4). The following communities were included in the average:
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Delta, Dot Lake, Fort Greely, Healy Lake, Northway, Tanacross, Tetlin, Tok, Men-
tasta, Cantwell, Healy, McKinley, Minto, and Usibelli.
Total
Expended
for 'Rec.
Equip.
281,856
137,618
142,200
2,372,655
2,228,160
119,350
32,883
91,700
181,610
976,482
132,446
6,695,960
i... l ' J.~ •.. J
TABLE A-4. TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS REQUIRING TRAVEL
a b c d e g
%of Total %of Their Total Occasions
Average Annual Total Total Occasions Occasions Occasions ·Requiring
Occasions/ Adults Occasions Requiring Requiring for Travel for
Adult! in Basin2 in Basin Travel Travel Recreation Recreation
Snowmobile 11.2 43,200 483,840 5 24,192 50 12,096
Cross Country Ski 10 43,200 432,000 5 21,600 100 21,600
Motorcycle/Other
ORV 8.1 43,200 349,920 . 25 87,480 50 43,740
Tent Camping 7.6 43,200 328,320 100 328,320 50 164,160
Kayak/Canoe 3.4 43,200 146,880 100 146,880 95 139,536
Recreation Vehicle 2.1 43,200 90,720 100 90,720 80 72,576
Horse 1.0 43,200 43,200 25 10,800 25 2,700
TOTAL 456,408
1Aiaska Public Survey (ISER, 1978).
272 percent of the FNSB population are adults (16 years or older) (Community Research Quarterly, FNSB, Summer, 1982). This percentage
when applied to the population of the Tanana Basin means that there are 43,200 adults in the Basin.
,
1
l
l
-,
Therefore, the total expenditures by tourists each
year is approximately 10.4 million dollars ( $40.3 7 /day x
258,500 days= $10,435,645.
VI. TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Residents and tourists spend a total of approximately
$27 million dollars per year for recreation in the Basin.
This figure was calculated by adding together the total
expenditures by residents on a) equipment (see Section 2),
b) travel (see Section 3}, c) food and lodging for
residents (see Section 4), and d) total spending by
tourists (see Section 5) as shown in Table A-5 below. This
total should not be attributed entirely to state land
however, since some of the recreation occurring on the
Basin happens on borough or private land.
TABLE A-S
TOTAL GENERAL RECREATION EXPENDITURES IN THE TANANA RIVER
BASIN
1. Resident's expenditures:
a. Equipment:
b. Travel:
c. Food & Lodging:
2. Tourists' Expenditures:
TOTAL
$ 6,696,000
6,846,000
3,423,000
10,436,000
$27,401,000
l
_j
' _j
!
1
_j
"l
J
l
j
_j
l
_j
.,
J
l
J
j
J
,
j
-,
J
J
l
j
...i
Bibliography
!
1
1
l
' '
i
_l
I
I
_).
__ ,.,
RECREATION BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks,
Alaska State Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981.
Clawson, Marion, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, John
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1966.
Dorfman, Robert, Ed., Measuring Benefits of Government In-
vestments, The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C.,
1963.
Fischer, David w., Land and Leisure: Concepts and Methods
in Outdoor Recreation, Maaroufa Press, Chicago, IL,
1974.
Freeman, A. Myrick, The Benefits of Environmental Improve-
ment: Theory and Practice, John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Maryland and London, England, 1979.
Johnson, Leonard K. , Off-Road Vehicle Use and It 1 s Impact
on Soils and Vegetation on Bureau of Land Management
Lands Along the Denali Highway, Alaska: A Report on
the 1975 Outdoor Recreation Survey, University of
Alaska, Agriculture Experiment Station, 1976.
Logsdon, Charles, et al., Input-Output Tables for Alaska's
Economy: A First Look, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Un1vers1ty of Alaska-Fairbanks, 1977.
u.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast-
ern Forest Experiment Station, The Forest Recreation
Symposium, Syracruse, N.Y., Upper Darby, PA, 1971.