HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1837/
GJ
191.42
.A4
J64
1979
.f1.~ ..•
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
nuTDOOR RECREATION IN ALASKA:
EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ROLES
JARY 1979
Commission Study 36
FEDERAL-STATE LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALASKA
.t ,,
J :(
{'·
. ;l
l
0
C\1
T""" c.o .t--
~ C\1
T"""
0
0
LO
LO
t-..
('1)
Cl)
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE
LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR ALASKA
733 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 400
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 279-9565 .
Esther C. Wunnicke
Federal Co-Chairman
Federal
Richard A. Cooley
Joseph H. FitzGerald
Norman C. Gorsuch
Celia M. Hunter
CO-CHAIRMEN
COMMISSIONERS
ARLIS ·
Walter B. Parker
State Co-Chairman
State
Phil R. Holdsworth
James J. Hurley
George W. Rogers
John W. Schaeffer
Alaska Resources Library & Information SeiVices
· Library Bilildirig, Suite 111 ·
3211 Providence Drive ·
Anchorage, AK 995084614
Gv
\q\ .~(.,
,k'-\
j\.Q~
t ~-::\ q_
~~~=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~l __
Dear Reader:
Federal-State
Land Use Planning Commission
For Alaska
January 1979
This report represents background work by staff for the Commission's
review of public policy regarding outdoor recreation and public recrea-
tion lands. It also includes the Commission's findings and recommenda-
tions based on that policy review. The Commission and its staff will
continue to work with the Administration and the Legislature in the
implementation of these recommendations.
This report also completes the work of the Commission requested by the
Chairman of the State Senate Resources Committee in 1977. Earlier work
of the Commission in response to this legislative request focused on
policy for disposal and retention of State lands and was completed in
1978.
We feel that this subject is particularly important at this time because
of the limited supply of accessible public recreation land and the
increasing demands for outdoor recreation, as well as for other competing
uses of these lands. In recent years, the emphasis on millions of acres
for Federal purposes has tended to obscure the fact that accessible
public lands are quite limited, and that these lands are often in State
or municipal rather than Federal ownership. In terms of the individual
seeking to use or acquire public lands, it is location and accessibility
that count far more than gross amounts.
Assessment of the State recreational role in the context of Federal land
policy is particularly timely. Our analysis points to the importance of
State leadership in this area. We hope that these recommendations and
findings will be useful to the State Legislature and the Administration
as were our 1978 recommendations in the formulation of the Land Policy
Act of 1978.
Sincerely,
6.vetJ.--.L
Esther C. Wunnicke
Federal Co-Chairman
Sincerely,
Walter B. Parker
State Co-Chairman
733 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 400
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
OUTDOOR RECREATION IN ALASKA:
AN EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ROLES
Recreation Land Policy Recommendations
Adopted by the
Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska
December l, 1978
Staff Findings and Report
Sally Gibert -Research and Analysis
Ayse Gilbert -Illustrations
Tom Hawkins -Research and Analysis
Janet McCabe -Research and Analysis, Project Leader
Richard Stenmark -Research and Analysis
Nadine Stredwick -Editing and Typing
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report is based in part on knowledge gained through correspondence
and interviews with numerous Federal, State, and municipal employees, as
well as private individuals. Their generosity in providing information
and thoughtful comments about public recreation in Alaska contributed
greatly to our study and is much appreciated. Spec.ial thanks go to
Terry McWilliams, Director of the Alaska Division of Parks, and her
staff who provided background information and useful criticism throughout
the development of this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Commission Recommendations 3
Summary of Findings 6
Recreation Patterns and Trends
Kinds of Outdoor Recreation ............................................ 13
Lands Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ownership of Public Recreation Lands ................................... 15
Federal, State, and Municipal Roles .................................... 17
The Central Role of the State
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Division of Parks ...................................................... 22
The State Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Municipalities and the Division of Parks .......................... 27
Division of Lands--Management of Most State Lands ...................... 30
Department of Transportation--Access to Recreation Lands ............... 31
Department of Fish and Game--Management of a Major Recreation Resource . 35
Coordinating Recreation Planning
Why Coordination is Needed ............................................. 37
Existing Coordinative Mechanisms ....................................... 40
Strengthening Coordination ............................................. 42
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendices
I Current Patterns of Recreation Activity ........................... 54
Kenai Peninsula, Juneau, and Fairbanks Areas
(Reports from Interview Survey)
II Municipal, State, and Federal Roles ............................... 83
(Summary of Role Statements by Agencies at Various Governmental
Levels)
III Past State Recreational Policy .................................... 93
(Review of Previous Policy Statements)
INTRODUCTION
In a general sense, recreation might be defined as a pleasant change of
pace from daily patterns of living, a change involving the "re-creation"
of well-being. As such, recreation is an essential ingredient of our_
society. There is a public interest in seeing that recreational opportu-
nities are available to all people.
The kinds of recreation that people seek are widely varied. For many,
recreation involves increased contact with nature. To escape to the
woods or beach is a natural response to an increasingly urban environment.
However, for people living in rural Alaska in the midst of a vast natural
area, recreation may be perceived differently. Recreation for an Anchorage
resident may be a fall hunting trip to the bush. For a bush resident,
recreation may be a fall shopping trip to Anchorage. This study deals
with the types of recreation which are dependent upon contact with the
natural environment. Yet, it is important to keep in mind the broader
definition of recreation as a personal experience seen in the context of
individual lifestyle and requirements.
For many people throughout the Nation, as well as for State residents,
Alaska's vast expanses of wilderness and outdoor recreation land are the
essence of this State, the quality that makes Alaska unique to the
Nation. Nowhere else in the Nation are there such expanses of scenic
lands undisturbed by human use. To some outdoor recreationists, the
opportunity to experience su~h areas is what Alaska is all about.
However, Alaska's great amount of untouched land has supported a commonly
held myth that Alaska has an unlimited amount of accessible wilderness,
even near urban areas. Sheer quantity creates the impression of avail-
ability, and location tends to be overlooked. In reality, public lands
that are easily accessible are rapidly being transferred to private
ownership as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is implemented and
as the State and municipalities dispose of lands. Alaska's sparse road
system and the added expense of boat or plane charters to remote areas
further limit the availability of recreation lands.
At the same time, the demand for outdoor recreational experiences will
continue to grow in Alaska, and it is reasonable to expect that this
growth in demand will be more rapid than growth in population. There
are several dimensions to ·projections of increased recreational activity
in the Nation and Alaska. First, there is the direct relationship
between population and recreation demand. On the basis of information
provided by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, Alaska's
population is projected to increase from approximately 442,000 in 1980
to 751,000 by the year 2000. Compounding increases directly related to
population growth is the fact that the proportion of population engaging
in outdoor recreation has been increasing nationally. In part, this can
be attributed to long-term rising trends in per capita income and increases
in leisure time. It may also be a reflection of changing consumer
preferences. Further, on an individual basis the amount of time devoted
to recreation appears to be increasing. This change may also be related
to rising incomes and increasing time.
Finally, the demand for outdoor recreation will be directly related to
the cost of the experience. Since the cost of travel, both in terms of
time and money is a highly important variable, it is clear that a reduc-
tion in travel costs and time will tend to result in increased use of
outdoor recreation lands. Better highways, reduced airfares, and generally
improved access will increase recreational opportunities, but also add
to the demand for recreation.
Assuring that outdoor recreational opportunities will continue to be
widely available to people at all income levels will require foresight
and careful planning. In the absence of a public program to protect
recreation lands for present and future generations, prevailing market
forces and demands will gradually lead to the conversion of accessible
public lands to private ownership. Already this has happened in many
areas. Should this trend continue, we will face a future where there
will be few remaining recreation lands in accessible locations. Over-
crowding will reduce the quality of recreation on close-in lands, and
desirable recreational experiences will be available only to those who
can afford long and costly travel.
One of the purposes of planning is to prevent the homogenization of land
use and ownership and to preserve enough diversity to accommodate the
variety of needs and interest of our society. Through planning, we can
retain a balance and mix of public and private lands, and access to
public lands can be expanded. Focusing on these objectives, this report
identifies methods of coordinative planning through which the State can
guide the many public and private entities which influence outdoor
recreation opportunities in Alaska.
-
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
--~~---------------
December, 1978
RECREATION LAND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission
In reviewing municipal, State, and Federal recreation land policy in
Alaska, the Commission has found that there is a special need to clarify
the difference between State and Federal roles regarding public recreation
lands. The two governments hold differing policies for recreational
land use and own different types of lands. However, in recent years the
debate over the Federal (d)(2) lands has tended to emphasize the Federal
role in public recreation and to overshadow the equally important though
different role of the State.
In broad perspective, Federal lands tend to be more remote and inaccess-
ible than State lands and to have a higher proportion of mountainous and
wetlands areas. State lands are generally nearer to communities and
traveled ways and have a higher proportion of valleys and benchlands
which ~an accommodate more intensive activity. Because of their relative
accessibility, many State lands are particularly important for public
recreational uses. For the same reason, State lands are much in demand
for private acquisition.
The State and Federal policies which govern recreation land management
are also different. Federal policy emphasizes protection of the land
and its resources, and Federal managers generally try to keep recreational
use light and dispersed. State policy emphasizes the accessibility of
recreational lands for human use, and State management generally allows
a more intensive level of activity while still maintaining the natural
character of the land.
In addition to its role as a landowner, the State has special responsi-
bility for comprehensive planning of outdoor recreation opportunities
throughout the State and for coordinating Federal, State, municipal, and
private recreation providers to maximize public benefits. This role is
comparable to the State's comprehensive planning responsibilities for
fish and game management and for transportation systems. Though the
Federal government continues to manage the majority of the land acreage
in Alaska, the State has the primary responsibility for providing recrea-
tional opportunities for its people and its visitors.
3
For these reasons, the Commission has directed many of its recommendations
on public recreation in Alaska to the State government. Commission
recommendations on this subject are as follows:
Recommendation to State Government: By statute, the State Legislature
should establish policy as follows:
l. Public Value of Recreation: State policy should recognize that a
variety of recreational opportunities are important to the health
and well-being of all Alaskans, as well as to the State's economy.
On this basis, the State should actively encourage recreation as an
important use of public lands.
2. Need for Accessible Recreation Lands: State policy should recognize
that many Alaskans cannot afford long and costly travel to recrea-
tion areas. To insure recreational opportunities for all, State
recreation lands should include lands that are convenient and
accessible to populated areas. The amount of such land should be
determined in relation to future, as well as existing needs for
public recreation.
3. Assertion of Recreation Values in State Land Decisions: State
policy should recognize that accessible and waterfront lands are
valuable for public recreation, as well as for private acquisition.
Public recreational values should be actively asserted in the
process of deciding about State land selection, classification,
management, and disposal.
4. State Park System Categories: State policy should recognize that
different components of the State Park System have different purposes
and serve varying needs. The Legislature should adopt a statement
of intent for various elements of the State Park System, including
a designation for water-based recreation areas.
5. Recreation Values in Other State Lands: State policy should
recognize that many State lands outside the State Park System
combine recreational values with other public resources. Such
lands should be considered for dedication to public use under the
State's new Public Reserve System which allows management for a
variety of compatible uses.
6. Consideration of Nonrecreational Uses: State recreation policy
should recognize that decisions about recreation lands affect other
types of land use. Recreation planners should be directed to
evaluate their decisions in relation to the public interest in
other uses of the land and to seek participation by municipalities
and other governmental agencies who have an interest in nonrecrea-
tional, as well as recreational land uses.
7. Encouraging Local Recreation: State policy should encourage community
recreation at a local governmental level. The State should support
strong technical and financial assistance to local communities for
4
establishment of recreation areas and programs. Such assistance
should reflect local goals and requirements. Emphasis should be
placed on assisting smaller communities with limited resources
and communities which are destinations for recreationists from
outside the local area.
8. Interagency Liaison: State policy should recognize that there are
a number of State agencies besides the Division of Parks that
influence public recreational opportunities. The Division of
Lands, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and
the Department of Fish and Game each have a determinative influence
on the supply and availability of public recreational opportunities.
The recreation planning capability of State agencies outside the
Division of Parks should be strengthened, and systems for interde-
partmental liaison on matters having to do with State lands and
resources should be developed and formalized.
9. Statewide and Regional Planning and Coordination: State policy
should recognize that the State has the primary responsibility for
statewide and regional recreational planning and for coordination
of the many providers of public recreational opportunities. To
strengthen this aspect of the State's recreation role, the Alaska
Park and Recreation Council should be established as a statutory
entity of State government with funding and responsibility to
obtain public participation in recreation planning; to coordinate
Federal, State, local, and private recreation providers; and to
develop regional recreation plans which can serve as a basis for
coordination. The Alaska Land Manager's Cooperative Task Force
should also be called on to assist in the coordination of recrea-
tion projects and programs at a statewide level.
Recommendation to Federal Agencies: Federal recreation managers and
funding agencies should recognize that the State has responsibility for
recreation planning and coordination on a statewide basis and should
participate actively in the development and implementation of State
sponsored recreation plans.
5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Outdoor Recreational Activity
1. Since recreation is essentially a personal experience, the nature
of outdoor recreation is as varied as the individual participants.
For many, the essence of outdoor recreation is contact with the
natural world; for some, this experience is unsatisfactory unless
it also includes the opportunity to compete or achieve or is shared
with family or friends.
2. For most recreationists, whether land is in State, Federal, or
municipal ownership is only an incidental consideration. The
primary interest is in the type and quality of experience to be
gained. Often the trip to a recreation destination is a valuable
component of the recreational experience and, in some cases, the
availability of services such as restaurants and lodging are essential
to enjoyment of public lands.
3. Recreational activity extends across ownership boundaries and
involves property in both the private and public sector. In this
respect, planning and land management for public outdoor recreation
is comparable to planning and land management for fish and wildlife
protection or for the development of transportation facilities.
4. Patterns of recreational activity vary widely from region to region
within Alaska. The geography, natural setting, and cultural back-
ground of the community tend to shape public recreation preferences,
as well as to determine the opportunities that are available.
5. In villages, the primary need for public recreation assistance is
for community recreation programs and sites for active recreational
use which will contribute to the quality of life within the village,
particularly during long seasons of low employment.
6. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is resulting in the transfer
of popular recreation areas, such as Bristol Bay sports fishing
lands, from public to private ownership. Land ownership gives the
Native corporations a greater opportunity to benefit economically
from tourism and recreation. Changes in ownership will also tend
to place greater recreation pressures on remaining public lands.
7. Recreational activity concentrates heavily around points of access,
particularly along areas accessible by road. In areas away from
roads, waterfront, and airstrips, recreational activity is dispersed,
but still tends to concentrate at attractive lakes and streams.
8. Some people prefer recreation in natural lands without any public
improvements. For them all that is needed are road pull-offs and
other forms of access to public lands, such as trail clearance
through woods and brushy areas. Additional site development can be
detrimental rather than beneficial to their recreational experience.
6
9. The extent to which lands are available to urban people at all
levels of income is heavily influenced by mode of access. Lands
that are accessible only by plane.or by a long and costly boat trip
are effectively limited to those in higher income brackets; whereas
lands that are accessible by road are more widely available.
10. Near urban areas, lands with prime recreational values, particularly
land with road or water access, also have high value as private
real estate. Unless public lands needed for recreation are clearly
identified and reserved for this purpose, accessible lands will
eventually be closed to public use through disposal to private
ownership. Should this occur, people will have to travel farther
from the community to reach public open space. Alternatively,
costly repurchase of accessible lands will be necessary.
11. In the future, population growth, combined with increases in per
capita income and leisure time, will generate an ever increasing
demand for recreation resources. Unless the supply of accessible
recreation lands is increased or recreational use is redirected,
existing recreation sites will be used more intensely.
12. Overuse and crowding can reduce the quality of a recreational
experience in a given area. The threshold of use at which the
quality of the experience starts to deteriorate depends on the type
of experience sought, the carrying capacity of the land, and the
amount and nature of recreation facilities and site maintenance.
13. Alaska lands are used for recreation by people from other parts of
the Nation and world, as well as by residents. In 1977 between 40
and 50 percent of the people uiing lands in the Alaska State Park
System were from out of state. The State is mandated to provide
the same outdoor recreation opportunities for Alaskan visitors, as
well as for its residents.
14. Alaska's wealth of outdoor recreational opportunity is a significant
asset to the State's economy. It has been estimated that in 1~77
people visiting Alaska for recreation spent over $200,000,000.
Visitor expenditures have been growing steadily over time.
Governmental Roles
1. The State, Federal, and municipal governments have assumed different
and complementary roles in providing recreational opportunities and
services on public lands in Alaska.
2. Federal agencies see their primary role as preserving land and
resources of outstanding value for the Nation as a whole. Accordingly,
their management policies seek to disperse or manage recreational
use to protect the resource.
7
-----~----. ~----------~ ~~---
3. Municipalities, on the other hand, see their role as providing
recreation sites and programs conveniently located for use by local
residents. Municipal recreation sites are often used intensively
and require expensive development and management.
s
4. The State's primary recreation agency, the Division of Parks,
defines its role as providing accessible outdoor recreation oppor-
tunities to Alaska residents and visitors while protecting the
natural resources of the-land. State park policy is use oriented,
like that of the municipalities, but has some aspects of the Federal
orientation towards natural resource protection.
5. Each governmental level provides an essential component in the
array of outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the public.
State recreation areas which accommodate intensive recreational use
by the traveling public are needed if Federal lands are to be
maintained in their natural state for low intensity uses.
6. There is a rough alignment between the character of lands owned by
different governmental levels and their differing recreation manage-
ment policies. The vast, remote, and often rugged or marshy character
of Federal lands is best suited for light, dispersed use; the State
holds more accessible and useable lowlands; whereas municipal
recreation lands are generally smaller sites within developed com-
munities. But there are important exceptions to this generality,
most notably, early Federal withdrawals adjoining communities and
highways, such as the Chugach and Tongass National Forests, the
Kenai National Moose Range, and the military withdrawals near
Fairbanks and Anchorage; Conversely, the State Park System includes
holdings of remote and mountainous land, such as the Wood-Tikchik
State Park.
7. In addition to its role as a provider of recreation lands and
facilities, the State has special responsibility for comprehensive
planning, for coordination of various governmental levels, for
assisting local communities in recreation projects, and for identi-
fying and preserving historic areas and structures.
8. Within communities, recreation planning, program operation, and
site maintenance are most effectively accomplished by the local
government which has a direct and daily knowledge of local needs
and conditions.
9. The State's policy has been to encourage local governments to
assume responsibility for recreation sites and programs located
within the community.
10. Local communities vary considerably in their ability and willingness
to provide public recreation services. Often, small isolated
communities with heavy unemployment are most in need of local
recreation programs; yet, local governmental resources are inadequate
to meet this need. In relation to other needs for scarce resources,
recreation is often given a low priority by local governments.
8
11. Some financial assistance has been provided to local governments
through the State's revenue sharing program and through Land and
Water Conservation funding. Occasional technical assistance has
been provided, and the State has assisted in the organization of
local Park and Recreation Councils to support the establishment of
local recreation areas and programs. Despite these efforts, State
assistance for local recreation has reached only a few communities.
12. There are a number of State and Federal agencies with some respon-
sibility for helping local governments provide local recreation,
but there is no working system of coordinating these efforts.
Recreation Responsibilities and Policies Within State Government
1. In terms of money and effort spent, the major program of the Division
of Parks has been the development and maintenance of a system of
campgrounds, waysides, and recreation areas located along main
highways for use by the traveling public. No other governmental
level provides this service. Though providing campgrounds and
recreation sites for the traveling public is widely accepted as a
State responsibility, existing statutes do not specifically recognize
this aspect of the Division of Park's program.
2. In designing campgrounds, the State's policy has been to keep them
simple and rustic, and, in this manner, to maintain a distinction
from private visitor accommodations and to minimize construction
and maintenance costs.
·3. Public use of campgrounds and waysides has shifted in recent years
from predominately tent campers to people with truck campers and
self-contained recreational vehicles. This shift has cut down on
the demand for traditional campgrounds and created different needs
for siting and campground design.
4. The State has recently been considering extending its system of
campgrounds and recreation sites to other main traveled ways, such
as waterways and airports. With the transfer of much of the land
along major rivers from public to private ownership, there is a
need for designated public recreation sites for use by river travelers.
Without such a system, people traveling along rivers are liable to
trespass on private property or to misuse easements which have been
reserved solely for the purpose of providing rest areas necessary
for travel rather than for recreation purposes. State waterway
recreation areas could be acquired through selection, dedication of
existing State lands, or exchange or purchase from Native corpora-
tions.
5. The Wood-Tikchik State Park Act, adding 1,428,320 acres to the
State Park System in 1978, represents public recognition of the
-
9
fact that the State ownership includes large areas with outstanding
natural values well suited for retention in public ownership through
inclusion in the State Park System. The Legislature stipulated
that management of this park provide for subsistence and fisheries
protection, as well as for recreational use.
6. With its ownership of natural lands relatively near to communities,
the State has an opportunity to provide the public with accessible
wildland or wilderness experiences.
7. Though State law assigns primary responsibility for State recreation
lands and services to the Alaska Division of Parks, other State
agencies have a major influence on recreational opportunities in
Alaska. Primary among these are the Division of Lands, which will
eventually manage about 100 million acres; the Department of Fish
and Game, which influences the pattern of recreational activity
through its management of fish and wildlife resources; and the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which provides
various modes of access to recreation lands, as well as opportunities
for pleasure-oriented travel. The Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Division of Policy Development and Planning in the Governor's
Office also have an important, though less direct, influence on
outdoor recreation lands and resources.
8. The Division of Lands' decisions about land disposals are a point
where critical choices between public recreation and other land
interests must be made. In the past, land disposals in some areas
have seriously reduced the State's supply of accessible or waterfront
recreation land, and decisions about surface and subsurface use
have not always been compatible.
9. Policy statements of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities give little recognition to the recreational component of
highway travel. Nor is there much public recognition of the ways
in which mode and cost of access limit or extend the availability
of public recreation lands to various sectors of the public. In
actuality, roads and highways are heavily used for recreation, as
well as for transportation. Surveys show that driving for pleasure
is a popular form of recreational activity. Road access is essential
to many forms of public recreation, and for many people, driving is
the only means of travel used.
10. The responsibilities and management tools of the Department of Fish
and Game are primarily limited to one facet of the recreational
experience of the hunter, fisherman, or wildlife observer; i.e.,
resource availability. Recreational hunting and fishing are also
influenced by State agencies which control land ownership, the
availability or kind of public access, the availability of site
maintenance services, and in some cases, the availability of public
camping and private campgrounds, lodges, and restaurants.
10
11. State fish and wildlife management has historically emphasized
sport fishing and hunting and paid less attention to the recreational
value of the resource for viewing and other nonconsumptive purposes.
Recently, however, the Department has given greater recognition to
nonconsumptive resource values.
Coordinating Outdoor Recreation Planning
1. Recreation opportunities in Alaska are influenced by a wide range
of public agencies at various governmental levels, as well as by
the private sector.
2. Recreation planning by the Alaska Division of Parks is either
statewide (the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan) or
local. At a regional level there is no existing State program for
recreation planning and intergovernmental/interagency coordination.
3. The existing A-95 Clearinghouse provides an opportunity for State
and Federal agencies to comment on projects involving a component
of Federal funding or licensing. As currently structured, the
Clearinghouse is not an effective vehicle for interagency communica-
tion about pending decisions involving State lands and resources.
The State lacks a formal system through which various State depart-
ments could exchange information about pending land and resource
decisions.
4. In the absence of effective coordination, the pattern of recreation
lands and services will be a random composite, and opportunities to
better allocate public resources by avoiding duplication and sharing
or reorganizing responsibilities will be lost.
5. Recent State legislation recognizes a local governmental prerogative
in land use planning. The State Land Policy Act requires that
planning for State lands be consistent with local governmental land
use planning, except where there is an overriding State interest.
The State Coastal Zone Management Act also grants local planning
prerogatives.
6. Recreation plans are more likely to be implemented if (a) line
agencies responsible for implementation are active participants in
plan preparation, (b) recommendations are at a level of detail and
specificity comparable to that of agency programs and budgets, and
(c) budgeting for recreation projects is keyed to the plan.
7. The existing State Park and Recreation Council has several features
which give it a nucleus from which a more effective entity for
recreation planning and coordination could be built. Its membership
is based on local representation; its leadership by the Lt. Governor
gives it a potential for strength within the context of State
government; and it has the beginnings of an interagency committee
for coordination of recreation plans and programs. However, without
11
a stronger legal mandate and staff within the Division of Parks
which can help acco~plish its responsibilities, the State Park and
Recreation Council will be unable to provide effective recreation
planning and interagency coordination.
12
--
J
RECREATION PATTERNS
AND TRENDS
Kinds of Outdoor Recreation*
~Outdoor recreation in Alaska is as varied as the nature and preferences
of different people. The experience defined as outdoor recreation can
range from a glimpse of sparkling ocean while driving through an urban
setting to days spent wandering in a wilderness. For some, outdoor
recreation is a sociable occasion at a crowded fishing site, for others
the key ingredient is in solitude. For some, it is the activity of
jogging, playing soccer, hunting, snowmobiling, or skiing; for others, it
is a chance to sleep on the grass in the sun.
None of these variations is the exclusive specialty of any one group of
people. During the course of a year even the most single-minded sports-
man finds outdoor recreation in a variety of places and ways. Typically,
an experience which may be labeled in one way, be it a fishing trip, a
picnic, or a rockhound hike, combines a range of uses of the public
lands and traveled ways. A significant part of most recreational excur-
sions is the trip itself. A recent survey showed that driving for
pleasure was the m~st frequent summer recreational activity among State
Park System users. In Alaska, most highways have scenic vistas of a
quality that is matched in only a few parts of the Nation. Traveling by
boat or viewing scenery and wildlife from a train may also be an important
part of the pleasure of a recreational excursion.
Once people reach their destination, their total recreational experience
comes from a combination of factors. The activity they engage in, be it
picnicking, catching fish, collecting rock specimens, or visiting an
historic site, is only a part of the experience. The setting and contact
with nature is a major factor in the quality of outdoor recreation for
most people. Catching fish from a busy highway culvert is not the same
as fishing in a country stream. The surrounding lands are often as
important to the quality of the recreational experience as the specific
site itself. Similarly, the nature of the traveled way, be it a highway,
railbelt, river, or air, influences the quality of the total outdoor
recreational experience.
During the course of a year, people commonly use a variety of public
lands for recreation. Recreational activity extends across ownership
boundaries and involves both the public and private sector. In this
respect, planning and land management for public outdoor recreation is
comparable to planning and land management of fish and wildlife or for
the development of transportation facilities. Many recreational experi-
ences involve only an hour or two of spare time and are limited to
recreation lands and facilities within the community. On a two-day
weekend, people seldom want to spend more than half a day each way
traveling. But most people also have at least one or two times a year
when they can take a longer trip and venture into an area farther from
home.
*Appendix I includes reports from the Commission's survey of recreation
activity in three sample areas.
13
Recreational patterns and preferences vary significantly in different
regions of the State. For example, in southeastern Alaska, recreationists
commonly disperse from the main communities by boat or plane to favorite
coves for fishing or access to remote hunting opportunities. The Kenai
Peninsula, on the other hand, is deluged on summer weekends by Anchorage
residents who concentrate into often over-crowded campgrounds and
waysides during the salmon season. The lack of facilities to meet peak
demand on the Kenai has translated into public desire for more or larger
public recreation facilities. By contrast, residents of Fairbanks and
other outlying interior Alaska communities are less interested in new
recreational developments because they are still able to disperse onto
public lands for a variety of activities. As a whole, they are more
interested in preservation of access so that they may continue to inde-
pendently pursue their own recreational opportunitites unconstrained by
"managed" recreation areas.
Nonresidents, which comprised 40-50 percent of the visitors to the
developed areas of the State Park System in 1977, have different patterns
of recreational activity. The members of this group typically travel to
one or more major communities while they are in Alaska, and they have a
far wider travel range. Expenditures by those visiting the State for
recreation make a significant contribution to the economy. It is estimated
that, in 1977, people visiting Alaska for recreation spent over $200
million. Visitor expenditures have been growing steadily over time.
Lands Used
How is this complex structure of outdoor recreational activities distrib-
uted across the lands of Alaska, and, of equal importance, how do the
pulse and location of activities change with the seasons? To help
answer these questions, the Commission studied three regions of recrea-
tional activity centering on the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
A wide-ranging series of interviews were conducted in these regions by
contacting air taxi operators, sporting goods store operators, local
recreation managers, and others whose lives involve direct contact with
the recreating public in their area. (See Appendix I, Reports from
Interview Survey.) Information obtained from these interviews was
compiled on maps showing the regional pattern of recreational activities.
This system proved to be a simple and effective method of gaining an
overall picture of the locations and types of recreational use within
the sample regions.
From our survey it became clear that recreational activities do not take
place exclusively on designated recreation lands (parks, waysides,
etc.), but are dispersed throughout the State wherever opportunities
exist. It was also apparent that the areas of most intensive recrea-
tional activity follow access routes, primarily highways and convenient
waterways. In less accessible areas, activity is sparse and dispersed;
in summers consisting primarily of backpacking, fly-in hunting and
fishing, hiking, mountain climbing, horsepacking, and float boating; and
in winter of ski touring, snowmobiling, and dog sledding. On summer
14
weekends in the Kenai Peninsula, thousands of fishermen cluster at the
points where the highway crosses<major salmon streams, such as Anchor
River, Deep Creek, Ninilchik, and the Kenai River. Use of these areas
is highly seasonal and fluctuates greatly depending on holidays, weather,
and fish runs. In 1977, about 6,000 canoeists used the Swanson River
Canoe Trail System, which is accessible from roads running through the
Kenai National Moose Range. In less accessible areas, like the south
side of Kachemak Bay which must be reached by boat or plane, recreational
use is relatively dispersed arong rivers and lakes, beaches, and mountain
valleys. Even in these areas, however, use tends to remain relatively
concentrated around float-plane lakes and natural coastal harbors.
It also became clear that, in some communities, local recreation facilities
serve large numbers of people from other parts of Alaska and the Nation,
as well as local residents. The Homer Spit, for example, is a major
destination for tourists, as well as residents from throughout southcen-
tral Alaska.
Ownership of Public Recreation Lands
Who.owns the public lands which are most heavily impacted by recreational
use? For the most part, such lands are in municipal or State ownership,
or are held by the Federal government under special purpose withdrawals,
such as the Kenai National Moose Range and the Chugach and Tongass
National Forests. Other federally owned lands are beyond the range of
most intensive activity. The reasons for this pattern lie in the land
selection criteria used by the State and municipal governments, as well
as in the historical sequence of land status changes.
Federal withdrawals, accomplished long before statehood, established
several important holdings of Federal lands near main communities in
areas of high recreational use. Thus, on the Kenai Peninsula, the
accessible portions of the Kenai National Moose Range and the Chugach
National Forest receive intensive recreational use. In southeastern
Alaska, main communities are surrounded by Tongass National Forest
lands. In both the Fairbanks and Anchorage areas, large military with-
drawals encompass lands which are used by recreationists and have poten-
tial for even greater recreational use.
To some extent, Federal withdrawals have been adjusted to reallocate
high demand areas to State or private ownership. The Moose Range bounda-
ries have been moved back about a mile's distance from the coastline
along Cook Inlet, and the State has recently completed a series of
selections of areas desirable for community growth or recreation from
the national forests. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act allowed a
limited amount of Native corporation selections from national forests
and wildlife refuges. Still, because of their combination of accessible
lands and waters attractive for outdoor recreation, the Chugach and
Tongass National Forests and the Kenai National Moose Range remain
important to the supply of outdoor recreational opportunities in south-
central Alaska.
15
However, on an overall basis, State and municipal lands are located
where they will receive more intensive use than most Federal lands.
This is because State selections of lands granted at Statehood have
given priority to accessible lands with a combination of values for
people, often including recreational values, such as water frontage or
fish and wildlife resources.
Following the pattern of the Federal government, State law gave the
municipalities the right to select 10 percent of the vacant, unapprop-
riated, and unreserved State lands within their jurisdictions. Thus,
municipalities have been able to select some of the best State lands
including areas which are most accessible and desirable from the point
of view of human use. A number of municipalities are still entitled to
substantial additional acreage. The municipal land selection law adopted
by the Legislature in 1978 specifies additional acreage amounts for each
municipality, but also includes a procedure allowing the State to retain
lands where there is an identified State interest, for example, future
State parks. From the existing pattern of municipal ownership, it is
clear that State recreation planning will often involve cooperation and
exchange with municipal governments.
In summary, the public lands where existing recreational use is most
intense are lands with some form of access, often lands in State or
municipal ownership. This pattern of recreational activity tends to be
linear, along highways or shorelines. Since access is also the prime
factor in real estate value, areas with high recreational values tend to
be subject to heavy demand for private aquisition. In waterfront areas,
the pressure for private acquisition is especially strong. Private
owners have already acquired much of the western Kenai Peninsula coast,
lake shore areas of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and around Fairbanks.
Where recreation lands near communities remain in public ownership, the
pattern of surrounding land ownership is often complicated. In many
accessible areas, State, municipal, and private lands are intermixed.
It is often difficult to distinguish between public and private lands.
On the Kenai Peninsula, for example, there are several popular fishing
sites where people commonly trespass on private property.
Under these circumstances, State lands needed for present and future
recreation use should be clearly identified and reserved for public
purposes. Without positive action in this direction, private land
interests will be the dominant influence on State land disposal decisions
and, eventually, most accessible land will be conveyed to private owner-
ship. The State is required by recent legislation, the 1978 "Land
Policy Act" (A.S. 38.04.005), to seek a reasonable balance of developed
lands and accessible public open space and recreation areas. Without
such a balance, Alaskans will lose much of the easy contact with nature
that has long been accepted as part of the Alaska lifestyle.
16
Federal, State, and Municipal Roles"{(
Given the pattern of recreation activity described in previous sections,
what should be the role of the Federal, State, and local governments in
providing outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands? It is
easier to answer this question as it applies to national and local
governments than as it applies to the State's role. The national and
local governments are at either end of a spectrum, and they have a more
clear-cut and easily defined fnnction. State responsibilities overlap
and interrelate with those of the other two governmental levels. As the
government with major statewide jurisdiction, the State has unique
responsibilities for involving the Federal and municipal governments in
area-wide planning and program coordination. In Alaska where there are
some areas with no local government, the State has even broader responsi-
bilities.
Most sources agree that the primary national role in recreation manage-
ment in Alaska is in preserving and managing lands and resources of
outstanding value for the nation as a whole. With a basic emphasis on
the quality and perpetuation of the resource itself rather than on
recreation services, the choice of areas is dominated more by the nature
of the land than by accessibility or location in relation to communities.
The areas of Alaska currently withdrawn for addition to the Federal
conservation systems are generally far more remote and isolated from
highways and communities than are State or municipal lands, or lands
which were previously withdrawn for Federal purposes.
In keeping with this basic empha·sis on the resource per se, recreation
activities generally are managed to disperse or otherwise minimize the
impact of human activities on Federal lands and resources. A Bureau of
Land Management recreation planner describes their emphasis as being
towards "dispersed wildland recreation manage~ent." Concentrated usage
is directed toward certain rivers and trails. In a similar vein, the
U.S. Forest Service reports that future emphasis in managing national
forest lands in Alaska will be towards "providing dispersed recreation,
as opposed to featuring opportunities t~at have a specific site (e.g. a
campground) as the focal point of use." The Fish and Wildlife Service
reports a decreasing agency emphasis on recreation services in relation
to resource management objectives. The National Park Service has tradi-
tionally exercised strict control over access in national park areas,
including prohibition of private vehicles on park roads and strict
regulation of wilderness or back-country use when these measures are
determined necessary to maintain the quality of the park.
Though the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife
Service provide campgrounds, there is a basic difference between their
approach and that of the State towards this public service. Campgrounds
*Appendix II summarizes correspondence in which Federal, State, and
municipal entities expressed their view of different governmental roles
in public outdoor recreation.
17
of the three Federal conservation systems are accessory to the lands
within the systems and, hence, campground location is guided by the
nature of an area more than the convenience of the public. Similarly,
the campgrounds that are under BLM jurisdiction are on the more remote
stretches of Alaska's highways in areas held by the BLM. The Federal
approach assumes that the public will travel to resource destinations,
whereas the State campground system is oriented and located more as a
convenience to the traveling public. State campgrounds have natural
characteristics which contribute to a pleasurable camping experience,
but the basic orientation in site selection has been towards accessibility
and a desirable distribution along the main highway system. This dif-
ference in approach towards campground location expresses an underlying
difference in the recreation policy of the national and State governments
in Alaska.
Municipalities in Alaska have yet another orientation towards public
recreation. Municipalities that do provide public recreation services
generally emphasize recreation programs, organizing indoor and outdoor
recreation activites for local populations. Most larger municipalities
maintain open spaces for outdoor recreation, primarily for the use and
enjoyment of local residents rather than for visitors. But many local
communities in Alaska are destinations for tourists, and recreation
sites within the community are heavily used by nonresidents, as well as
residents from other communities. Though the local community may derive
some benefit from tourism, the cost of developing and maintaining a
recreation site that is heavily used by nonresidents may be out of scale
with both local resources and l~cal benefits to be gained. Here, State
and local governments have an overlapping responsibility. The State
also has a unique responsibility in areas with little or no local govern-
ment where tourists have a significant impact on the lives or recreational
opportunities of local government.
··The State's role in public recreation is to provide accessible outdoor
recreation opportunities to Alaska residents and visitors while protecting
the natural resources of the land. State park policy is use-oriented,
like that of the municipalities, yet has aspects of the Federal orienta-
tion towards natural resource protection.
As the government whose jurisdiction extends over all lands in Alaska,
whether in private, municipal, State, or Federal ownership, the State
also has a special responsibility for comprehensive planning of recrea-
tion lands and services throughout the State and for coordinating the
recreation services of various governmental levels. State recreation
planning must also recognize and consider private or commercial recrea-
tion providers.
Federal law recognizes and encourages the State role in recreation
planning and coordination. Each state is required to prepare a Statewide
Outdoor Recreation Plan as a condition to rece1v1ng financial assistance
from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. In its role as the
sovereign government responsible for the welfare of its people and their
communities, the State should also provide technical and financial
18
assistance to communities for local governmental recreation projects.
Finally, the State has primary responsibility for identifying and preserving
areas and structures of historic value and for eliciting the participation
of individuals, organizations, and communities in accomplishing this objective.
19
THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE STATE
Overview
There is a basic complementarity in the different roles which Federal,
State, and municipal governments have assumed in providing outdoor
recreational opportunities in Alaska. Each governmental level provides
an essential component of the array of outdoor recreational opportunities
sought by the people of the State and the Nation. The active recreation
programs of some municipalities are a vital part of everyday life in
Alaskan communities, just as it is important to the well-being of the
people of both the State and the Nation that part of Alaska be maintained
in its natural character. The State's role to provide accessible natural
lands for more active recreational use, as well as campgrounds for the
traveling public, is equally needed.
However, despite these basic distinctions, there are many areas of
overlap and potential conflict in the recreation policies and programs
of the three governmental levels. The State has several campgrounds
which better fit the purposes of municipal governments than of the
State. In the Anchorage municipality, for example, the Mirror Lake
State Recreation Area is used primarily by residents of the munici-
pality. Near Fairbanks, the Chena River Wayside was jammed with campers
who made it their place of residence during the pipeline boom, forcing
the State to close it to camping. Urban sewer and water facilities must
be provided before it can be reopened because it is now surrounded by
urban development. The city of Homer would like the State to assist in
providing expanded harbor facilities, camping areas, and parking for
people who travel through Homer to reach the Kachemak Bay State Park.
Generally, the municipalities argue that the State is financially better
equiped to maintain these recreation facilities, whereas the State's
position is that the municipality is better able to identify local needs
and to program, administer, and police local facilities and services.
Since the State must be consistent and even-handed in its relationship
with all municipalities, it is particularly important that it have a
clearly articulated and firm policy regarding the division of respon-
sibility between itself and local governments.
The State is also involved in municipal recreation programs, but only as
a source of financial and technical assistance. Federal recreation
grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund are channeled to local
governments through the State Division of Parks. In addition, the State
and the U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) are developing a program through which
they will provide municipalities-with advice and assistance in the
development of recreation programs. The State fosters the organization
of local park and recreation councils (PARCs) which work to establish
park and recreation areas and programs within the community. Representa-
tives of local PARCs, together with the Lt. Governor and the Director of
the Division of Parks, make up the Recreation Advisory Committee which
participates in the allocation of Federal and State funds to local
communities.
20
There is at least as much overlap between State and Federal recreation
policies and programs as there is between those of the State and the
municipal governments. As a generality, it is true that Federal lands,
which are often remote, mountainous, or marshy, are better suited for
management which protects the lands and resources by minimizing human
intrusion; and that State lands, which are often more accessible lowlands,
are better suited for more intensive use. However, these statements are
only accurate in a broad statewide context. There are important excep-
tions to this generality on both State and Federal lands. With 104,000,000
acres of existing and potential ownership, State lands inevitably encompass
many remote areas with outstanding natural values of a quality similar
to those identified for the national conservation systems. On the other
hand, there are several Federal withdrawals, mainly withdrawals dating
from before Statehood, which are located where they will be subjected to
heavy recreational use from nearby communities and, as such, are important
elements in State and municipal recreation planning.
As noted in the preceeding chapter, sections of the Kenai National Moose
Range and the Chugach and Tongass National Forests combine accessibility
with land and waters which are attractive to recreationists. Potentially,
such areas are subject to intensive use more like that anticipated by
State than by Federal land management policies. The Kenai National
Moose Range receives intensive recreational use, yet the national mandate
of the Fish and Wildlife Service requires that recreation be secondary
to wildlife and habitat protection.
There are advantages to these occasional inconsistencies between the
location and characteristics of the land and the management policies of
the owners. A mixture of Federal and State ownership of accessible
recreation lands provides the public with greater assurance of a range
of recreational opportunities than might be provided if the ownership
were more unified. Recently, State land policymakers have been heavily
· pressured to convey large quantities of accessible State lands to private
ownership. Under current Federal law, Federal land managers are less
vulnerable to such pressures, and public land ownership has more stability.
The presence of some Federal lands in the zone of heavy recreational
activity near communities may be viewed as insurance that some natural
lands will re~ain within easy traveling range of major growth centers.
Assuming a more balanced approach to State land management, the mixture
and juxtaposition of State and Federal recreation lands under differing
management policies enables the State and Federal governments to work
together to provide the public with a range and variety of recreational
opportunities. If some lands are to be maintained in a wild and natural
condition, other lands must be managed to accommodate public demand for
more intensive recreational use. For example, State lands can provide
the threshold or point of entrance to wildlands under Federal management.
In addition to its role as a landowner, the State has a more comprehensive
responsibility for recreation planning and development. As the government
for the whole of Alaska, the State is concerned that lands and resources
be managed for the maximum long-range benefit of the people of Alaska
21
regardless of ownership. To this end, the State of Alaska has regional
and statewide land planning powers and authority under its general
police powers to regulate private property. As the sovereign government,
the State, if it so chooses, could assert State interests in the manage-
ment of municipally owned lands.
By specific legislation, for example, air and water quality laws, Congress
can give the Federal government comparable sovereign authority in relation
to State and municipal lands. -However, it should be noted that both
Federal authority over the State, and State authority over municipalities
has recently been tempered by a trend in Federal and State law to require
land planning by the higher level of government to conform with the more
local governmental unit. Clauses requiring a degree of Federal compliance
with local planning are included in both the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. At a State
level, the recent Land Policy Act requires State's planning to conform
with local planning except where there is an overriding State interest.
None-the-less, the State has a responsibility to initiate action to
involve both Federal and municipal land managers in regional or statewide
planning for public recreational use. The State could coordinate various
governmental entities to identify public recreation demands and opportun-
ities and to provide public lands and services where they would be of
most overall public benefit.
Currently, responsibilities for State land and resource management are
diffused among a number of State departments and divisions. There is
some ad hoc coordination between State agencies on recreation matters,
and the Alaska Park and Recreation Council is a nominal coordinating
branch, but in actuality, there is no funded and effective structure
through which State and Federal agencies can coordinate activities which
influence public recreational opportunities on public lands.
Before considering the structure and powers of such an entity, this
report will review the role of various State agencies which affect
outdoor recreation in Alaska. Actions which could improve the recreation
planning capability within each agency will be suggested.
Division of Parks
The one agency identified by law as having primary responsibility for
State park and recreation services is the Alaska Division of Parks
within the Department of Natural Resources. The primary function, which
requires most of the Division's staff and budget, is the development,
operation, and maintenance of the State Park System. In addition, the
Division prepares and annually updates a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan and manages recreation research projects on which the
plan is based. Federal grants to Alaska under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act are administered by the Division, as are matching
State funds and funds for the State Trails and Footpaths Program.
Through the Division, these funds are allocated to local governments and
22
to State Park System projects. A branch of the Division administers the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act and serves as staff to the Historic
Sites Advisory Committee. Finally, the Division has legal authority to
"provide for consulting services designed to develop local park and
recreation facilities and programs" (A.S. 41.20.020(a)), and to "provide
clearinghouse services for other State agencies concerned with park and
recreation matters" (A.S. 41.20.020(11)), but neither of these functions
has been funded to the point where it can be accomplished effectively.
The State Park System
The State Park System includes 5 State parks, 1 State wilderness
park, 50 waysides, 4 historic sites, 2 trail systems, and 4 recrea-
tion areas totaling approximately 2,800,000 acres. A number of
additional parks are in the planning and proposal stages. During
the 1978 legislative session, adoption of the 1,428,320 acre Wood-
Tikchik State Park proposal added a spectacular region of intercon-
nected lakes and rivers to the System.
Over the eight years since its creation, the special role of the
State Park System has been defined and refined as Division of Parks
personnel have developed the System and interacted with recreation
providers within other State agencies. Through this process, the
following elements have emerged as primary characteristics of the
State Park System:
1. A major function of the System is to serve the traveling
public by providing areas and sites with recreational oppor-
tunities accessible from main travel routes. This function
benefits visitors to the State almost as much as it benefits
residents of Alaska. Preliminary data for 1977 indicate that
50 to 60 percent ff the visitors to Alaska's waysides are
Alaska residents. Thus, nearly half are from other parts of
the Nation or from foreign countries. The State's role in
providing campgrounds and recreation areas for the traveling
public is an important complement to the national parks,
wildlife refuges, and forests, which are the destination of
many of Alaska's visitors.
2. Convenience to major communities and travel corridors is a
primary consideration in designating areas for the State
Park System. The Division concentrates on "recreation hinter-
lands" defined by scribing arcs of 50-mile radius around
existing and potential communities of a thousand or more
people, and by scribing parallel lines along travel corridors.
As evidence of this emphasis, 95 percent of the existing or
proposed area of the State Park System is within a hundred
miles of communities of more than a thousand people.
3. The Division of Parks has recently extended its definition of
"main traveled ways" to encompass waterways, as well as highways.
The Division has recommended to the Governor establishment of
23
a Marine Park System including a series of sites along the
coast of Prince William Sound and Southeastern Alaska. People
would have access to these sites from charter boats or private
crafts which could connect with the State's Marine Highway in
the area.
4. Many areas of the State Park System are intended to accommodate
a higher use per acre than are Federal recreation lands. As
such, sites are generally smaller and more intensively developed
with picnic areas, trash barrels, pit toilets, trails, foot-
bridges and other facilities. Though any area intended for
recreation must be managed to preserve the natural values of
the land, State policy generally allows for more intensive use
than Federal policy.
5. In designing campground facilities, State policy has been to
keep them simple and rustic. In this manner, the State maintains
a desired distinction between public and private visitor
accommodations and tends to minimize maintenance costs.
Like any ongoing public service, management of the State Park
System continuously changes and adjusts to reflect changing public
needs and opportunities. From our survey of recreational activity
in various regions of the State, and from a review of recent shifts
in land status and management throughout Alaska, the following
areas of change are identi£ied:
l. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Native corpora-
tions have concentrated land selections along riverways. With
this major change in land status, there is a need to designate
and preserve certain remaining State lands as public recreation
sites or, where needed, to purchase or trade such sites from
Native corporations. Without designated public recreation
areas, people traveling along waterways are liable to trespass
on private property or to misuse easements which are reserved
solely for the purpose of providing rest areas and stopping
points necessary for travel rather than for recreation.
Public planning for waterway sites should be closely coordinated
with local Native corporations and other private land owners.
Such coordination will also avoid unnecessary duplication of
possible private recreational development.
2. In recent years, use of campgrounds and waysides has shifted
from predominantly tent campers to greater use of truck campers
and self-contained recreational vehicles. This shift has cut
down considerably on the demand for the traditional campsite,
complete with tables, fire pits, level tent spaces, and adequate
spacing for privacy. In fact, many recreational vehicle
campers seem to prefer a more social or "parking lot" atmosphere.
For example, a random spot check at the Chatanika River Camp-
ground on the Steese Highway in June, 1978 revealed that there
were eight recreational vehicles parked side-by-side in an
24
--
unimproved, open-gravel area near the road, despite the fact
that there were two empty campsites available. Also, there
were only two "traditional" tent cam:eing parties (having no
camper or recreational vehicle) out of a total of 23 parties
using the improved campsites.
Before developing or improving a campground or wayside, the
State should assess the type of demand and plan accordingly.
Spacious, developed campsites should not be emphasized if a
majority of the users don't need them. At the same time, it
may also be appropriate to "zone" campgrounds to separate tent
campers from recreational vehicles. Often tent camping
spaces are polluted by sewage and other waste released by
previous recreational vehicle campers. An area set aside
specifically for tent campers would alleviate this conflict.
3. The Division of Parks, the Department of Transportation, and
certain Federal land managers each handle maintenance at
certain public campgrounds and/or waysides. There are locations
and situations where overall economy and efficiency could be
improved if agencies exchanged maintenance responsibilities or
contracted with each other for needed services. To maximize
efficiency and economy, the Division of Parks should look for
opportunities to form contractual or joint agreements with
other State, Federal, local agencies, or the private sector for
services such as litter collection, maintenance of sanitary
facilities, etc. For example, if the Department of Transporta-
tion is routinely picking up garbage in the vicinity of a
campgrounds, the Division of Parks could reimburse them for the
costs of including the park facility in their service area.
4. State parks and recreation areas adjacent to Federal lands in
the national conservation systems can serve a complementary
function by providing threshold areas between the primary
points of access and the national lands. Where State lands
fulfill this role, it is more feasible to manage Federal lands
to preserve natural resources and accommodate low intensity
uses. However, management for more intensive recreation uses
is costly. Federal land managers may need to provide financial
assistance for State management of thresholds to Federal
lands.
5. The State owns some lands of outstanding natural and recrea-
tional value that should be designated for public recreation
despite relative inaccessibility and the probability that use
will be very light in the near future.
6. The State is still in the process of selecting, rece1v1ng, and
classifying its 104,000,00Q acre land entitlement. The State
should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to
establish areas for future, as well as present public recrea-
25
tional needs and to assure that Alaska will maintain a desirable
balance .and mix of public and privately owned land as population
increases in the future.
7. The State Park System includes a variety of lands and recrea-
tional opportunities, and its future development must reflect
the range of public demands and needs for State recreation
areas. Though the Division names different areas of the
System in different ways, there is a need to clarify the
categories within the State Park System. Parks, recreation
areas, and campgrounds each have different purposes. The
following criteria could be used to distinguish elements of
the System and to determine which designation is best suited
for a particular area. The term "wayside" has not been used
in these categories in an effort to find a term that is more
descriptive of the purpose of the unit.
Park
-emphasis on important natural values
-opportunity for recreational activities compatible with
natural landscape and feeling of open space
-emphasis on dispersed recreational use (though not neces-
sarily exclusively)
Recreation Area
-primary purpose to encourage and manage a variety of
recreational activites in an area with multiple recrea-
tional opportunities
-greater emphasis on improvements (trails, campgrounds,
etc.)
Recreation Site
-emphasis on camping with additional site specific recrea-
tional opportunities (fishing, boating, historic site,
hiking, etc.)
-campsite facilities designed to maximize and encourage
participation in recreational activities
-suitable for use for more than one night
Campground
-primary purpose to serve the traveling public on an
overnight basis
-located on main traveled routes and placed at convenient
intervals, considering demand and the location of other
overnight facilities, including private campgrounds
-adjacent recreational opportunities possible but not
necessary to the purpose of the units
26
Picnic Area (These areas need not be operated exclusively by
the State Division of Parks but may be created by or transferred
to other State agencies or local governments to promote more
efficient management where appropriate.)
-primary purpose to facilitate day-use activities, (picnicking,
walking, berry-picking, scenic and wildlife viewing,
etc.) including access to adjacent public lands for these
activities
-not intended for overnight use
Rest Areas (These stopping points along highways and waterways
should also be considered in overall System planning, even
though they will often be provided and operated by agencies
outside the System, generally the Department of Transportation.)
-primary recreation purpose is to provide a point of
access between the highway and adjoining public lands
-minimal facilities such as trash cans, pit toilets, and
public trails should be provided as need demands
These designations are not mutually exclusive. For example, a
picnic area could be incorporated within any of the previous
categories or a recreational site could be part of a park. The use
of standardized signs and symbols would assist the public in iden-
tifying available recreation opportunities in different areas.
Municipalities and the Division of Parks
The Division of Parks' statewide recreation responsibilities include
the establishment of a relationship with municipalities. This
relationship has evolved over time and has been shaped by experience.
The need for close cooperation between statewide and local recreation
interests is especially important because the spectrum of recreation
needs in Alaska varies considerably depending on cultural background,
population, geography, and climate.
Because the boundaries of Alaska's municipalities often encompass
rural areas far beyond developed communities, State parks, and
recreation sites located within municipal jurisdictions do not
necessarily duplicate local park and recreation functions. Instead,
sites such as the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area in the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, Chugach State Park in the Anchorage municipality,
or the Captain Cook State Recreation Area in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough provide intra-borough recreation opportunities serving a
regional population, as well as the traveling public.
When State recreation sites are located within developed communities,
such as the Chena River Wayside in Fairbanks or the Mirror Lake
Wayside in the Anchorage municipality, State policy has favored
transfer of the unit to the local municipality. The State supports
~-
27
EXAMPLE OF
•State Park
•State Recreation Area
•State Recreation Site
•State Campground
.state Picnic Area
THE USE OF SYMBOLS
~
I
\
~
This example is not a specific recommendation, but illustrates the
concept of the use of symbols to inform the public about recreation
opportunities available in a given area. The symbols would be combined
with simple signs identifying the place (e.g. Nancy Lake State Recreation
Area). Federal, State, and municipal recreation managers should work
together to develop a common ·set of recreation symbols for statewide use.
These symbols were borrowed or adapted from the Symbol Sourcebook,
Henry Dreyfuss, 1972.
28
this policy on the grounds that local government is more familiar
with local use patterns and, thus, better able to manage such
facilities. However, municipalities are sometimes unable or unwilling
to accept the added responsibility, and often State technical and
financial assistance is necessary to enable local communities to
provide these services.
The Division of Parks has statutory responsibilities as a park and
recreation "consultant" to municipalities, but the Division currently
has no budget to carry out this responsibility. Per capita State
and Federal revenue sharing for recreation is insignificant in
Alaska's smaller communities. Additional State financial assistance
through Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants is usually limited
to capital expenditures. Resulting maintenance and operating costs
may be too costly for some communities. Such assistance is limited
and difficult to obtain without substantial municipal effort.
The size and complexity of local governments in Alaska varies
greatly. Most Alaskan communities are small and have insufficient
professional or technical capacity to plan and administer local
recreation programs. Though many communities are small, recreation
demands may be relatively high because of physical isolation,
seasonal unemployment, or a relatively large influx of non-local
recreationists. Clearly the State needs to work closely with such
communitites to provide recreational opportunities which are needed
for the social and physical health of the people.
Very few of Alaska's communities have the financial and technical
ability to develop and maintain adequate recreation facilities. By
the same token, the State, with its own budgetary limitations,
cannot be expected to finanace all non-Federal rural recreation
facilities. The following procedures should improve coordination
between State and local governments and maximize implementation of
local recreation goals.
1. The State should encourage municipalities to develop recreational
opportunities at the local level through municipal acquisition
and development of land, facilities, and programs to meet the
recreational needs of local residents. The State should also
encourage local governments to actively plan and participate
in the development of State and Federal recreation programs
and help them coordinate with the private sector to meet local
recreational needs.
2. If State parks and recreation sites are located within developed
communities, they should be managed by the governmental unit
which is most familiar with local demand and use patterns.
This will encourage better facility operation, maintenance,
and enforcement. Continuing technical and financial assistance
from the State will be necessary to enable some local communities
to accept expanded recreation management responsibilities.
29
3. The Division of Parks should take an aggressive role in
providing technical and financial assistance to local communities
for recreation planning. This is especially important for
smaller communities where limited staff energy may be diffused
or overshadowed by other essential responsibilities, or for
those communities that are destinations for non-local visitors.
4. State technical and financial assistance to local governments
should be well planned to promote maximum coordination with
community requirements and aspirations. Resulting local
recreation areas and facilities should require minimal mainte-
nance and operating costs to insure their long-range viability.
5. When a municipality is unable to take the initiative to provide
needed recreation opportunities, the State may wish to proceed
with development of an area or facility and then sell or lease
it to the local government for management and maintenance.
Division of Lands--Management of Most State Lands
State lands dedicated to the State Park System currently total 2.8
million acres, leaving approximately 32 million acres (101 million acres
if selected lands and potential selections are included) under the
management of the Alaska Division of Lands within the Department of
Natural Resources. Planning and classification is handled by a section
within the Division of Lands, and land selection is handled by the
Department's Planning and Research Section.
Much State land outside the Park System has scenic and recreational
values or a combination of recreational values with other resources such
as grazing, fish and wildlife habitat, and minerals. A less recognized
value of State lands is open space which can serve to surround and shape
areas of settlement and community growth.
Because of the extent of these recreational values, actions by land
management branches of the Department of Natural Resources outside the
Division of Parks can have a major effect on the supply of recreational
opportunities in the State. In the past, prime recreation sites have
been lost to the public because of disposals which were planned without
consultation with the Division of Parks and without adequate considera-
tion of recreational values. For example, the open-to-entry sites are
typically clustered around rivers and lakes. Along the Talachulitna
River and Chunilna Creek, desirable public fishing sites have been
acquired as private open-to-entry sites and closed to public use. On
the Kenai Peninsula, State and borough land disposals have created a
barrier of private ownership between the main highway and the coastal
area. Recently the State has had to spend $110,000 to purchase 14
acres on the Kenai River in the vicinity of comparable property that was
sold by the Division within the last few years. The Division of Parks
expects it will have to make similar acquisitions in the future to
ensure public access to public waters.
30
To adequately protect recreation resources on State lands outside the
State Park System, the following measures should be considered.
1. Staff responsible for selection, classification, and disposal of
general State lands should include people with expertise in recrea-
tion planning and management and with a specific responsibility to
assure that recreational values are adequately considered. Selection,
classification, and disposal should reflect the fact that the
recreational values of general State lands are at least as important
to the public as the commercial resource values. In the past, land
branches of the Department of Natural Resources have made a practice
of asking for comments from the Division of Parks when a decision
was identified as involving recreational values. However, to
adequately identify and highlight recreational values in day-to-day
decisions about general State lands, people with expertise in
recreation land management should be part of the staff. This in-
house expertise should not replace referral of specific recreation
matters to the Division of Parks. In fact, one method of establishing
the necessary liaison would be for the Division of Lands to hire a
recreation planner who would be stationed in the Division of Parks
and would have the responsibility of reviewing all pending State
land actions, as well as initiating action that may be needed for
recreation purposes.
2. For much of the public recreation land, the critical need is not
preservation exclusively for recreational purposes, but, instead,
protection from those disposal actions which would preempt important
public recreational use. Because of other public use values, the
Park System may be inappropriate or unacceptable for many State
lands that none-the-less should be retained in public ownership.
Such lands are well suited for dedication to the Alaska Public
Reserve System adopted by the 1978 Legislature (AS 38.04.070).
Under this system, lands would be retained in public ownership but
managed for a variety of compatible public uses including~ the
protection of recreational values.
3. The Division of Lands should instigate a standard procedure for
alerting the Division of Parks and other State agencies with an
interest in the land use of the area about plans for any significant
change in State land status through dedication or disposal. For
effective communication, it is important that this notice include a
map allowing easy identification of the lands in question.
4. Planning and management of State lands should include consideration
of the relationships between surface and subsurface uses.
Department of Transportation--Access to Recreation Lands
It is clear from the way people use highways and recreation areas that
roads and recreation are closely interrelated. Driving for pleasure is
a major recreational activity in Alaska, and access is the main factor
31
which limits the effective supply of recreation lands. Because of this
intertie, close cooperation between transportation planners and recreation
planners is essential to providing good service to the general public
through either function.
Nearly all outdoor recreational activity involves some travel. Often
the trip is a major part of the experience. It is obvious to anyone
driving Alaska's main highways that a substantial share of the vehicles
are driven by people on a recreation trip. During the summer weekends,
close to half the vehicles on the Glenn or Seward Highways are recreational
vehicles. A survey of persons driving the Fishhook/Willow Road over
Hatcher Pass in August, 1976 found that only 10 of the 137 persons
queried had any nonrecreation purpose to their visit. Over three quarters
of those interviewed v~lunteered that driving for pleasure is a form of
recreational activity. In a statewide survey of State park users
conducted by the Division of Parks in 1977, respondants ranked driving
for pleasure as their most frequent summer recreational activity and
their second most frequent winter recreational activity.
Most people on recreation trips drive to their destination. The map of
Alaska's park and recreation system shows that nearly all of the developed
recreation facilities have direct access to a main highway. The extent
to which Alaska's wealth of recreational opportunities can be made
available to its residents and visitors depends heavily on the availability
of road access. This pattern is likely to continue even though other
modes of travel are available and utilized by the public.
Yet, in interviews with staff of the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, Commission staff found that recreation considerations
are brought into highway and road planning only when the route involves
a designated unit of the State Park System, lands of the national conserva-
tion systems, or when affected landowners have a clearly identified
interest in recreation. Typically, in designing a highway that passes
through general State or BLM lands, there is no special attempt to
consider and plan to maximize the recreation and scenic values of the
route, nor is there any established procedure during the design process
for gaining input from recreation planners in other State and Federal
agencies. When an environmental impact statement is prepared, the
Division of Parks is contacted only when the highway route passes through
a unit of the State Park System.
Some highway planners recognize that roads could be planned with far
more consideration of recreational values. One example which highway
planners have cited is the road beyond Egan Drive in Juneau which was
planned in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. The route is
located in relation to the topography to maximize scenery viewing, and
there are numerous pull-offs, access points to the beach, and other
recreational amenities. After considerable dialogue between the Division
of Parks and the Department of Transportation, the realignment of the
Seward Highway as it passes through the Chugach State Park will provide
access to historic trails, and rock blasting will be adjusted slightly
32
to safely accommodate rock climbers. However, according to park planners,
the immense scenic value of this highway has been largely ignored in the
realignment design.
Obviously, even if recreational considerations were one of the active
factors in highway design, there would be situations where recreational
opportunities would be overridden by considerations of safety and traffic
movement. Still, these examples indicate that there is additional room
for accommodating recreation interests in highway planning.
The attitudes of recreation planners also contribute to the separation
of recreation and highway planning. In the inherent dichotomy between
protecting the land and enabling people to reach and enjoy it, the
tendency to conserve and protect is often dominant. In the development
of the Taylor Highway which parallels the Forty-Mile River, highway
planners sought to redesign the highway for economy and ease of construc-
tion, but also to allow people to view the river and occasionally have
access for boating and fishing. Federal land managers discouraged this
effort on the grounds that a nearby road would damage the recreational
value of the river. It is worth asking whether Federal recreation
planners gave adequate consideration to the recreational values of
viewing the river while driving and of physical access to the river from
the highway. On the other hand, transportation planners may have used
recreational access as a justification for expedient construction.
In a similar vein, State recreation planners have not sought involvement
in planning for use of the State Local Trails and Service Road funds.
Nor have they actively studied the recreational use of a road connection
to Whittier, even though many would argue that such an improvement would
lead to a better distribution of recreational activity on the Kenai
Peninsula.
On occasion, highway location seems to be influenced more by the highway
planners' assumptions about recreation interests than by actual coordina-
tion between highway and recreation planners. As an example, preliminary
plans for a highway between a future Knik River Crossing and the Parks
Highway to Fairbanks shows the highway avoiding the Nancy Lake Recreation
Area by veering to the east. The recreational value of a shorter and
more direct northward route warrants further consideration. Such a
route would go through the western edge of the Nancy Lake Recreation
area. By providing access to this part of the Recreation Area, the
public's ability to use and enjoy the Area may be substantially enhanced.
In addition, travel distance would be reduced.
All of these examples point to the need for institutionalizing systems
of coordination between recreation and highway planners. Alaska has a
wealth of opportunity to plan and design transportation improvements
which will provide magnificent recreation routes, as well as safe and
efficient means of travel. Towards achieving this goal, the following
steps are suggested:
33
1. Highway design staff should include people with expertise in
planning for the recreational functions of the highway and with an
assigned responsibility to assure that recreational interests are
adequately considered in highway design. Preparation of the
environmental impact statement for highway projects should include
the participation of one or more recreation planners, regardless of
whether the lands involved are designated as recreational areas.
2. Through administrative regulation, a formal procedure should be
established whereby highway planning and design receive specific
review for recreational opportunities by other agencies and govern-
mental levels concerned with recreation. The ongoing participation
of the Division of Parks and the Department of Fish and Game is
particularly important. It should be mandatory that the Division
of Parks review highway designs at the early stages of a project.
3. Parking should be provided at periodic intervals along highways for
berry picking, wildlife observation, etc. Pull-off parking is
especially needed in less developed areas where there is limited
access on and off the main road system. Generally, parking "facilities"
could range from merely a wide shoulder to a separate parking area
with pit toilets and litter containers. Such parking should be in
safe, clearly marked locations. The choice of highway pull-off
locations and rest areas should be carefully planned in relation to
the adjoining lands. In some locations, additional pull-offs would
enable public use of natural recreation areas; in other locations,
they would encourage trespass or damage to critical environmental
or wildlife values.
4. In acquiring property for rights-of-way, the Department of Transpor-
tation or the Division of Lands should have the authority and
funding to acquire scenic easements or development rights in loca-
tions where open space should be preserved along the highway route.
Any such action should be in accordance with a detailed land use
and recreation plan for the highway corridor and related area so
that public expenditure is limited to those areas where a clear
public benefit would be achieved by restricting development to low
density residential, agricultural, or other open space uses. This
is not an unusual procedure. In Virginia, for example, much of the
scenery along the Blue Ridge Parkway has been preserved through
acquisition of development rights to adjoining privately owned
property.
5. The Department of Transportation should work with the Division of
Parks, Division of Lands, and the Department of Fish and Game to
identify and map existing and potential access to recreation lands
and resources. The Department of Transportation should then place
emphasis on maintaining and developing recreation roads, harbors,
trails, and other forms of access as budget and other priorities
allow.
34
Department of Fish and Game--Management of a Major Recreational Resource
As the manager of fish and wildlife resources throughout the State, the
Department of Fish and Game has an influence on the supply and availability
of recreation opportunities in Alaska that rivals that of the Division
of Parks. In particular, the Department's work in stocking lakes,
enhancing fisheries, and securing access to fishing sites has a powerful
influence on the location and concentration of recreational activity.
Yet, the Department has no means of providing the garbage pick-up and
pit toilets that may be necessary to prevent the site from becoming
littered and losing its intrinsic recreational value.
Acquisition of access is often essential to public enjoyment of waterways
and wildlife areas. To avoid excessive pressure on fish and wildlife in
any one area, there must be enough access to disperse use. But acqu1s1-
tion of access is also outside the perview of the Department of Fish and
Game. Thus, coordination with State agencies which can provide other
needed components of a recreational site is essential in planning fisheries
enhancement activities.
Recently, the Department and the Division of Parks have developed a
workable system of informal communication for coordinating their activities;
yet, there is no formalized structure. There is enough difference in
the basic philosophy of the two agencies that informal communication
should not be relied upon indefinately.
In some respects, the Department of Fish and Game has been a forceful
advocate for recreational values in State land use. The reservation of
public sites adjoining lakes and other waters in areas subject to State
land auction and open-to-entry was a Departmental effort. However, in
their approach to recreation management, the Department of Fish and Game
. and the Division of Parks differ in several respects. The Department of
Fish and Game prefers that public use be as dispersed as possible since
a wide range of fishing and hunting sites tends to minimize impact on
the resource they seek to protect. On the other hand, t~e Division of
Parks tends to prefer concentrated activity in well-defined sites since
concentration facilitates management.
The two agencies also have a long-standing difference in their approach
to consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of fish and wildlife. License
revenue is a major source of funding for the Department of Fish and
Game. As a practical result, their management is oriented heavily
towards fishing and hunting. They tend to rate the success of their
program in terms of numbers of fish or animals taken in different areas.
The Division of Parks, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on
observation or photographic uses of fish and wildlife. The dispute
between the Department of Fish and Game and Division of Parks over
hunting in State parks is well known.
These differences in approach and philosophy only underscore the need to
establish permanent systems for cooperation in fulfilling interrelated
responsibilities. Differences can be minimized through mutual adjustment.
35
The public interest requires that this be done, and that the two agencies
plan together when hunting and fishing is an important activity in a
recreation. area.
Measures which would improve the accommodation of recreation interests
in the programs of the Department of Fish and Game are suggested as
follows:
1. Statewide or regional planning for fisheries utilization or enhance-
ment and for State refuge designations should be integrated with
Division of Parks planning for extension of the State Park System.
At a minimum there should be some method of coordinating the alloca-
tion of facilities to accommodate the public at intensively used
fishing sites and hunting access points, especially if use is
encouraged by enhancement.
2. Through administrative regulation or legislation, formal methods of
coordinating programs of the Department of Fish and Game with other
State agencies involved in land and recreation should be established.
Specifically, there is a need for coordination with (a) the Division
of Parks so that facilities and site maintenance services can be
provided at heavily used fishing sites; (b) the Division of Lands
so that decisions about land classification and disposal adequately
consider fisheries and wildlife habitat; and (c) the Department of
Transportation so that access planning is integrated with planning
for fish and wildlife management.
3. At a national level, the State should support pending legislation
which would provide funding for nongame species management. The
Department of Fish and Game's emphasis on hunting and commercial
uses of fish and wildlife stems in large part from the fact that
their source of Federal funding is tied to harvest. Passage of the
national bill would help achieve a desirable balance between the
objectives of the Division of Parks and the objectives of the
Department of Fish and Game.
4. The Department of Fish and Game should place greater emphasis on
accommodating the public interest in nonconsumptive uses of fish
and wildlife. The Department should consult with the Division of
Parks in identifying locations where management should accommodate
this interest.
36
COORDINATING
RECREATION PLANNING
Why Coordination is Needed
The Commission's survey and mapping of recreational activity patterns
showed that people frequently pay little attention to ownership boundaries
when they venture forth on an outdoor recreation trip. Their interest
is focused on a destination or an experience; they head for a creek
where the salmon are running, a mountain they think they could climb, an
area where the raspberries are-ripe, or an old trail they would like to
explore. Whether the lands are in State, municipal, or Federal ownership
is only an incidental consideration. Often people are unaware of owner-
ship, except that, because the area isn't posted, it is probably public
land.
The ownership of the lands which receive heavy outdoor recreational use
is quite mixed. Along roads, waters, and other means of access, private
ownership is preempting many of the areas which would otherwise be
desirable for public recreational use. Waterfront locations are especially
attractive both as private real estate and as public recreational areas.
Beyond the private lands which surround Alaska's larger communities and
adjoin main highways, the predominant land owners are the State of
Alaska and, to a lesser extent, the municipalities. However, several
major Federal withdrawals which were established before Statehood are
also located within the range of the heavy recreational use radiating
from Alaska's larger communities. The military withdrawals near Fairbanks
and Anchorage, the national forests in Southeastern and Southcentral
Alaska, and the Kenai National Moose Range are the most significant.
As explained in the preceding chapter, even within the category of lands
under State ownership there is considerable diversity of management.
The Division of Parks and the Division of Lands within the Alaska Depart-
ment of Natural Resources have jurisdiction over different State lands,
and there is no overall system of planning for recreational activities
which extends across both types of State lands. The Department of Fish
and Game and the Department of Transportation influence the patterns of
outdoor recreational activity and the recreational use of lands under
all owners, yet there is no effective system enabling these agencies to
participate in an overall recreation planning program. Other State
agencies, such as the Department of Community and Regional Affairs and
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, have a significant,
though less direct, influence on the outdoor recreational opportunities
on State lands but little chance to participate in the recreation
program planning of other agencies.
Similarly, the Federal lands impacted by outdoor recreation are under a
range of separate management entities, primarily the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the various branches of the military.
The U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the Department
of the Interior administers Federal funding for both State and Federal
recreation projects. Recreation policies of these different Federal
37
agencies vary considerably, and again, there is no overall entity which
actively coordinates the recreation programs of Federal agencies at a
regional level, nor is there a mechanism for coordinating Federal,
State, and municipal activities affecting recreation on public lands in
interrelated areas.
A regional context for planning and agency coordination in Alaska is
important because of the State's wide variation in geographic and social
make-up. In the series of interviews conducted by the Commission, it
became apparent that a different attitude toward recreation prevailed in
each region (see Appendix I). In Fairbanks, interviewees often expressed
an independent "frontier" feeling that may reflect the relatively great
amount of public land available for recreation. The immediate demand
for government-provided recreation services and facilities was less in
Fairbanks than elsewhere. Some people recognized the diminishing supply
of unrestricted open space and foresaw the need to reserve recreation
lands and to maintain access to these lands for the future. By contrast,
the Kenai Peninsula is already experiencing a recreation shortage. The
supply of recreation opportunities, and especially facilities, no longer
comfortably meets the demand. As a result, the prevailing view favored
more government involvement to increase the recreation capacity of
existing public lands.
Planning at a small region level has the added advantage of being at a
scale and level of detail that is easily related to agency programs and
budgets, and hence, is easily translated into action. At a statewide or
larger region level planning recommendations are in terms of broad
policies or general land use recommendations. It is often difficult to
make the connection between general recommendations and agency budgeting
which is in terms of specific improvements at individual sites. Regional
plans which set forth recommendations for specific locations are more
directly related to agency programs and budgets. Thus, regional plans
encompassing lands under the jurisdiction of all agencies and governmental
levels within the region can serve as comprehensive blueprints for
interagency coordination.
Effective regional coordination of the many agencies which influence
outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands could have significant
public benefit. If each agency acts in isolation within its jurisdiction,
the regional pattern of recreational service and opportunity will be a
random and accidental composite. It is doubtful that such a composite
of separate actions will maximize benefits from the public resources
available for outdoor recreation. Further, the definition of public
benefit will be from the limited perspective of the individual agency,
omitting the far wider range of factors which are usually involved in
decisions affecting regional land use and public service.
To develop a definition of a coordinative entity for recreation planning,
it is necessary first to make certain assumptions about the nature and
purpose of such planning. The institutional structure should be designed
to fit its mission. For purposes of this report, the following goals
for regional recreation planning have been assumed. These goals are
38
-~-~-------~ ---
interrelated. In the process of decision making, each must be weighed
and balanced against the others:
l. To allocate public recreation services and to manage public lands
in the manner which reflects identified public preferences and
recreational use patterns; to provide a range of recreational
opportunities with sufficient variety and quantity to accommodate
different public preferences.
2. Not to exceed the natural carrying capacity of the land nor the
point where the over use of recreation land significantly detracts
from the value of the experience.
3. To weigh recreational values against other public values such as
the protection of natural ecosytems, safe and efficient transporta-
tion, development of commercial resources, and the social and
economic values gained through private land ownership.
4. To allocate the recreation resources of various State, Federal, and
municipal agencies so that their special abilities and authorities
are used as well as possible in accomplishing an overall plan for
public recreation.
5. To provide the public with sufficient information about regional
recreational opportunities on all public lands so that use is
distributed in relation to available recreation lands and services.
These goals indicate the following features of a coordinative entity for
outdoor recreation planning:
l. It should focus on regions which are small enough to enable considera-
tion of the distribution and pattern of recreational activity and
the impact of recreational use on specific sites.
2. It should be designed to elicit and incorporate local knowledge
about recreational use patterns and opportunities.
3. It should be related to a more comprehensive land planning process
which considers social and economic, as well as natural and geographic,
factors.
4. It should elicit the participation of public agencies and private
parties involved in recreational opportunities at a small regional
level.
5. Since the State has comprehensive planning jurisdiction, the entity
itself should be located within State government.
6. Is should coordinate recreation related activities of separate
State departments.
39
7. Planning recommendations should be directly tied to management, and
for this purpose, the entity should have a voice in budgeting for
recreational purposes.
8. The entity should be assigned other duties which involve a respon-
sibility for public recreation transcending the jurisdiction of any
one agency. Such duties should include coordinated public informa-
tion services, coordination of recreation research, identifying
trail needs, and assisting local governments in developing local
recreation projects.
Existing Coordinative Mechanisms
Before considering the structure of an organization with the features
listed above, it is useful to review existing coordinative entities to
determine to what extent they could provide coordinated interagency
planning for outdoor recreational opportunities on public lands. The
most obvious existing entity, established to support dedication and
preservation of recreation and park lands, is the Alaska Park and Recrea-
tion Council located in the Division of Parks and chaired by the Lt.
Governor. PARC includes an interagency committee charged with coordina-
tion of Federal and State recreation programs. Though PARC is well
located to elicit participation of separate Federal and State agencies
in furthering the purposes of public recreation, its accomplishments to
date have been minor. The final section of this report discusses PARC
in more detail and outlines measures which would strengthen its coordi-
native role. Still, other existing coordinative mechanisms should be
considered.
New coordinative structures have recently been established at both the
Federal and State level. In Washington, four Federal resource management
agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Forest Service, and the Soil Conservation Service, recently
agreed to standardize their systems for collecting and maintaining
natural resource data and to look for ways to coordinate their programing
and planning both among themselves and with State government. Within
Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the State of Alaska, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Interior have
agreed to promote coordinated land planning and cooperative resource
management. Toward this goal the four entities have joined to form the
Alaska Land Managers' Cooperative Task Force which will identify issues
and concerns deserving cooperative efforts, as well as areas requiring
cooperative planning and will initiate and facilitate cooperative agree-
ments and projects.
Both of these new coordinative agreements represent progress toward
coordinated recreation planning in the sense that they provide supporting
structures at the Federal and State level. But neither entity can be
expected to provide the specific focus on recreation lands and services
at a regional level that is needed as a basis for interagency coordina-
tion. The Alaska Land Manager's Cooperative Task Force could be of
direct help in highlighting this need and eliciting necessary support.
40
At a local governmental level, planning can offer the advantages of
direct contact with the people most affected. Local planning is a
useful vehicle for assessing recreation land use proposals in relation
to the public values of other types of land use. However, it must be
recognized that, in some regions of Alaska, local planning is weak or
nonexistent and lacks authority to provide an effective system for
coordinating State and Federal agencies. A number of Alaska's larger
municipalities do have active comprehensive land use planning programs.
Typically, consideration of ou~door recreational opportunities on public
lands is incorporated in the overall land planning process, and a system
of recreation areas is designated on a comprehensive plan map.
As Alaska's new Coastal Zone Management Act is implemented, local compre-
hensive land use planning will be extended to more remote regions of
Alaska. Under this Act, a region without municipal government may be
organized as a coastal resource service area and represented by an
elected board of seven members. Boundaries are to follow already
established boundaries for Rural Education Attendance Areas. The board
or the Department of Community and Regional Affairs has the duty of
preparing a district coastal management program which could include
recommendations for recreational land use, as well as other forms of
land use. Coastal zone planning, by definition, deals with the coastal
area, and may or may not encompass the whole of areas that would be
suitable for regional recreation planning. Similarly, the boundaries of
existing municipalities do not necessarily encompass areas that are
workable for small region recreation planning.
At its best, local planning can provide a detailed knowledge of existing
recreation sites and how they are used, as well as information about new
areas where outdoor recreational opportunities are desirable. Since the
municipality or coastal zone planning board evaluates recreational land
use in relation to other public and private land use needs, local planning
may offer an opportunity for balanced consideration of the public interest
in land use. The local plan could provide a blueprint for action around
which local, State, and Federal agencies can coordinate their programs.
But without a coordinative arm at a higher governmental level, as well
as considerable agency involvement in preparing the plan, it is unlikely
that State and Federal agencies will be sufficiently committed to adjust
their programs as needed to implement a local plan.
The primary coordinative mechanism at a State level is the A-95 Clearing-
house administered by the Division of Policy Development and Planning in
the Office of the Governor. Established under a Federal law, the A-95
Clearinghouse deals with projects which involve a component of Federal
funds. Through the Clearinghouse, information about all projects involving
Federal funding is distributed for comment to a large group of Federal
and State agencies. Where a conflict or a need for coordination is
identified, the Clearinghouse takes steps to elicit the necessary coopera-
tive action from other agencies.
The Clearinghouse does not deal with projects which are exclusively
funded by the State and/or muncipalities, and since an action must
41
involve some expenditures to be included, the Clearinghouse deals primarily
with development projects and capital improvements. This orientation
means that the Clearinghouse generally does not handle land management,
disposal, or dedication decisions, many of which are very significant
for recreation planning. Though the Clearinghouse is a useful check to
assure that State and Federal agencies are aware of each other's projects,
it is not well-suited as a structure for coordinated planning. The
Clearinghouse deals with actions that have already been initiated.
Coordinated planning is most effective if agencies work together from
the inception of a project, identifying needed action and outlining
their respective roles.
At a Federal and State level there are numerous examples of coordination
between agencies, though none of them provide the comprehensive inter-
agency coordination at a regional scale that is needed for recreation
planning. The BLM regional planning program involves consultation with
adjoining landowners and affected State and local governments. The
State Department of Fish and Game has a cooperative management program
through which they work with various landowners in the management of
fish and wildlife resources. The Forest Service planning program includes
the identification of regional land use issues and incorporates a thorough
assessment of the views and wishes of other governmental agencies, as
well as the general public. Though these and other cooperative efforts
have potential value in facilitating cooperative planning for recreational
opportunities; they lack the needed comprehensive review of recreational
use and opportunities throughout a region, as well as the institutional
structure which enables coordination of a number of diverse agencies.
The focus on each of these cooperative projects is on the lands under
jurisdiction of the agencies involved rather than the overall pattern of
recreational opportunities throughout the region.
In the absence of an entity specifically charged with regional planning
and coordination, the participants tend either to seek a lead role or
else to avoid the necessary commitment of time and money. Thus, volunteer
or ad hoc efforts at planning and coordination often fail because of
interagency competitiveness or lack of agency effort. An entity specif-
ically charged with coordination has more success in obtaining the
budget and staff needed for coordinative projects than an agency which
has other predominant duties.
Strengthening Coordination
The statewide Alaska Park and Recreation Council (PARC) was organized in
the mid-1960's "to foster the acquisition and dedication of land and
water areas and the development of facilities and programs that preserve
the beauty of the environment and provide recreation opportunities."
Headed by the Lt. Governor, the statewide PARC provides advice and
support to local PARCs which have been organized in Fairbanks, Anchorage,
Ketchikan, Sitka, Valdez, Homer, Kodiak, and North Kenai. Membership of
the local PARCs includes private citizens interested in advocating for
parks and public recreational opportunities.
42
At a State level, PARC has an Advisory Committee made up of three repre-
sentatives from the local PARCs plus the Director of the Division of
Parks and the Lt. Governor, who serves as chairman. Nominally, at
least, there is also an interagency committee comprised of representa-
tives from Federal, State, and local governmental entities. The executive
coordinator of the statewide PARC is the Director of the Division of
Parks. The statewide PARC has no staff of its own. PARC is not a
statutory entity, though there is a written charter.
The primary function of the five-person PARC Advisory Committee has been
to meet annually to prepare recommendations on priorities for municipal
use of Federal Land and Water Conservation funds and matching State
recreation funds. At times, the Advisory Committee has also dealt with
the other 50 percent of the Land and Water Conservation fund and matching
State funds which are allocated to the State Park System.
The PARC interagency committee, which, on paper, includes representatives
from eighteen Federal and State agencies, has never met as a full committee.
There have been two subcommittees of the interagency committee, one to
evaluate pipeline impact on recreation and the other responsible for
coordinating the collection of information on recreation facilities and
opportunities and recreation preferences. The pipeline committee met
once, six years ago, and the subcommittee on recreation information met
once about one and a half years ago.
Without staff of its own and a stronger legal mandate, it is doubtful
that the statewide PARC can accomplish much more than it has in the
past, principally to provide minimal advice and oversight on projects
conducted by staff of the Division of Parks. Actual coordination of a
number of State and Federal agencies requires substantial administrative
time and could not be accomplished without staff especially assigned to
this function. Funds would also be necessary to develop regional
recreation plans and programs to serve as a basis for coordinated agency
action. However, the existing PARC has several features that give it a
nucleus from which a more effective entity for recreation planning and
coordination could be built. Its membership is based on local representa-
tion; its leadership by the Lt. Governor gives it a potential for strength
within the context of State government; and it has the beginnings of an
interagency committee for coordination of recreation plans and programs.
The following changes would build on these desirable features and develop
PARC into the coordinative entity for recreation planning described in
the first section of this chapter.
l. PARC should be established as a statutory advisory committee attached
to the Division of Parks. As in any working relationship between a
citizens' advisory committee and a full-time staff, the basic work
of researching and preparing plans and otherwise accomplishing PARC
responsibilities would fall to the staff. The PARC committee would
meet intermittently to review staff progress, provide advice and
make major policy decisions. In this relationship, PARC would be
comparable to the existing Historic Sites Advisory Committee.
43
The new PARC should have responsibility for providing advice and
policy guidance on aspects of recreation planning which transcend
the jurisdiction of any one agency. Specifically, PARC, which is
partially comprised of local citizen representatives, should strengthen
public involvement and interagency coordination in recreation
planning. Though PARC sho!!ld continue to provide oversight in the
preparation of the Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan, the core of
PARC duties should be the preparation of regional recreational
plans taking into consideration lands under all ownerships. PARC
should involve local citizens and agencies at all levels in the
preparation of these plans and use the plans as blueprints for
interagency coordination in budgeting, programming, and other
aspects of plan implementation. To achieve the specificity that is
necessary to coordinate budgeting and programming, planning regions
will need to be relatively small, for example, regions of the size
of the Kenai Peninsula rather than the whole of Southcentral Alaska.
Since the Division of Parks will be responsible for providing the
staff work necessary to accomplish PARC responsibilities, the
expansion of PARC must be accompanied by an expansion of Division
staff capability in the areas of recreation planning, recreation
services, and interagency coordination. At present, the Division's
budget and staff is very heavily weighted towards planning and
management of the State Park System per se. Funding for overall
recreation planning is minimal and operates only at a statewide
level.
The State has a major role in recreation planning and interagency
coordination, but this role cannot be filled without significant
changes both in the structure of PARC and in the duties and funding
of the Division of Parks.
2. The Lt. Governor's role as chairman of PARC should be maintained.
Involving several State departments in recreation planning, as well
as Federal agencies, municipal governments, and in some cases,
private landowners, requires leadership at the level of the Chief
Executive of the State. Since the State has comprehensive planning
authority for its entire jurisdiction, it is appropriate that the
State take the lead in this type of planning coordination.
3. The existing responsibilities of PARC and the Division in relation
to the allocation of recreation project funds should be expanded
and tied more directly to statewide, regional, and local recreation
planning. The connection between recreation planning and fund
allocation established by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
is an important step towards increasing the utility of planning as
a blueprint for agency action and coordination. The revised PARC
could build on and strengthen this tie between planning and funding
by having PARC also advise on the allocation of other special
Federal and State recreation monies available to municipalities and
State agencies.
44
4. PARC and the Division's recreation planning staff should identify
regions of intensive recreational activity where Regional Outdoor
Recreation Plans would be most useful. There is probably no necessity
to cover the whole State with Regional Outdoor Recreation Plans.
In a number of sparcely settled regions the pattern of outdoor
recreational activity is light, and there are relatively few situa-
tions requiring agency coordination. As outlined by the Division
of Parks, the need in most rural areas appears to be more for
assistance to municipalifies in developing local recreation sites
and community recreation programs than for providing regional
recreational opportunities. To allocate scarce planning resources
as effectively as possible, regional outdoor recreation plans
should be prepared first in those locations where recreational
activities are intense, land ownership patterns are complex, and a
number of different agencies are involved.
5. In preparing Regional Outdoor Recreation Plans, PARC should seek
local assistance in defining the pattern of regional outdoor recrea-
tional activities and potentials. The Commission's interview
survey indicated that recreation preferences and activity patterns
vary widely from locality to locality. Only by contacting people
directly involved with public recreation in each locality can an
accurate picture of the region's recreation needs and preferences
be developed. The interview survey technique described in Appendix
I should be useful in preparing Regional Outdoor Recreation Plans
(RORPs). In some cases it may be appropriate to contract with the
municipal government to prepare the RORP as an element of a regional
land use plan. In other cases, private consultants may provide the
necessary expertise. Irt either case, the contracted work should
include a careful survey of local recreation patterns.
Local PARCs should serve as advisory committees participating in
the development and review of RORPs for their locality. Where there
is no existing local PARC, the process of regional planning should
provide sufficient impetus to involve people in the establishment
of a local PARC.
6. The municipal, State, and Federal agencies which influence recreation
opportunities in the region under study should be involved in the
preparation of Regional Outdoor Recreation Plans from the early
stages to the finalization of recommendations. For this purpose,
it is suggested that PARC call together regional interagency commit-
tees of representatives from agencies active in the particular
region under study at the time. Recommendations in the RORP should
be organized in a format and at a level of specificity that is
easily incorporated in agency programs and budgets. In addition,
elements of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
should continue to be reviewed by a statewide interagency committee
or, as has proyed more practical in the past, by subcommittees made up
of agency representatives knowledgeable in a particular subject.
45
7. In addition to the planning, coordinating, and funding responsi-
bilities described above, PARC and accompanying Division of Parks
staff should provide other public services which involve aspects of
public recreation transcending ownership boundaries and agency
jurisdictions. Foremost among such services are:
a. Recreational Information Services: Providing the public with
current information about the availability of campground space
and other recreational opportunities would help relieve over-
crowding. To do this effectively, information must be gathered
from a number of local, State, and Federal entities. As such,
monitoring and informing the public about the use and availability
of recreation sites is an appropriate function for the revised
PARC. In some situations, current information about the
availability of recreation areas can be as effective in distrib-
uting use and reducing overcrowding as the provision of addi-
tional sites. Certainly the informational approach would be
less expensive. In developing an information program, a
variety of approaches should be considered.
1. A consistent statewide system of signs and symbols which
mark and distinguish between highway pulloffs, recreation
areas, overnight campsites, trailheads, and other types
of recreation areas. If the various agencies and govern-
mental levels which provide these areas could agree on
one simple statewide set of words and symbols to inform
the traveler about the facilities and opportunities at
each site, public information would be much improved.
For example, there should be an easy way to distinguish
between areas with overnight camping sites, daytime
recreation areas with picnic tables and other recreational
opportunities, and highway pulloffs with no facilities
other than a trash barrel and a safe place to stop.
2. Use of radio during busy summer months to alert travelers
about overcrowded, as well as underused, recreation
sites, particularly in areas of intensive use such as the
Kenai Peninsula. Recently, several agencies have cooperated
to pool information about winter and spring avalanche
danger and to alert the public through public. service
announcements on the radio. Perhaps a similar cooperative
system could be used to inform people about crowding in
recreation areas and locations where use is light.
3. Visitor centers at the highway entrances to recreation
regions could provide information about recreational
opportunities on public lands throughout the region. The
visitor center at the proposed State "Gateway Park" at
the border crossing of the Alaska Highway should combine
46
information about recreational opportunities throughout
the State regardless of land ownership. Similarly, a
visitor center at Potter Marsh or some other point of
entrance to the Kenai Peninsula could provide information
about recreational opportunities throughout the Kenai
Peninsula on the Moose Range and the Chugach National
Forest, as well as on State lands.
Several Native corporations have expressed interest in
working with the National Park Service or the State in
interpreting and explaining Native cultural background
and the flora and fauna of their region at visitor centers.
Their participation could greatly enhance the visitors'
recreational experience.
4. Mapped informati.on about recreation lands and opportunities
could best serve the public if it were handled as a
cooperative venture. For areas of active recreational
use, maps should be prepared and distributed showing the
regional recreation attractions and the public recreation
facilities. Mapped information should be distributed
where recreationists will have a good opportunity to use
it. For example, the Alaska Bicentennial Commission
found that by printing maps on restaurant placemats they
were able to give travelers information in an opportune
manner.
b. Coordination of Recreational Research: A number of State and
Federal agencies must obtain information about various aspects
of public recreational supply and demand. Often agency recrea-
tional research needs overlap, and in the past, some research
of this type has been duplicative. Recently, agencies have
recognized the need to cooperate in recreation research projects,
and, currently, several State and Federal agencies are jointly
conducting a statewide survey of public recreation participa-
tion and motivation, park preferences, and community perceptions.
Though coordinated research of this type can and does occur
voluntarily, it would be beneficial if an ongoing entity such
as PARC had specific statutory responsibility coordinating
recreation research.
c. Municipal Recreational Assistance: Assisting municipalities
to provide local recreational opportunities is another function
for which the revised PARC would be well suited. A number of
agencies have partial responsibilities in this area. The
National Park Service can assist Native villages in developing
park and recreation areas; the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service can provide technical assistance to communities;
the State Department of Community and Regional Affairs can
assist municipalities in planning public recreation lands and
services; and the State Department of Education can develop
its community schools program to encourage community recrea-
tional use of school buildings during after school hours.
47
Thus, in this aspect of recreation planning, there is a
need for a coordinative entity with the staff time to help
agencies to work together to best serve the public. PARC
could provide the leadership that is needed to establish a
coordinated program to assist communities in planning and
developing local recreational opportunities.
d. Trail Inventory and Needs Assessment: Alaska has relatively
few trails that have been formally designated by municipal,
State, or Federal agencies. However, there are numerous trail
routes located throughout the State in the form of traditional
dog sled (or snowmobile) trails, seismic trails, traplines,
old mining and homestead roads, etc. The State's sparse
highway system places a unique emphasis on the use of trails
for transportation in addition to recreational use or access
to recreational opportunities.
In Fairbanks, for example, trails are used for recreation,
commuting, exercise, and/or access to other recreational
activities. They traverse both public and private land, and
are used by skiers, dog mushers, snowmobilers, horseback
riders, joggers, hikers, and all terrain vehicles. As urban
and suburban areas have grown, trail use has increased, and
problems over trespass, management, and conflicting trail
activities have arisen (see Fairbanks trip report, Appendix I).
The Alaska Trail Plan prepared by the Division of Parks in
1975 inventoried existing designated trails. This document
provides a useful basis for a more detailed and continuing
program of trail mapping and inventory. Given the importance
of trails in Alaska, the Division should establish a program
for regional trail inventory in sufficient detail so that
trail locations can be mapped. The Department of Highways has
prepared a set of maps showing existing trails (at a scale of
l" = 2 miles) which should be incorporated in the inventory.
However, their work should be updated and reviewed to identify
trails with significant recreational use or potential. Other
sources, such as easements that have been proposed for Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act conveyances, should be investigated.
A system for periodic updating should be established, and most
importantly, the inventory should include assessment and
mapping of potential trail needs, as well as traditional
routes that have been established by public use. The Department
of Fish and Game, the Division of Lands, the Department of
Transportation, and other agencies and private citizens familiar
with each region should be actively involved in the identifica-
tion of existing trails and trail needs. This inventory and
identification would provide a regional context which could be
used by Federal, State, and local agencies for coordinated
trail planning, formal trail designation, or right-of-way
protection, if needed, as well as trail use management.
48
The existing State PARC Advisory Committee handles allocation
of grants under the Trails and Footpaths Program. Trail
inventory and needs assessment would be a logical extension of
their existing function.
The statutory revision which would expand the responsiblities of PARC
and the Division of Parks in the areas of recreation planning and coordi-
nation should be accomplished in the context of a more comprehensive
review and revision of A.S. 41:20, the chapter of Alaska law dealing
with parks and recreation. The role of the Division of Parks and its
relationship with PARC should be clear. At present, the statutes are
general and ambiguous regarding the purpose of the State Park System and
the different functions of the System. There is no mention, for example,
of the fact that a major function of the System is to serve the traveling
public by providing campgrounds and recreation areas along main traveled
routes. If the System is to extend to traveled waterways, that purpose
should be clear in the legislation. Criteria for designating lands to
the State Park System should be specified. Characteristics of the State
Park System which distinguish it from the National Park System, principally
its orientation towards Alaska's settled areas and towards a more intensive
use, should also be set forth in the legislation. Similarly, State
policy in relation to municipal recreation areas and services should be
articulated in statutory language.
49
FOOTNOTES
l. Alaska State Park Visitors, Alaska Division of Parks, Department of
Natural Resources, Anchorage, January, 1978.
2. Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, Visitor Census and Expenditure Survey, Summer, 1977.
3. Letter of January 6, 1978 from Cary F. Brown, Outdoor Recreation
Planner, BLM, Alaska, to Co-Chairmen.
4. Letter of January 9, 1978 from John A. Sandor, Regional Forester,
U.S. Forest Service, to Co-Chairmen.
5. Visitor Survey of Fishhook-Willow Road Travelers, Neil C. Johannsen,
Alaska Division of Parks, August l, 1976.
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Outdoor
Recreation Plan, 1976-1980, September, 1976.
, Department of Natural Resources, Alaska
----~------~--~--~-=~ Recreation Trail Plan, February 5, 1975.
, Department of Natural Resources, Alaska State
----~--~~----------~-Park System, (undated brochure).
, Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Visitor
----~~~------~=------Industry, A Summary, March, 1978.
, Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water
----~--------~--~--~-Conservation Fund, 1977 Annual Report, December, 1977.
----~~~------~=-~~-' Department of Natural Resources, Operation and
Maintenance Handbook, 1977.
, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska
----~--~~~-------=---Land Selection Program, Selection Guidelines, May 15, 1978.
Alman, R. K., History of the Division of Parks, December, 1974,
(unpublished report).
Alves, William, Thomas Lane, and Michael Scott, Institute of Social and
Economic Research, and Robert Childers, Childers and Associates,
The Effects of Regional Population Growth on Hunting for Selected
Big Game Species in Southcentral Alaska, 1976-2000, Arctic Environmental
Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, August 4, 1978.
Cahill, Russell W., The Meaning of Parks in Alaska, A White Paper for
Commissioner of Natural Resources Guy Martin, 1976, (unpublished).
, Policy Guidelines, Alaska Division of Parks, May 30,
----~~~------~~ 1975, (unpublished memos).
, Untitled speech to Alaska Parks and Recreation
----~----~------~ Association, November 18, 1976.
Childers, Robert A., Alaska Outdoor Recreation Research Needs, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1978, (unpublished report).
Gordon, Richard J., and Benjamin A. Shane, Alaska Natural Landscapes,
Commission Study 33, Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for
Alaska, May, 1978.
Helgath, Shelia F., Recreation Research Needs in Alaska, U.S. Forest
Service Alaska Planning Team, Alaska Agriculture Experiment Station,
and USFS Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station in Juneau,
Alaska, September 25, 1978, (review draft).
51
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, and National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Urban Recreation Study,
Executive Report, Washington, D.C~, 1978.
, U.S. Department of the
----~~--~--~~~~--~--~~~--~--~---Interior, 1978 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, Task Force Report,
Roles/Functions of Federal, State and Local Public Agencies,
Washington, D.C., 1978.
Johannsen, Neil C., Visitor Survey of Fishhook-Willow Road Travelers
Within the Proposed Talkeetna Mountains State Park, Alaska Division
of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, Questionaire administered
by: Alaska Youth Conservation Action Corps Sunny Knik Camp,
August l, 1976.
-----=----------~
, and Alan H. Meiners, Alaska Recreation Lands and
Resources: A Priority Listing, Planning Section, Alaska Division
of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, April, 1976, (unpublished
report).
Meiners, Alan H. for the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Coastal
Recreation Resources: West Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, Planning
Section, Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources,
November, 1976, (preliminary draft).
----~--------~' and Alison C. Horton for the Alaska Coastal Management
Program, Coastal Recreation Resources: Cordova, Alaska, Alaska
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, February, 1977.
----------------, W. Terra Prodan, and Neil C. Johannsen, Recreation,
Scenic, and Heritage Areas of Particular Concern, Cape Puget to
Cape Suckling, Alaska, Planning Section, Alaska Division of Parks,
Department of Natural Resources, March, 1978, (revised draft).
O'Brien, Michael M., Alaska State Park Visitors: Who They Are and Their
Views on the Development and Management of the Alaska State Park
System, Planning Section, Alaska Division of Parks, Department of
Natural Resources, January, 1978.
----~~--~~--~--' for the Alaska Coastal Management Program, Coastal
Shoreline Access in Alaska, Planning and Research Section, Alaska
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources, June, 1978,
(draft).
Parker Research Corporation for the Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Visitor Census and
Expenditure Survey, Winter and Summer, Juneau, Alaska, March, 1978.
Robinson, Kermit C., Waysides in Alaska-Review and Policy Proposal,
Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources,
September, 1977, (draft).
52
Smith, Theodore G., Alaska State Park System, 1970-1976, Alaska Division
of Lands, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska,
December, 1969, (unpublished report).
Sullivan, George M. for the Municipality of Anchorage, Testimony at
(d)(2) Hearing, Anchorage, Alaska, August 12, 1977.
Thomas, Jr., Lowell, Untitled speech to Alaska Parks and Recreation
Association, November 18; 1976.
U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, States Recreation Planning Options
Task Force, Operation Action, November, 1977, (draft).
Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Washington
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan,
Volume I, Olympia, Washington, 1973.
Thomas, Wayne C., and Gregory K. White for the Alaska Division of Parks,
Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation Responsibilities
in Alaska, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of
Alaska, August, 1974.
53
APPENDICES
-------------~~-----
APPENDIX I
Current Patterns of Recreation Activity
Introduction
This recreation study is based-in part upon the "supply and demand" of
recreational opportunities, in particular the availability of lands with
recreational value and the existing patterns of recreational use. This
information should assist the Legislature and recreation managers in
defining the State's role in providing recreational opportunities on
public lands, and specifically, to identify the kinds of policy and
management actions needed to maximize recreational opportunities for
both present and future generations.
The recreational potential of lands in Alaska has been addressed in an
array of existing reports and has been generally and in many cases
specifically analyzed and depicted by the Commission's resource planning
team, and more recently in1 a study of Alaska landscapes by Benjamin
Shaine and Richard Gordon. However, the geography of recreational
activity ap~ears to be a missing factor in determining effective supply
and demand.
Research Methods
In order to gain a better understanding of current recreation patterns,
the Commission conducted a series of interviews in three regions of the
State (Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks region, and Juneau). We contacted
individuals in direct contact with local recreational use, for example
sporting goods store managers, air taxi pilots, and local land managers.
By putting together information for a given area from a variety of
sources, a total picture of recreation patterns emerges. The reliability
of the information is supported by the fact that each individual's
contribution generally meshes with the whole, and overlapping information
tends to be complementary. Participants were also sent written summaries
of all interviews related to their respective regions and invited to
respond with corrections or additional comments. (Out of 36 participants,
only two relatively minor responses were received).
The informal interview method was used because it could cover several
different aspects of recreation at the same time, depending on the
participant's perspective and knowledge. It's subjective qualities led
directly to a better understanding of relative over all patterns without
getting bogged down in details (e.g. number of seasonal fishing man-
days) that are sometimes difficult to interpret. It also allowed for
occasional unanticipated yet important considerations to emerge. Given
the range of information sought, the diverse background and interests of
the participants; and the short time frame for obtaining results, a
questionaire format would not have been as effective.
54
For consistency, all interviews were conducted by the same person. Each
interview began with a brief explanation of the purpose of the study.
Then a map of the study region was presented and the participant was
invited to point out where and what kinds of recreational activities
tended to take place or concentrate. Usually the information exchange
centered on the specific activity (s) that he or she was most familiar
with (skiing, fishing, river running, etc.). Each person was given the
opportunity to draw directly on the map if they wished, or the inter-
viewer made map notations in addition to taking written notes. Generally,
the same map was used for all interviews and participants were also
encouraged to modify or elaborate on the map notations from previous
interviews. It is interesting to note that there was very rarely any
disagreement with a note from a previous interview, which tended to help
verify the results.
Occassionally the participant was asked for additional clarifying questions
about the comparative intensity of an activity in relation to other
activities, other places within the region, or changing patterns over
several years.
Next, the interview shifted to recreation management and the roles of
government entities (especially the State), and their attitude toward
the level of governmental involvement in providing recreational opportuni-
ties. The depth and direction of this portion of the interview varied
considerably. Its greatest value was in identifying a broad range of
recreation management considerations and in detecting basic regional
differences to the whole approach to recreation supply and demand.
At the conclusion of the series of interviews for each region, a map was
prepared that combined all the input into an overall pattern of recreational
activities. An accompanying memo summarized each interview, including
additional modifying information not shown on the maps, the policy
considerations, and individual attitudes and opinions.
l. Richard J. Gordon and Benjamin A. Shaine, An Evaluation of Alaska
Natural Landscapes, Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission,
December, 1977.
2. This lack was also identified in the recent report by Robert Childers,
Alaska Outdoor Recreation Resource Needs, prepared for Dave Spencer,
AEIDC, January 20, 1978.
55
-~------~-----------------------------·--·-· -----···----
TO:
FROM:
Federal-State
Land Use Planning Commission
For Alaska
Walter B. Parker
State Co-Chairman
Esther C. Wunnicke
Federal Co-Chairman
Sally Gibert
MEMORANDUM
Natural Resources Specialist
SUBJECT: Kenai Peninsula travel report and findins on local recreation
use and current policy.
DATE: April l, 1978
On March 27th and 28th, I talked to the following people about current
recreation use patterns and policy on the western side of the Kenai
Peninsula:
John Yerkes, Assistant Harbormaster, Homer
Roy O'Dell, Cook Inlet Aviation, Homer
Allen Hensen, Four-Seasons Sports Center, Homer
John Brown, horse packer; Homer
Larry Thompson, Homer Air Taxi
Gary Williams, Mayor of Homer
Frank Tupper, Ninilchik
Al York, Ninilchik
Fred Braun, Sporting Goods Store, Kenai
Linda Gintoli, Kenai National Moose Range, Kenai
Bob Richie, Kenai National Moose Range, Kenai
Phillip Waring, Planning Director, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna
Generally, each interview consisted of identifying the most common
recreational activities and when and where they occur. Most of the
people I talked to also had a strong interest in overall recreation
patterns on the Kenai Peninsula and gave me their ideas about the problems
or possible solutions related to meeting the increasing recreational
demand.
My first interview was with John Yerkes, the Assistant Harbormaster on
the Homer Spit. I gave him a map of the lower Kenai Peninsula, and he
drew in the areas used by Kachemak Bay recreational boaters. Most of
the recreational boaters spend their time fishing for salmon, halibut,
shrimp, and crab; or they use their boats as a means of access to fresh-
water sportfishing areas, clam beaches, hiking, duck hunting, and occa-
sional goat hunting. Tourist cruise ships and sailing are two less-
common uses that have been increasing rapidly in the last couple of
years.
56
733 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 400
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Yerkes noted that the demand for expanded harbor facilities is tremendous.
There are only 383 stalls in the city-owned harbor, and there are over
1,000 on the waiting list who will have to wait about two years for a
stall. Everyone seems to be in agreement about the need for expanded
facilities, but the city cannot afford the cost of development. Kachemak
Bay has high potential for increased boating use and harbor facilities.
It is, by far, the best accessible natural harbor on the Peninsula.
Seward's harbor on Resurrection Bay directly faces the open ocean, and
the Cook Inlet harbors (Ninilchik, Kasilof, Kenai, etc.) are also rela-
tively unprotected. The demand for expanded boat facilities at Homer
comes from all over the State. Yerkes noted that several boat owners in
Fairbanks are planning to move to Homer with their boats as soon as
stalls are available.
Yerkes also stressed that the Homer Spit itself is extremely important
for recreation, especially beach combing and camping. The Spit is city-
owned and camping is currently allowed, although the Homer City Council
is considering closing the Spit to camping to allow additional industrial
development. Use of the Spit by tourists has been increasing. Generally,
they start arriving on the weekends in late March or April. Visitation
peaks in July and again in late summer. Memorial Day, Fourth of July,
and Labor Day weekends are particularly intensive. Visitation also
fluctuates with weather conditions. The Harbormaster's Office supplies
weather forecasts by telephone to tourists and boaters who frequently
plan their trips around good weather forecasts.
I had a relatively short interview with Roy O'Dell, an air taxi pilot
with Cook Inlet Aviation in Homer. He said that most of their business
comes from fishermen and moose and goat hunters. They also operate a
package tour to a remote fly-in horse ranch on the Fox River for sport
fishing, hunting, and photography. O'Dell is satisfied with the existing
recreational air taxi situation except that he is worried about the
future possibility of popular fly-in lakes being closed to air access.
Al Hensen, owner and manager of the 4-Seasons Sport and Music Center in
Homer, was very helpful in identifying overall recreation patterns on
the lower Peninsula. In addition to specific map information, he provided
some general comments about the relative intensity of recreation in the
Homer area. Many of the local people with small fishing boats launch
them from the beach at Whiskey Gulch, north of Anchor Point. There are
no improved launching facilities there, but it is the only feasible
access between the Homer Spit and Ninilchik for trollers.
The uplands around Homer are used extensively for snowmobiling and
cross-country skiing in the winter. The open rolling terrain is well
suited for these uses. The 8-10 mile trail to Caribou Lake is used
intensively, and there is some conflict between snowmobiles and skiers
there. Common winter activities at Caribou Lake include ptarmigan
hunting, ice-fishing for trout and land-locked salmon, and chasing
57
coyotes and wolves. In the summer, the area is visited by hikers and
fishermen. Fall use consists mainly of moose hunting by ATV's or
horseback. Use of the Homer uplands and the surrounding dome country by
ATV's and snowmachines is increasing. Hensen estimated that Homer
dealers sold at least 150 snowmobiles last year.
Hensen is anxious to see additional State camping and fishing areas on
the lower Peninsula. The relatively small waysides at Ninilchik, Deep
Creek, and Anchor River are totally inadequate to accomodate the literally
thousands of campers that come for King Salmon fishing, etc. His store
alone sold 2,500 fish and game licenses in 1977, which is double what he
sold in 1976. The State should put in a boat launching and camping
facility at Whiskey Gulch and should also open off-season wayside
facilities for the increasing number of winter and spring travelers.
Hensen is particularly concerned that the only camping areas south of
Anchor River are city-owned. He felt that since the State had bought
back the Kachemak Bay oil leases to protect the fishery and recreation
resource, they had an obligation to provide recreation facilities. He
acknowledged that finding good locations for State waysides would be
difficult and expensive and that encouraging privately owned and operated
campgrounds could be an alternative. He also felt that it would be
better to develop recreation areas in accessible locations rather than
encourage increased use of more remote areas.
Hensen was the first of several people to mention the "myth of Alaska
recreation." He sees lots of tourists from Anchorage or the "lower 48"
that come to Homer without any idea of what they are going to do or how
they will do it. They hear about the fantastic fishing, clamming, etc.,
and they are frustrated when they don't find people and facilities to
accomodate their desires.
While waiting to interview another air taxi operator, I had the opportunity
to talk to John Brown who operates the Fox River horse ranch connected
with the previously mentioned Cook Inlet Aviation package tour. He and
several other families in this roadless area raise beef cattle on a
20,000 acre State grazing lease. Brown conducts horse trips to the
Caribou Hills and the Sheep Creek drainage. He would prefer to see the
area managed for a "quality hunting experience" using only primitive
means of access. Glacier Lake, at the head of Sheep Creek, is used
extensively by fly-in goat hunters. According to the Department of Fish
and Game, 28 goats were taken from the area by float plane while only 4
were taken by horse packers. He would like Glacier Lake closed to air
access which would enhance the quality of goat hunting on horseback in
that area and protect it from overuse. The Fox River area is one of the
few places in the State where it would be feasible and desireable to
limit access to primitive means.
Larry Thompson, a pilot for Homer Air Taxi, went over the maps and
filled in data about local recreation patterns that rely on air access.
While most of the use takes place on the Kenai Peninsula, there are some
58
people (particularly local residents) who fly to the west side of Cook
Inlet or Afognak Island primarily for hunting, clamming, and sport
fishing. One relatively common destination is the McNeil River area
where there is good clamming, beach combing, and bear observation.
Thompson felt that most of the fly-in hunting parties are local residents,
while most other parties tend to be from outside the area. Overall,
their total air taxi business is fairly evenly divided between wheel
planes and float planes (including sea planes). Thompson also estimated
that most of their business relates primarily to hunting and fishing,
while about 25% is for non-consumptive recreation.
Before leaving Homer, I spoke briefly to Gary Williams, Homer's mayor.
His schedule was too tight for an interview, but he did mention one of
his concerns about recreation in the Homer area. As the use of Kachemak
Bay State Park increases, more parking will be required on the Spit or
some other suitable location. So far, the State has not provided any
parking or staging area facilities, so this increasing burden has fallen
on the City of Homer.
Later that evening I drove to Ninilchik and talked at length with
Frank Tupper, a part-time commercial fisherman who also directs the
local community school program. He mentioned some specific inadequacies
of the existing recreation areas on the western Kenai Peninsula. During
the intensively used summer weekends, as many as 2,000 people and their
campers come to Ninilchik and Deep Creek to fish. The lack of facilities
and enforcement has caused problems related to trespassing, destruction
of property, vegetation damage, littering (including dead fish, etc.),
theft, noise, discharging firearms, alcohol problems, lack of firewood,
water pollution, and competition with local people over the consumptive
use of resources.
'' .The State ends up responding to existing demands and rarely creates new
recreational needs. Tupper sees this as a little understood concept.
The State needs to back-off from their quick solution approach of trying
to meet the massive use demands. They need to inventory areawide or
regional recreation needs, fish and wildlife resources, cultural and
historic values, and other values and resources. This inventory should
be similar to the environmental impact statement process so that there
will be some assurance that any new or improved developments will not
create more problems than they would solve. This is especially important
to protect the local communities. Local hearings should be conducted
for all recreation improvement projects that would have an effect on the
local residents.
The State should carefully consider the impact of expanded tourism on
subsistence. Competition for clams, fish, berries, beach coal, firewood,
etc., should not be allowed to infringe on the subsistence needs of
local residents. Parking and camping areas should be visually insulated
from communities to protect scenic values. Flush toilets should be
avoided to cut down on water waste (aerobic outhouses could be used
-
59
instead.) Garbage collection systems should be enclosed and frequently
maintained to prevent overflow and wind scattering. Developed recreation
areas should be avoided in areas with particular vulnerability to
geologic hazards, especially tsunamis. Beaches are not appropriate
locations for intensive wayside use.
Tupper also suggested that the State enhance recreation areas north of
Ninilchik to take some of the pressure off the Homer/Anchor River area.
Generally, the State should change their emphasis from acquisition to
enforcement and development. The Division of Parks, Department of
Transportation, Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Fish
and Game all need increased funding to monitor recreational activities.
The State should establish frequent communication between Anchorage and
the local parks to monitor recreation activity. This could be used for
public information about the vacancy rate of the various waysides.
Ultimately, the State should strive for quality recreation opportunities
by limiting the intensive use areas to a level of development that will
be compatible with the area. Tupper feels strongly that it will be
impossible for the State fo fully meet the Peninsula's recreation
demand, so they should not get involved in a vain attempt to do so. A
permit system (similar to that used by the National Park Service in
McKinley Park) would cut down on overuse and guarantee a quality recreation
experience for the visitors.
The public needs to be educated about recreation in Alaska. With proper
information signs and interpretive facilities, the public tends to act
more responsibly toward the land. This is partially a public relations
effort that should be the responsibility of the Division of Tourism.
Tupper's final point related to the reluctance of the Division of Parks
and other State agencies to acknowledge coastal zone management (CZM).
He felt it was important for CZM's role to be defined as to whether it
will be active, subordinate, or coordinating.
In Ninilchik, I also talked to Al York, a long-time Alaska resident who
is working with Mike Lee, District Superintendent of State Parks, on
developing an interpretive program for tourists. Visitors from Anchorage
or outside Alaska read or hear about Alaska's traditional rural lifestyle,
and they want to be able to see some of it during their travels. Many
tourists are frustrated in their attempt, which is an extension of the
"myth of Alaska recreation." York is working on a series of evening
demonstration/presentations that could be presented in State campgrounds
by park rangers. He is writing a manual and teaching aid for rangers on
the topics of (1) traditional methods of catching and preserving fish;
(2) historic methods of mining gold; (3) Native trapping techniques; (4)
collection and preservation of wild berries; (5) construction of dog
sleds; (6) construction of traditional Native saunas; and (7) Alaskan
gardening techniques. York was concerned that the Division of Parks
would not have enough money to develop the program, although he felt
that it should have high priority. Once the series is developed, it
60
could be expanded and used all over the State with great benefit to the
public at a relatively small cost.
The next day, I interviewed Fred Braun of Fred Braun's Sporting Goods in
Kenai about local recreation use patterns. He said that most of the
heavy use takes place on the lower Kenai River from Memorial Day to late
July for king salmon, with another peak period in late August and early
September for silver salmon. The river has no reliable public boat
access. The city launch area is usually blocked by commercial fishing
activity, and the State launch is too steep to be useable. There is a
real need for a good small boat harbor.with related parking and camping
facilities near the mouth of the Kenai River.
According to Braun, most of the other heavy recreation use in the area
takes place on the Kenai National Moose Range. He has noticed an
increase in canoe sales because more and more people want to get away
from heavily used area. Use of Tustumena and Skilak Lakes is increasing
because of the crowding on the Kenai and Russian Rivers. Tustumena is
particularly popular with local hunters because it has road access and a
boat launching area. Hunters use the lake for access to moose and sheep
on northeast shore areas.
Braun pointed out two areas that he feels are under-utilized: the
Captain Cook State Recreation Area and the beaches adjacent to the Cohoe
River. The Captain Cook area has developed camping spaces, trout fishing,
fresh water swimming, and beach access. So far, it is used mostly by
Kenai/Soldotna residents because it is not widely known Statewide.
Braun thought that there was good potential for another developed recrea-
tion area off of the Cohoe Loop Road. The area has beach access and
good clamming.
"Linda Gintoli, recreation specialist for the Kenai National Moose
Range, tended to support Braun's previous remarks. She also noted that
most of the use on the Moose Range results from incidental stop-overs by
travelers to Homer, although an increasing number of people are coming
there to stay for awhile. Fishing is particularly popular, especially
on the Russian River and below Skilak Lake. Use of the canoe trails is
increasing from both day and weekend use to longer trips taking two
weeks or more. About 6,000 canoeists used the Moose Range last year.
Hunters mainly take moose, with occasional black bear and sheep. A
trophy moose area between Tustumena and Skilak Lakes is used primarily
by hunters on horseback. The main canoe trail area, Ski Hill (near
Soldotna) and the southeastern mountain areas are closed to snowmobile
use. Virtually all other areas on the Moose Range receive snowmobile
use. Each year they tend to go farther from the roaded areas. Most of
the hiking is associated with the camping areas. Most of the trails in
the area are undeveloped natural wildlife trails.
Camping takes place on developed campgrounds (flush toilets, etc.),
semi-developed campgrounds, and on the wilderness trails. Most of the
61
campgrounds have become established as a result of de facto public use
patterns with little or no planning. The Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) is attempting to upgrade the semi-developed campgrounds to better
manage their use. The FWS interpretation and recreation funding is
limited to about one-third of the entire Moose Range budget. Current
policy states that they cannot develop new campgrounds until they have
upgraded those already in existence.
Bob Richie, also of FWS at the Moose Range, added that, despite increasing
pressures, recreation is a secondary management objective that should be
allowed only when and where it is compatible with the primary FWS objective
of wildlife and habitat protection. National policy is encouraging the
FWS to cut back on intensive recreation within refuges, although it is
doubtful that this policy will be strictly implemented on the Moose
Range in the foreseeable future. In the long run, Gintoli and Richie
would hope to limit use of most of the Moose Range campgrounds by shifting
the heavy use to private campgrounds. In the meantime, they are continuing
to improve camping facilities while redirecting their use more toward
enjoyment of the Moose Range, rather than as a stop-over on the way to
other areas.
They are particularly concerned about the impact on Federal lands of
the State's fishing policy on the Russian River. The State allows
intensive salmon and sport fishing but has not taken responsibility for
providing any supporting camping or parking facilities. Consequently,
the adjacent Kenai Moose Range and Chugach National Forest receive the
impact of the intensive use. The State has also created an undesireable
and sprawled private land use pattern which makes Federal management in
the area even more difficult. Other areas that experience similar
overuse as a result of lax fish and game policies include the lower
Kenai River, Deep Creek, and Anchor River.
Gintoli noticed that most people are looking for quality recreation
opportunities but won't take the time to get to them. Many of these
people who want more access are (once again) hung up on the Alaska
recreation myth that they should be able to drive to easily accessible,
yet remote quality recreation areas.
Next, I talked to Phillip Waring, Planning Director for the Kenai
Peninsula Borough. He acknowledged the need for expanded recreation
areas but is concerned that the State has been unable to provide adequate
maintenance and enforcement in existing areas during the peak tourist
season. The Division of Parks and the Kenai Borough are currently
negotiating a land exchange so that new parks and waysides can be created
in accessible high use areas. As one of the preconditions of the trade,
the Borough has asked that the State do a comprehensive recreation
management study for the area which will be affected. The Borough wants
some assurance of the State's capability to handle additional recreation
responsibilities before they relinquish any Borough lands for State
recreation purposes.
62
The Kenai Peninsula Borough has not assumed any recreation responsibilities
to date. Waring noted that the Borough Assembly has not addressed the
issue. There is no indication if or when they will, or what direction
they might take if they ever do provide for recreation in the Borough.
Private recreation developments within the Borough are welcome, although
there is no policy that encourages them. The Borough does have a policy
relating to public access across private lands to public waters. Their
subdivision ordinance requires that developers dedicate easements to
lakes surrounded by private lands, usually a 50-60 foot road easement.
63
TO:
Federal-State
Land Use Planning Commission
For Alaska
Walter B. Parker
State Co-Chairman
Esther C. Wunnicke
Federal Co~Chairman
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Sally Gibert ,2:6-~·-.
Natural Resources Specialist
SUBJECT: Fairbanks Region travel report and findings on local recreation
use and policy.
DATE: October 5, 1978
From June 20 through June 25, I travelled to Fairbanks, Livengood, Central-
Circle, the Chena River Recreation Area, and points between. I interviewed
the fifteen people listed below and made numerous other informal contacts "on
the road."
Ginny Wood, Fairbanks resident
Al Townsend, Habitat Protection Section, ADF&G
Herb Hunt, Bureau of Land Management
Clem Rawert, Clem's Sporting Goods
Dave Snarski, Alaska Division of Parks
Bill Creighton, Fairbanks Parks and Recreation (Borough)
Delores O'Mara, Fairbanks Planning Dept. (Borough)
Hannon Harland, Al Wright's Air Service
Larry Miller, Frontier Air Service
Jim Pippin, Aurora Air Service
Gail Mayo, Fairbanks resident
Mary Bishop, Fairbanks resident
Dick Macintoch, Frontier Sporting Goods
Sandie Parrish, Circle Hot Springs Lodge
Lou Marifke, Livengood resident
Most of the data I collected that deals with specific recreation uses is on
an accompanying reproducible map at 1:250,000 scale. This memo includes
other information related to use patterns as well as recreation policy
considerations. The use and management of trails was a particular issue
discussed by many of the persons interviewed, so trail-related comments have
been grouped together at the end.
64
733 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 400
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
My first interview was with Ginny Wood, who has been involved at the citizen
level with borough parks and recreation for many years. Over the years she has
soured on bureaucracies that administer parks and recreation because they tend
to approach their responsibility as if it were a public work project. She felt
that Alaska needs increased recreation land acquisition to preserve recreation
opportunities now, before the population increases and more land is put into
private ownership (Beirne Initiative, etc.). Public easements, especially to
and along waterways, need to be reserved to protect access to recreation lands.
Development of designated recreation lands need not take place rapidly. They
should be developed slowly as demand evolves while also keeping in mind that
developed areas can't be "un-developed." Currently, Wood thinks that recreation
areas are being over-managed in order to perpetuate the bureaucracy. For
example, wilderness lands need very little "management" and may be regulated
merely by not providing easy access or amenities. At the same time, intensive
use areas can be identified that will take the pressure off the less developed
areas. The intensity of use of the land should be determined by its natural
carrying capacity. For example, heavily used trails could follow ridges or
rocky sheep trails rather than tundra.
The State also needs to decide if it wants to actively encourage outdoor rec-
reation for the mental and physical health of Alaskans. If they do, then they
need to be prepared to meet the demand as well as acknowledge that some places
will inevitably become over-run. It is also important to separate "passive" and
"active" types of recreation (e.g., roadside picnicing in a camper trailer vs.
backcountry hiking). Both types of recreation need to be provided for, though
it is often desirable to separate them to maximize individual enjoyment and
impact on the land.
Although Wood acknowledged the need for waysides along the highways, she felt
that they generally aren't used for "outdoor recreation" purposes. They also
need better maintenance and trash collection, so maybe the Department of Trans-
portation should administer them instead of the Division of Parks.
Al Townsend, Habitat Biologist in the Habitat Protection section of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, was very helpful in outlining Fairbanks regional
recreation patterns, especially those related to fishing (see map). The Salcha
River seems to be Fairbanks' answer to the Russian River on the Kenai Peninsula,
although it is not quite as crowded. The Salcha and Goodpasture Rivers, Shaw .
Creek, and to a lesser degree, Clear Creek, all receive relatively heavy grayling
fishing pressure and all have numerous private recreational sites along their
shores (from over 60 on the Salcha to about a dozen on Clear Creek). Townsend
estimated that most of these recreation sites were between 2-1/2 and 5 acres
each. On the weekends, Fairbanks residents launch their boats from access
points where the Richardson Highway crosses these streams. Fishing in Chena
Slough off Badger Road is also very popular. There is relatively little salmon
fishing in the interior rivers around Fairbanks. Most of the fish taken are
grayling, sheefish, and northern pike. Some of the lakes also have good rainbow
trout fishing.
65
Townsend also mentioned some of the more popular float trips around Fairbanks
(see map). He noted that Beaver Creek is one of the streams receiving increas-
ing use. At the same time, gold mining activity, especially along Birch Creek,
has also increased dramatically. There are now over 100 miners in the Circle
quad area, some of which are large scale using thousands of dollars worth of
equipment. This has caused a direct conflict over use of water between mining
and fish habitat, and consequentl~ affecting fishing potential.
Most of the larger rivers and streams marked on the map are identified in BLM's
brochure, "Alaska's River Trails, Northern Region," except for the Hess Creek
float which starts from the haul road and goes to the Yukon River. Townsend
felt that this stream had good floating potential though it has some difficult
sections. It is quite heavily floated during moose season.
Townsend also had some suggestions concerning parks and recreation management.
More roadside pullouts are needed along the highways, in addition to waysides,
to accommodate day uses like gold panning, berry picking, hiking, picnicing,
etc. He noted a particular lack of pullouts on the Elliott Highway where there
are many good berry picking areas. He also thought that the Snowshoe Pass
pipeline storage area would make a good wayside once it is surplused, because it
has good berry picking. The Livengood Camp near Livengood might make a good
campground because it is near water. Townsend suggested that DOT could design
and construct the pullouts while ADP could provide park-like information signs
and litter barrels.
Next I talked to Herb Hunt, a recreation specialist for the Bureau of Land
Management. He outlined what BLM is and will be doing in terms of recreation
research and management. So far, their efforts have been sparce, but as a
result of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 (FLMPA), research
is being increased. Inventory and analysis of recreation data is one element in
their mandated planning process. "Unit resource analysis" is part of that
planning process. BLM will identify all possibilities for recreation in a given
area (or unit) and then evaluate their potential importance based on accessi-
bility, desirability, and other considerations. The recommendations regarding
recreation are then put together with recommendations on other resources (mining,
timber, wildlife, etc.) and conflict areas are identified. When a land manage-
ment decision falls within an identified conflict area, the local manager will
weigh the issues and make a decision.
Hunt also described another process affecting recreation known as "visual
resource management," which is intended to minimize or prevent visual surface
disturbance. Before any surface disturbing activity is allowed to take place, a
"quality evaluation" is completed. For example, a gravel pit might be required
to be revegetated or otherwise concealed from prominent view.
Hunt noted that (not surprisingly) most recreation use takes place adjacent to
the road system, although "bush" recreation is popular and increasing, especially
float trips. Recreation use is more intensive closer to Fairbanks and drops off
considerably in outlying areas (even along roads). Access to water recreation
is in the greatest demand yet is the most difficult to acquire and/or manage
around a growing city.
66
Compared to intensive use areas in the Lower 48, Alaska still does not
receive heavy recreation pressure. BLM would like to avoid intensive use
areas where possible, especially in rural areas. However, they do not intend
to "prevent use." Instead, BLM's goal'is to modify and manage use to reduce
the impact on the physical environment.
Off-road vehicle use is an example of a recreation activity that BLM will
"manage." Currently there are no restrictions or closures on ORV use. BLM
is in the process of finalizing regulations that will determine areas that
will be open, closed or restricted. Hunt anticipated that most BLM lands in
Alaska will be in a restricted category. (For example, winter use only with
a minimum amount of snow cover.) Use of vehicles, such as caterpillar
tractors, will likely be limited to existing trails even though some of the
trail use is damaging the ground surface. In the long run, some of the
heavily used routes through environmentally sensitive areas may be improved
with a gravel surface (and possibly even camping areas) to halt additional
damage. Closure of poorly routed trails is not practically feasible because
of lack of enforcement and the strongly established patterns of use.
Clem Rawert of Clem's Sporting Goods, was very helpful in identifying
patterns of recreation use, especially float-boating and cross-country
skiing. Most of the areas he mentioned are shown on the map. The Tanana
River provides excellent cross-country skiing and good opportunities for
snow camping. It is "remote" yet very close to Fairbanks. Gold King Creek,
on the north side of the Alaska Range, is the only'place near Fairbanks that
is used significantly for fly-in skiing, snow camping and winter
mountaineering. The area is just a short flight from Fairbanks, and has
numerous tributaries with high quality wilderness and scenery.
Wickersham and Haystack Mountains along the Elliott Highway also have
excellent out-of-town skiing. The vegetation is open (primarily tundra) and
they have good wildlife viewing opportunities. At an elevation of over 3, 200
feet, Wickersham Dome is the first good place to ski, with adequate snow
usually by mid-October.
Virtually all of the floatable, accessible streams around Fairbanks are used
for fishing, floating, and/or access to adjacent land oriented recreation.
One of the most popular is the Nenana River with several put-ins and take-
outs along the Parks Highway. McKinley Park, Rex, and Nenana have train
access also. The railroad will accept collapsible boats as personal baggage
but full size boats must be transported by freight train. Rawert and others
are attempting to change Alaska Railroad policy so that full size kayaks and
canoes can be carried on the passenger train baggage cars.
Rawert expressed strong opinions about the role of the State in managing
recreation. His attitude reflects that of several Fairbanks residents that I
talked to. Generally he feels that people need to take responsibility for
their own recreation needs because there is plenty of public land to use.
The State should only become involved when areas are already over used, in
which case they should either be closed or carefully regulated with adequate
enforcement. People lose their initiative to recreate when the State
provides them "something for nothing." When the State sets up a recreation --
67
area, these people will flock there and cause abuse or over use of the land.
Instead, they should be encouraged to disperse and provide for their own
enjoyment--which is in turn much more personally meaningful. The State
should spend more energy on public education to encourage responsible
attitudes toward litter, off-road vehicle use, and over crowding.
Rawert feels that roadside campgrounds with a recreation orientation should
not be constructed within SO miles of cities. The State should acknowledge
that close-in campgrounds are-only used as a substitute for hotels and so
they should be managed differently--if they are provided at all. Away from
urban areas more roadside campgrounds are needed. They should be well marked
and adequately enforced--with an emphasis on education so that people will
clean up after themselves. Rawert is particularly concerned about
segregating tent campers from the vast majority of truck campers and trailer
campers. He noted that there aren't any clean places to tent camp anymore
because of all the sewage that is dumped in campgrounds now.
I also taked to Dick Macintosh of Frontier Sporting Goods. He has been in the
recreation business for many years and was able to identify many recreation
areas. All of his information has been incorporated on the accompanying map.
Next I talked to Dave Snarski, who heads up the Fairbanks office of the State
Division of Parks (ADP). He was pleased that the Commission and the
Legislature were finally addressing State parks and recreation policy
because he has virtually no clear guidelines at this time. He identified the
policy questions that the State needs to face and outlined some background
which has lead to some of the existing problems.
Much of ADP's energy is currently directed towards management of waysides.
Most of these sites were inherited from BLM after Statehood. They were built
partly as make-work projects for BLM fire crews and partly to control the
already existing use of some of the defacto campgrounds in fire danger areas.
Consequently, the current wayside "system" came about with little or no prior
recreation planning. Since Statehood, the population has grown and many
waysides (like Chatanika) are under managed and over used. Before it was
closed to camping, the Chena Wayside was jammed with "resident" campers
(beginning with the pipeline era), and as Fairbanks grew, it became an urban
campground but without adequate facilities. ADP would like to turn it over
to the borough, but the borough won't accept it without the expensive
additions of sewer and water, which the Division of Parks can't afford (a
sort of Catch 22).
The recently expanded Chena River State Recreation Area is the largest unit
of the State Park System in the Fairbanks area. Currently the park is
undeveloped, except for Department of Transportation pulloffs that are
indirectly the result of massive flood control efforts. There are a number
of defacto camping areas and primitive trails but these have evolved through
public use over the years. ADP is in the process of formulating a
development plan, and public hearings have shown that the public does not
want large scale development. They primarily want ADP to "legitimize"
existing use by providing pit toilets, litter pickup, etc., at the existing
camping areas. The hearings generally supported the attitude toward State
recreation responsibility that was expressed earlier by Clem Rawert.
68
Snarksi goes along with this attitude that ADP should manage existing use
rather than intensively encourage use of new areas in interior Alaska. Use
of ORV's in the Chena River State Recreation Area is an example of such
management. The area supports mainly snowmobile use in the winter---which ADP
plans to allow to continue. The area is now officially closed to horses and
ORV's in the summer to protect the trails. Even though summer horse and ORV
use has been very light in the past, ADP is getting pressure to open it up
again. The public has not been receptive to a closure of existing use even if
that use has been light. Ideally, Snarksi hopes that someday ADP will have
some Statewide ORV policy and regulations.
To further complicate access considerations in the Chena area, there are a
number of roads and jeep trails in the adjacent military reservation that
provide unregulated access to the Recreation Area in the vicinity of the
Granite Tors. These roads are generally open to the public. (Although
sometimes they are closed during military activities.) A portion of the
military reservation extends into the southwest corner of the Recreation Area
which ADP is trying to get from the military. Snarski noted that they have
been reluctant to give up anything there because land is the military's main
"commodity" in Alaska.
Snarksi feels that the State should be spending more of its energy in
reserving public land and easements for recreation purposes. They don't need
to be developed--but merely retained in public ownership as open space.
Fairbanks is spoiled on its tremendous amount of public access and
opportunities for unregulated recreation activities. But that is changing
rapidly--especially as more private land along roads is posted and/or fenced.
For example, there are many miles of old roads and trails around Esther that
have been used by the public for years. But most of these trails are on
private land and no trespassing signs are cropping up with increasing
frequency. Snarski said that large remote parks (like Wood-Tikchik) are
alright, but more emphasis needs to be placed where more people live.
To many people in Alaska, State parks mean waysides. More public involvement
is necessary to educate the public about Alaska's State Park System. ADP
needs to be more responsive to public needs as well as other local, State,
and Federal agencies. It is also important for other agencies and the public
to understand that State parks can't be managed like national parks because
ADP is not a total land manager and has limited management authority.
The State needs to decide if it will get into the "tourist business." If so,
does it want to promote recreation? Is it cost efficient? The State also
needs policy statements regarding habitat management and a more clearly
defined relationship with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In short,
Snarski feels the DOP needs to define itself, a process that will involve
some natural growing pains.
Bill Creighton is Director of the Parks and Recreation Department of the
Fairbanks North Star Borough. We talked about the interface between State
and local roles regarding parks and recreation. Creighton was concerned that
once State policy is set, what happens if local responsibility doesn't fill
in the gaps at the local level? He felt that generally the State should
-
69
~-~----~--------~---
assume responsibility for waysides and other recreation areas outside the
urban areas. The borough should take care of the urban areas (though not in
the outlying portions of the borough). Creighton agreed with the Division of
Parks that the "downtown" Chena Wayside should be transferred to the
borough--but they can't afford to take it in its present condition due to
cost of improvements ($269, 000) and maintenance. The borough has not
provided any other near-town camping facilities because the Assembly has been
unwilling to compete with private enterprise. More waysides are needed,
however, and Creighton suggested that maybe this could be one of the
functions of the Department of Transportation. He also felt that no new
developed State parks were needed in the Fairbanks area.
Most of the borough's parks and recreation activities have been directed
toward sports oriented athletic facilities. (Even the office is located in
an indoor ice rink facility.) The borough has a heavy recreation program and
is habitually short of play space. For example, there are 142 softball
teams. One of the problems that Parks and Recreation has faced is that most
of their activities are tied to the short summer season. The single purpose
capital intensive playing fields are unused for the remainder of the year.
They do, however, convert outdoor tennis courts to ice rinks in the winter.
To round out recreational information from the urban area, I also interviewed
three air taxis. Each one had a different emphasis and/or type of customer.
Taken together, they appeared to represent a cross section of the air taxi
and charter business.
Al Wright's Flying Service handles quite a few recreational charters.
According to pilot, Harland Hannon, most of their business comes from
Fairbanks residents, except that outside tourist use is heavy "in season."
From June until Labor Day they fly an average of four parties a day into
guiding camps in the Minto Flats, primarily for fishing. In the fall, duck
hunting increases and continues until freezeup.
Al Wright's used to fly lots of moose hunters, but in recent years this has
decreased substantially due to a decline in the moose populations. On the
other hand, fly-in fishing and hiking has increased. Most of the fly-in
backpackers prefer to fly to the Brooks Range, but those that can't afford
it, fly to the White Mountains or other relatively close, yet roadless areas.
As Fairbanks has grown, more and more recreationists are flying farther from
town. Hannon estimated as much as 75 percent of their chartered destinations
are off the USGS quads encompassing the Fairbanks study area.
Recently, flight-seeing tours to view wildlife and scenery have become
popular. A typical tour might include looking for bears and moose over the
Blair Lakes Reservation, sheep in the Japan Hills, the mountains and glaciers
of the Alaska Range, and sometimes buffalo around Delta. When flying over
military lands, most pilots check in to make sure everything is clear, but
there generally are no fly over restrictions.
Larry Miller, a pilot for Frontier Air Service, noted that nearly all of
their business charters to the Brooks Range. Charters to the Arrigetch
Peaks, Wild Lake, and the John, Anaktuvuk, and Noatak Rivers account for
70
about 95 percent of their business. Most of their customers are from out-of-
State. Most common activities are hiking and float-boating, and a little
fishing. Some hunters also go in because they anticipate that it will be
closed in the future and they want to hunt there before that happens. Last
year it seemed that there were more Federal and State government employees in
the Central Brooks than any other user group.
A few people also fly to the Arctic National Wildlife Range but it is so
expensive that most people are unwilling to afford it. Miller noted that
there are a few tour packages to the Brooks Range, but that the tour market is
mostly untapped. About half the groups that Frontier flys in set up a base
camp and about half wish to be picked up at a different place from where they
started. Miller estimated that use has been increasing about 10
percent/year, and he expected that the increase would continue in the future.
He also felt that the reason most of their business was from outside the
State is because so many residents have their own plane or a friend who has
one.
The third air taxi, Aurora Air Service, does less recreational chartering.
Jim Pippin said this was because they didn't want to get into the "guiding
business." Most of their time is contracted to mining companies for hauling
people and supplies. Mining is increasing and most of the old claimed areas
are being reworked.
Pippin was critical of hunting patterns around Fairbanks, which is the main
reason he avoids fly-in hunting trips as much as possible. He cited poaching
(especially for sheep in Victoria Mountain), too much demand on the moose
population, and snowmobile and other ORV over-use. He did note, however,
that "non-consumptive" recreation like hiking and float-boating is
increasing while "consumptive use" is on the decline.
Pippin noted that local residents generally fly to areas closer to Fairbanks,
like Minto and Tanana Flats, and the North Slope of the Alaska Range. Non-
residents frequently charter long distances. A typical non-resident request
goes like this: "I've read about and I've got to see it."
Aurora Air Service also gets lots of requests for fly-in recreational m1n1ng.
However, unless the prospective customer has a specific place in mind, Pippin
is unwilling to recommend a place because it very likely will be in trespass.
Pippin described a "recreational miner" as someone with a gold pan or a small
suction dredge.
In Livengood on the Elliott Highway, I talked to Sam, who runs Sam's Place,
the only business establishment in town. When I asked him about recreation
in the Livengood area, he chuckled and said, "They drink." When I told him
that I meant visitors to the area, he said that they come in and ask thousands
of questions, buy a candy bar and leave. Based on my own visit to Livengood,
I suspect that he was mostly right. Sam was busy, so he referred me to a
long-time resident and miner, Lou Marifke.
Marifke was intially skeptical of my project, but he eventually was helpful
regarding local recreation patterns. The area is currently being intensively
··----...
7l
mined and explored for gold. Trespass is a problem because many miners guard
their claims jealously. The area is not heavily used by recreationists;
however, snowmobiling, bear hunting and berry picking by local residents
occurs. Most of the visiting tourists who come to Livengood are in campers
and are on their way to Manley Hot Springs or the Yukon River. Marifke
pointed out several remote hot springs that are used mostly by miners because
of difficult access or the fact that they are within mining claims. Poor
driving conditions beyond Wickersham Dome is one reason why recreation use on
the Elliott Highway is somewhat: sparse.
At Circle Hot Springs near the end of the Steese Highway-,-~ I had a good
conversation with Sandie Parrish, part owner-manager of the Circle Hot
Springs Lodge. The Hot Springs are open year around despite the fact that
the Steese Highway is closed in winter. There is a lighted, well maintained
State airstrip, and whenever the temperature is above -20° F., they get two
to ten planes a day. Parrish noted that there is considerable recreation
potential in the area (in addition to the hot springs) and recreation use is
likely to increase significantly when the present Steese Highway
reconstruction is completed. Local feelings about increasing tourist
visitation is mixed between those who wish to see a modest recreational
economy established and those who wish to have the area preserved as it is.
About 90 subdivided lots are currently being sold and the State plans a land
disposal program around Circle Hot Springs also. Parrish complained about
the lack of maintenance on a State road that winds around the hills from
Circle Hot Springs to the historic Miller House on the Steese Highway. The
road was upgraded several years ago, but has not been touched since and is
now impassible. She said that the road should be graded occasionally so that
it can be used by recreationists for access to some of the local back-
country.
Fairbanks Trails
The countryside immediately adjacent to downtown Fairbanks is interlaced
with many miles of trails. These trails follow old traplines, dog sled
routes, and mining roads, or have been cleared over the years by local
residents or the University of Alaska ski team. Most of these trails have
never been formally designated, signed, mapped, or even systematically
identified. They have evolved through ad hoc neighborhood efforts over the
years. Most of the main trails and feeder trails cross private land and
serve to connect neighboring communities and individual households. These
"backyard" trails have mostly been used by local skiers for transportation
and recreation over the years. Landowners have generally not been concerned
about trespass because use of the trails is light.
A few years ago, some of the local residents foresaw the need to formally
protect some of the major trails from being blocked off by subdivisions or
other indications of continued urban expansion. Ginny Wood is one of those
that has actively participated in preserving a portion of the trail network.
Partly as a result of her efforts, the Ivar Skarland Memorial Ski Trail
System was formally recognized and designated by the University and the
borough. The forty-year-old ski trail system consists of five loop trails
beginning at the University gymnasium. Problems related to the maintenance
72
and management of the Skarland System typifies the problems other trails may
have in the future.
Wood is concerned that borough responsibility for the trails will have
counter-productive results. Skiers can request that trails be maintained,
but borough funding for maintenance comes from a grant through a State bond
issue (Roads and Trails). Use of this money requires "multiple use" of the
trails, including snowmobiles, which are incompatible with the purpose of the
trails. Maintenance also requires that the trails be designated rights-of-
way or easements. Private landowners are fearful that easements may become
roads in the future. Skiers and landowners alike are also concerned that
"maintenance" will require the use of trucks or other heavy equipment,
therefore losing the woodsy trail atmosphere. A number of trails crossing
private land have already been posted against trespass for these reasons.
Wood felt that this sort of bureaucratic inconsistency was the result of a
changing urban attitude ("Why don't 'they' clear these trails?")-She feels
that smaller scale local maintenance would be better, especially if it were
done by local residents as it has been done in the past. She also suggested
that the designers and planners of trails should also be trail users who are
familiar with the local situation. Another problem is that the "backyard" or
"feeder" trails should not be designated, mapped, or officially maintained.
These trails are almost always on private land and are not meant for heavy
use. Protection of these trails would best be accomplished by neighborhood
agreements rather than formal easements. It is also important to plan for
new and existing trails before new areas are developed or subdivided.
Dave Snarski of the Division of Parks was concerned about trails in the
Fairbanks area, including those in the outlying areas. Many of them are
being lost to development or from lack of use because the public doesn't know
about them. In response to the public demand for more trails, Snarski would
·rather see a comprehensive inventory of existing trails, survey lines, mining
roads, trappers' trails, etc. The only Statewide attempt that he knew of was
the work done by Fish and Game for identifying easements under ANCSA.
I asked Bill Creighton (borough Parks and Recreation Department) about their
role relative to trails. He said that most of the new trails in Fairbanks
have been built by the Department of Transportation. The borough only
maintains about ten kilometers of trail, while the City of Fairbanks owns and
maintains about 1.5 miles of trail. Creighton did not view trails as a Parks
and Recreation responsibility, and referred me to the borough Planning and
Zoning Department for more information.
Delores O'Mara, who works on trail-related issues in the Planning and Zoning
Department, explained some of the problems they are having. The borough has
not dedicated trails specifically for non-motorized use. Bike trails, which
are closed to motorized vehicles, belong to the State. The borough is
attempting to maintain three ski trails and a nature trail with money from
the Local Service Roads and Trails Fund. Use of this money demands that
trails be used for both non-motorized and motorized use. · Before funds may be
used, the trails must also be a legal right-of-way. I asked O'Mara if there
is a way of having non-motorized use only. She responded that "Trails and
73
Footpaths" grants could be used, but that the borough had not yet
investigated this possibility. She also felt that what is needed most of all
is a good inventory of local trails. No one in the Planning and Zoning
Department has done that, although there are a few individual trail users
that have a good idea of the overall picture.
O'Mara felt that blocking public use of trails on private land was not a
serious problem at this time. Most of the trail users' concern has stemmed
more from fear of trail closures than actual closures. The trails that have
been blocked were generally closed because of snowmachine use (not skiers).
Property owners were unwilling to subject themselves to the possibility of an
easement in the future that might result in unregulated motorized use.
The borough is in the process of revising their Comprehensive Plan. After
several hearings, O'Mara noted that it appears that the opinions of borough
residents are split on the amount of borough involvement in maintenance of
the trail systems. About half would prefer that they be left alone and half
want intensive borough protection. Interestingly, both groups wanted to
preserve the trails, but their methods differed depending on how they
perceived the effect of borough management.
I also talked to Gail Mayo and Mary Bishop. ·As Fairbanks residents and trail
users, they are also active in the protection of Fairbanks trails and trail-
related recreation. They confirmed the previous information that I had
collected and added a few other ideas.
Part of the problem with trails goes beyond merely mechanized use vs. non-
mechanized use. There are also conflicts between skiers, dog mushers,
horses, joggers and bikers. Ideally all of these uses should have their own
trails. Of course this is not practical. The most important distinction is
between snowmobiles and skiers. Summer trail use by horses has also caused
conflicts, especially with joggers, although there are still relatively few
horses around Fairbanks. As horses become more popular, they should be
allowed only on those trails which will not be damaged. Low, wet areas are
not suitable for horse trails.
Dog mushers also have some difficulty sharing trails with snowmobiles and
skiers. Both can scare the dogs, and ski tracks are not compatible with
tracks left by sled runners. Dirty snow is also a problem for skiers who use
dog sled trails.
Another suggestion for alleviating problems of conflicting uses would be to
have wide enough trails for different modes of travel. But this is also
difficult to enforce and would take an intensive public education campaign.
74
Federal-State
Land Use Planning Commission
For Alaska
MEMORANDUM
TO: Walter B. Parker, State Co-Chairman
Esther C. Wunnicke, Federal Co-Chairman
FROM' Sally Gibert, Natural Resources Specialist~
SUBJECT: Juneau travel report and preliminary findings on recreation patterns
and policy.
DATE: June 15, 1978
On April 20-22, 1978, I contacted the following people about recreation use
patterns and policy for the northern portion of Southeastern Alaska, especially
as it relates to Juneau.
Jim King, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Dumont, Director, Juneau Parks and Recreation Department
Charles Low, U.S. Forest Service
James Calvin, U.S. Forest Service
Myrna Brower, Juneau Travel Agency
Eaglecrest Ski Area Employee
Gail Trivette, Juneau Heliport
George Thomas, Southeast Skyways Air Taxi
Aral Hagerup, Ward Air
Joan Dittier, Juneau Chamber of Commerce
Two maps accompany this memo which detail specific recreation use areas, as well
as selected areas that have been proposed for future recreation oriented management
designations.
My first interview was with Jim King who has been involved at the citizen level
with Juneau area parks and recreation planning for a number of years. He summarized
some of the past history of recreation policy and identified several publications
by the city and borough of Juneau, Parks and Recreation Department, as well as
the Planning Department.
In 1970 King was part of a volunteer citizens Parks and Recreation Committee
which completed an expansive comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan. The Plan
which contained numerous large and small recreation parks and open space areas
was adopted in concept by the Juneau Assembly but was never actually implemented.
Tools such as zoning for open space were not used--even though current public
opinion surveys showed strong support for more open space and recreation facilities.
Recently the State had a new comprehensive plan prepared under contract by the
ORB Organization in Washington State. Their detailed report concludes that the
role of local government as a provider of parks and recreation should be more
narrowly defined than it has in the past. Generally, the new plan is oriented
toward smal~ developed urban parks.
75
733 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 400
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
It also criticizes the State for its lack of preservation of "Spacious
areas of outstanding scenic, historic or wilderness character •.. and
regional waterfront areas •.. which in essence •.• provide non-urban
recreation opportunities for the State's citizens and visitors."(page 6-
16)
King feels that ORB's narrow interpretation of local responsibility is
detremental because if Juneau d6esn't preserve large areas of open space
the city will become a "disaster area". He sees great potential for
large local parks and recreation areas and feels that Juneau's impress-
ive natural characteristics are what make it unique. He acknowledged
that one of the biggest hurdles to open space planning in Juneau is that
virtually every place has high quality natural values. Consequently it
is difficult to set priorities for preservation of individual areas.
King noted that in the last few years the State and Native Corporations
have selected most of the beach areas around Juneau. A not.eable example
is the popular Forest Service campground at Auk Bay which has been
selected by Sealaska Natives under 14 (H) 8 of ANCSA. The area has also
been topfiled by the State. The uncertainties of the impending Capital
move is another factor affecting Juneau recreation planning and open
space identification. The planning department is consequently skeletal
and unwilling to create many new or large parks in view of the possi-
bility of a drastic reduction in population.
King also feels that developmental opposition to parks and recreation is
strong in Juneau. He is concerned that the Assembly is not sympathetic
enough to open space values. He cited a case where the Corps of Engineers
had placed a "floodway" designation along the Mendenhall River which
prohibited development. The Parks and Recreation Department then identi-
fied the area as a greenbelt. Later, the Corps lifted the floodway
designation which opened the area to subdivisions. Since then the
Municipalitys greenbelt "zoning" has been virtually ignored, partly
because the land is so valuable. ($22,000 per 90 running feet of river
front). Recently however, river bank erosion has been rapid (measured
at 70 feet since 1960 inplaces) which may again limit development in the
future.
I next spoke with Jim Dumont, Director of the Juneau Parks and Recre-
ation Department. He started out by relating how little the State had
done in Southeastern Alaska to meet State or regional recreation demands.
He cited the following statistics:
Region
Southcentral
Interior
Southeast
Acres of Parks
244,000
30,700
5,000
Acres per 1,000 residents
1, 077
396
82
Juneau's facilities are frequently forced to respond to regional or even
Statewide needs, including summer tourism. The Juneau Comprehensive
Plan recommends cooperation between federal, state and local recreation
planners; however little has actually been accomplished in the way of
76
coordination.
Dumont explained that the ORB report stressed urban parks because
analysis of the need for large scale wetland and open space preservation
was beyond the ability of their relatively short term contract. He
agreed with ORB however that the State had shirked its responsibility in
Southeast but that the Municipality also had some responsibility for
regional recreation. He felt that the best course for the Municipality
would be somewhere between ORB's approach, and the one advocated by Jim
King.
On a federal level, CZM's local plan is nearly completed. It identifies
numerous areas of prime wetlands that need protection, although Dumont
noted that they are being lost to development because the Municipality
can't afford to purchase them. The Municpality gets a generous share of
money from the Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation), but this money can only be used for
capital costs. Dumont noted that their greatest burden is the cost of
ongoing maintenance once facilities are developed. For example, every
nineth beach front lot on Douglas Island has been retained for beach
access. But they are not clearly marked or identified and most people
aren't aware of them.
Dumont also discussed the kinds of demands for recreation in the Juneau
area. The Forest Service cabins are some of the most popular destina-
tions for hiking, hunting, boating, and numerous other recreation uses.
Cabin reservations must be made far in advance. Campgrounds in the.
Juneau area are filled to capacity during the summer and some Forest
Service picnic areas have also been used as defacto campgrounds. Dumont
also said that other communities in Southeast, particularly Ketchikan,
Sitka and Haines, experience a severe shortage of camping areas. For
all these areas the demand is greatest when ferries arrive and visitors
with campers disembark looking for a place to park. There are no camping
areas near downtown Juneau to serve these visitors, who are then forced
to "commute" between downtown Juneau tourist attractions and the outlying
campgrounds.
A similar shortage of preceived opportunities also exists for fishing,
and other recreational activities that visitors from other Alaska
communities and elsewhere in the nation are seeking. The easily access-
ible lakes and streams (i.e. near roads) have not held up to heavy
fishing pressure. In order to get to really good fishing (for example),
recreationists must hike greater distances or rely on boats or small
planes to get to the more remote high quality recreation areas. There is
a common notion -especially among lower 48 tourists, that these high
quality "wildland-oriented" recreation activities are easily available
a short distance from the ferry terminals. I ask if this might be
another example of the Alaska recreation myth and Dumont fully agreed.
I ask him how he felt about developed recreation areas beyond the Juneau
area (within the Tongass National Forest). His response was that it
would not be desirable to have new major recreation facilities in remote
areas, because they are more suited for dispersed recreation, especially
77
by boat from Juneau. Boating recreation demand is quite high as re-
flected in the fact that there is one boat moorage in Juneau for every 8
residents, and there is a waiting list of others who want one.*
I ask Dumont to elaborate on the Mendenhall greenbelt situation that
King had noted earlier. He said that the municipality doesn't have a
subdivision ordinance for greenbelts so that when the Corps of Engineers'
floodway designation was lifted there was no tool to control or restrict
development. Dumont stated the Juneau Planning Commission doesn't like
ordinances as they prefer to work individually with the developers to
negotiate appropriate subdivision open space. Unfortunately, in reality
the open space that is left is usually undevelopable or otherwise undesir-
able or is land that the developer wants to get rid of anyway. Consequently
the greenbelt classification carries little significance.
Dumont then mentioned the trust lands in and around Juneau. The Parks
and Recreation Department would like to buy key trust lands for recre-
ation purposes, but the Planning Commission has discouraged them from
doing so.
He also mentioned the fate of the capital move affecting future parks
and recreation facilities. If the capital move bond issue fails in
November, then a local special election will be held in January or
February 1979 on a Municipal bond issue to fund a local Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. If this passes, the Municipality
will have the mandate and money to acquire and develop new recreation
areas and upgrade existing facilities.
Dumont was concerned that if the capital moves away from Juneau there
won't be enough left to sustain the community. Summer tourism and the
municipality -owned Eaglecrest Ski Area won't pull Juneau through. He
felt the only way the community could survive the move would be to
legalize gambling or use some other creative method of attracting and
holding a viable economy. In the meantime it is difficult to foresee
what kinds of parks and recreation areas or facilities will be needed in
the long run.
Next I talked to Charles Low in the U.S. Forest Service research depart-
ment. He directed me to several sources & publications for information
about recreation use patterns on the Tongass National Forest.
Generally the Forest Service in Southeast is striving to manage primarily
dispersed recreation and has avoided new developed areas. They plan to
maintain those developed recreation sites that are already in existance
while encouraging wilderness -oriented, non-intensive recreation
activities throughout the remainder. The only likely exception to this
in the future may be a series of campgrounds along roads on Prince of
Wales Island.
* The ORB report states that there is one boat stall for every 20
people. However, even this lower ratio is five times more than the
Puget Sound area and twelve times more than the nation as a whole.
78
I asked about the possibility of Forest 'service boat moorages at key
harboring areas for safety and recreation access. Low responded that
since the State owns the land below mean high tide it would not be
something that the Forest Service would want responsibility for. Most
of the existing moorages and boat ramps in Southeast are on or adjacent
to private land. Low did not feel there was a significant need for more
boat access development in view of the Forest Service's dispersed recre-
ation policy. He also noted that although the Forest Service cabin
program was quite popular, they did not intend to expand the system by
adding new cabins. At this time the Forest Service does not coordinate
its recreation planning or management with the State, and Low did not
anticipate any formal cooperative efforts in the near future.
Next Low commented on the recent State selections within the National
Forest. He anticipated that the Forest Service would disagree with the
State on interpretation of criteria for these State selections. The
difference lies in determining what qualifies for "community recre-
ation". The State has selected areas scattered throughout the Tongass,
not just around existing communities, to meet future recreational needs.
The Forest Service apparently feels that the State should be limited to
lands in the immediate vicinity of existing communities. Low cited
Eaglecrest near Juneau as an example of what the Forest Service con-
siders an appropriate State selection. Low felt it would probably be a
long time before all the State selections within the Tongass are resolved,
though some of the less controversial selections may be transferred more
quickly.
Later I talked to James Calvin who gave me more specifics about State
and Native Selections in the Forest. Many of the areas around Juneau,
especially beach and other waterfront .areas important for recreation,
hqve been selected. In the case of Sealaska's selection of Auk Village
.which includes the heavily-used beach area, Calvin felt that the area
would probably be managed to continue certain public recreation activ-
ities. Echo Cove and portions of the shoreline of Douglas Island have
also been selected by both ·the State and Natives. It remains to be seen
how these and other selections in existing or potential recreation areas
will be managed.
On Saturday I talked to various individuals connected with private
recreation services. The first was_Myrna Brower of the Juneau Travel
Agency. She identified the most common trips that the agency arranged
and made some other useful observations about local recreation. Package
deals for the Eaglecrest Ski Area and the White Pass-Yukon train trip
from Skagway to Whitehorse are commonly arranged. During the summer
months, glacier flightseeing tours of the icefields behind Juneau are
becoming increasingly popular. The agency also handles air charters to
the Forest Service cabins as well as other locations including Hoonah,
Tenekee Springs, Glacier Bay (summer only), Elfin Cove, and Skagway.
These are some of the more popular destinations -although there are
numerous others. Recreational fishing trips are also common though they
fluctuate from year to year and season to season depending on local
regulations. This is true for both salt and fresh water fishing. Boat
char~s generally don't begin operating until after June 1. Brower
79
said that boat charters are highly seasonal, loosely organized and
depend pretty much on what the owners or skippers of the individual
boats want to do.
(Later I tried to contact several people who operated boat charters and
was unsuccessful. Since it was still early spring, they apparently were
out of town or otherwise beyond easy communication.)
Brower noted that their travel agency business is fairly evenly divided
between local residents and out-of-state visitors. The out-of-state
people generally tend to want more package tours, although there seems
to be a general trend among everyone for more flexible scheduling of
tours and free time. Many of the local residents who come to the travel
agency do so because they are expecting out-of-state visitors and wish
to arrange a special trip.' Also, the travel agency will frequently
merely direct an individual to a particular air or boat charter and
leave the detailed plans and scheduling up to the individual.
Brower felt that recreation use of all kinds has been increasing rapidly
in Southeast Alaska. She noted also that some of the large commercial
tour ships (like Westours) were altering their schedules this year to
include extra dock time in the Juneau area which would increase the
tourist dollars coming into the local economy.
I also visited Eaglecrest and talked to an employee at the office where
cross-country skiers are supposed to register if they use the area. She
said that X-C skiing is very popular all along the ski area road that
follows the Fish Creek valley and in the lower reaches of the ski area
itself. Cropley Lake receives a lot of overnight snow camping use. The
upper slopes of Douglas Island are used less frequently for winter
mountaineering. The area is also used for hiking in the summer.
One of the Eaglecrest bochures mentions the possibility of helicopter
skiing, so on my way back to town I stopped at the Heliport on Douglas
Island. Gail Trivette, the receptionist/office manager, said that even
though the brochure advertises helicopter skiing they have never actually
flown anyone to Eaglecrest for skiing. In fact they do very little
recreational flying and virtually their entire operation is industry -
oriented. She felt this was primarily because of the relatively great
expense (a minimum of $200 an hour) for helicopter services.
My next interview was with George Thomas, a pilot with Southeast Skyways,
a charter air service. Southeast Skyways' main office is at the Juneau
Airport, although they maintain a small seasonal office and float plane
dock on the downtown waterfront adjacent to Merchants Wharf. Thomas
noted that most of their business comes from their frequent one-hour
flight-seeing tours of the Juneau Ice Cap during the summer season. On
good days last summer they had six or seven planes flying continuously,
(7-9 flights per day) carrying full loads of 6 to 9 people each. The
popularity of these glacier tours has increased dramatically during the
last few years. In April they were already taking reservations for
August flights.
80
In addition to the glacier tours, Southeast Skyways also handles quite a
few fishing trips and other fly-in charter to numerous locations.
Thomas felt that even the more common flying locations were too numerous
to list, although he did mention Lake Florence and Lake Louise. Fly-in
boaters with kayaks and canoes are also becoming more numerous but as of
last year only one charter operation (Channel Flying Service) had planes
suitable for carrying full size boats to water recreation areas.
Southeast Skyways is one of the few charters in Juneau that work with
large tour operators, like Westours, or major travel agents. Thomas
noted that in the past the large cruise ships have remained docked in
Juneau for only a few hours. (Sometimes they come in early in the
morning or late in the evening, so many of the shops, especially in
nearby Merchants Wharf, arrange their store hours around docking times.)
This summer Westours (22% of the cruise ship business) plans to over-
night in Juneau to allow their passengers more time to visit the area.
Thomas pointed out that this will naturally increase the amount of
tourist dollars spent in the Juneau area.
Thomas generally felt that the tourist industry had widespread "great
expectations" for increased tourism of all kinds this season. He
attributed this to the surge felt last year which was partly a result of
the exceptionally good weather. Given the capital move situation Thomas
welcomed the possibility of an expanding tourist economy.
I also talked to Aral Hagerup, a pilot for Ward Air. He gave me a
summary of the more common destinations (shown on the Juneau recreation
work maps). Forest Service cabins are the most popular especially those
closest to Juneau, and private cabins are their next most common destin-
at·ions. The highest density of private cabins are along Seymour Canal
on Admiralty Island. Other recreationists charter primarily to lakes
for a variety of activities, including camping, fishing, hiking and
hunting. Winter charters are still less common but are increasing
faster than summer charters, so Ward Air is hoping to have one or two
ski planes available next winter.
Hagerup contrasted Ward Air and Southeast Skyways because each has a
different set of customers. He felt that Southeast Skyways caters more
heavily to non-resident seasonal tourists and pulls most of their busi-
ness through tours and trav~l agents. Ward Air does relatively little
advertising and does not work through package tour organizations. They
experience less of a seasonal business boom but receive a steadier year
around business primarily from local residents. Hagerup noted that a
significant portion of the local people who arrange recreational charters
do so because they have a friend or relative visiting from outside the
area that they wish to "show around."
Lastly I talked to Joan Dittier, a representative at the Juneau Chamber
of Commerce visitor information office, kitty-corner to the Baranof
Hotel. She has been noticing that the number of new people getting into
the recreation & tourist business is radically increasing this year.
She ~p~cifically cited plans for a new Juneau area tour bus and numerous
81
new boat charter operations. She felt that this was probably based on
several factors: (1) last years tourism successes, (2) desire for job
security after the capital move, (3) a way of working seasonally with
attractive secondary "Alaska Lifestyle" benefits, and (4) the oppor-
tunity to make a living from' a renewable resource.
Personal Impressions:
Recreation patterns in Southeas~, especially around Juneau, are diffi-
cult to describe because they are highly dispersed and oriented toward a
variety of transportation methods. But more importantly it is especially
difficult to differentiate between national, state, and local recreation
responsibilities because they tightly overlap. Despite the fact that
Federal, State and local responsibilities can usually be defined, their
application in Southeast is less than clear. Numerous studies have
already been done, but debate about the role of the various levels of
goverment regarding parks and recreation management continues. Since
the State has the "middle ground", they are in the toughest position.
The short time I spent in Juneau talking to people was not enough to
adequately touch on all aspects of recreation in northern Southeast and
the Juneau area, but I did sense an overall feeling that the State needs
to take more action to provide and manage recreation there. There was
less of a concensus about what methods the State should use to fulfill
its responsibilities, or what exactly its responsibilities are.
82
APPENDIX II
MUNICIPAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ROLES
Providing Recreational Opportunities on Public Lands
Introduction
In the spring of 1977 Senator Kay Poland, Chairman of the Senate Resources
Committee, asked the Land Use Planning Commission to analyze the location,
availability, and demand for parks and recreation services in Alaska.
Primarily, Senator Poland was interested in studying exactly what State
lands should be considered for park and recreation status. In order to
accomplish this, the Senator felt that the Commission could study the
role of the State Division of Parks in the Alaska park and recreation
picture and prepare specific recommendations concerning criteria and
policy for establishing State parks. In addition, Senator Poland wanted
to know how municipal, State, and Federal government programs fit together
for the provision of parks and recreation services.
In order to collect a wide range of responses, the Commission gathered
information from three levels of government. More than 30 municipalities
were asked to provide their view of the different recreation program
roles that municipal, State, and Federal government agencies should
play. A second round of letters was sent to State agencies that have a
role important to parks and recreation or are actually involved in the
management of parks and recreation activities. State agencies were
encouraged to suggest how they thought the Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Lands, and the Division of Parks should divide their responsi-
bilities regarding management of opportunities for public recreation on
'State-owned lands.
The final round of policy inquiries was sent to Federal agencies that
have a land management role in the State. The Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S.
Forest Service were contacted. The Federal managers stated that their
emphasis was shifting from the provision of site specific localized
recreational opportunities to more dispersed national interest opportuni-
ties.
Municipal Views on Recreation
The letter which was addressed to the municipalities posed four questions.
(l) What different roles should the municipality, State, and
Federal governments play in providing public recreation oppor-
tunities in Alaska?
83
(2) How do you define the cut-off point between recreation services
which are or should be the responsibility of a municipality
and those which are or should be the responsibility of the
State? Are there any examples you could cite?
(3) Should the State take an active role in trying to identify and
classify State lands for future municipal recreational needs
until such time as a municipality is established or has assumed
recreation functions?
(4) What do you think should be the role of the State park system
or other State recreational programs with respect to communities
which are not on the main highway system?
Kristy A. Nelson, the City of Seward's Recreation Director, responded
for that municipality. She thought that the State government should
provide funding and facilities along the highways. Camper parks, picnic
areas, and bike trails for the out-of-town tourists were the examples
cited. Recreation facilities maintained primarily for the benefit of
people visiting the area should be the responsibility of the State.
Tourism is a major industry in Alaska and facilities which accommodate
the visitor to Alaska should largely be funded and developed by the
State. Nelson recognizes the importance of the State highway system to
the tourism industry, although she also feels that the State should
develop.facilities which will provide incentive for tourists to visit
those off-highway parts of the State. Additionally, the State should
identify lands for recreational purposes in those areas where no munici-
palities have yet been formed.
Michael Schmidt, Planning Director for the City and Borough of Sitka,
provided a number of useful insights on the Division of Parks' recreation
role. He thought that the Division should be involved in major facilities
that were of more than local use and interest. The State should also
provide grants and technical assistance to municipalities to meet the
recreation needs of their citizens. Along the highway network, Schmidt
thought that areas of more than local use such as wayside picnic areas
should be supported by State funds.
Schmidt recognized a role for the State Division of Parks to play in
identifying recreation lands in areas that were not formal municipali-
ties. However, he made a special point to stress the fact that under-
standing local needs requires careful consultation with local people.
Technical assistance should not be designed to standardize recreation
services or parks but to enhance local variety and differences.
Mayor John A. Carlson replied for the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Mayor Carlson thought it was the role of the State to insure that the
special recreation needs of Alaskans are met. The first task would be
an inventory of what Alaskans want for recreation. Once these recrea-
tion demands have been identified, a resource inventory should determine
84
which State-owned or State selected lands have recreation potential to
meet these demands. Lands identified should be classified accordingly.
Comprehensive municipal planning documents should include a recreation
element which identifies which State land the municipality wants for
recreational use. In addition, the State should act as a source of
funding and technical assistance in the development of local parks and
recreation programs. Furthermore, the State should remain the level of
government most concerned with providing recreation facilities for
tourists who visit Alaska.
Carlson suggested several criteria for a flexible approach to establishing
the cut-off point between municipal and State activities. The first
criteria would be based on USERS. City parks and picnic areas which
serve local residents should be locally administered. However, those
recreation areas heavily oriented to State highway traffic should fall
into the responsibility of the State Division of Parks. Tourism is an
important industry in Alaska and it is most appropriate that the State
develop and maintain recreation areas that attract and serve the tourist.
Criteria two would be based on LAND requirements. Carlson thought that
the State could better meet the large land requirements of certain kinds
of recreation. While municipal selection entitlements provide the
Boroughs with the opportunity to identify some recreational lands, it
should be remembered that recreation is only one of the many uses for
which that land is destined, and may be a lower priority use at that.
A third criteria suggested by Carlson was based on certain resources or
UNIQUE FEATURES which might themselves dictate or suggest the appropriate
jurisdiction for management. For example, important wildlife habitat,
valuable archaeological remains, or outstanding examples of particular
landforms may exist in the midst of prime recreation territory. Where
values exceed local interest, it makes practical administrative sense
·for recreation to be managed by the same jurisdiction necessary for the
unique resources. The final criteria is based on EFFICIENCY. The
question should always be asked which jurisdiction can manage the recrea-
tion services most efficiently in terms of energy use and overall cost-
effectiveness.
In conclusion, Carlson pointed out that Alaska is very fortunate to have
recreation sites which are accessible by a wide range of transportation
modes, including automobile, boat and ship, airplanes, snow machine, dog
sled, and foot or ski. He thought that it would be unfortunate if the
State oriented its recreation programs solely to the main highway system.
Although it is true that accessibility is key to many of Alaska's recrea-
tion opportunities, it is equally clear that all patterns of recreation
do not stick to the "main highway." Communities off the main highway
system, or on the oldest highways in Alaska, the rivers, should also be
given recreation service and consideration, although with an approach
designed to fit their local style and needs.
85
The Kenai Peninsula Borough responded through its Planning Director
Phillip Waring. Waring believed that the State Division of Parks should
exercise overall responsibility for outdoor recreation planning. In
this role the Division should identify and reserve State lands which are
most suited for current and anticipated further recreational purposes.
The State should also assist or jointly develop recreational facilities
which offer benefits to both local and statewide users. Waring identified
a particularly important role for the State of Alaska in the development
of tourist-related facilities~ Some examples of State responsibility or
regional facilities proposed by Waring were natural areas, campgrounds,
trails, boating facilities, waterfront access sites, highway rest stops,
and historic sites. As the guiding arm in the identification and develop-
ment of recreation services, the State Division of Parks should provide
grants and technical assistance to municipalities when their activities
meet recognized demands.
Steven J. Tuma, former director of the Bethel Parks and Recreation
Department, wrote from that "bush" municipality. He thought the State
should be meeting regional needs such as the visiting tourist and the
traveling Alaskan family. He recognized a need for regional nature
study areas that permitted camping and hiking. State agencies should
meet recreation demands that do not serve the local population or involve
resources of more than local interest. Tuma thought that with State
assistance municipalities should plan and designate lands to be used for
recreation and park needs. This activity would be appropriate whether
the State was reserving lands for future municipalities or aiding existing
municipalities make future park plans. Tuma realized that in order to
be effective a good deal of park land should be accessible to the citizens
of the State. Since his community is not connected to the main highway
system, however, he feared that State parks might only be set up along
the major highway routes. He suggested that rivers or other transportation
routes that were available to village Alaska should also be connected to
State park lands.
Leroy P. Godes, Soldotna's Public Works Director wrote the Commission
that the State Division of Parks should be more concerned with outdoor
activities located a convenient distance away from the population centers.
State park programs should cater to vacationers and families on weekend
outings. These centers should provide camping, hiking, canoe areas, and
boating opportunities. Godes thought that State recreation planning
should recognize that fishing and hunting were significant recreational
activities and should be incorporated into the future management of all
State lands. He also believed that the State should make a concentrated
effort to identify lands for future recreational sites because a problem
faced by the City of Soldotna was that the costs of acquiring parklands
were tremendous. Consequently, the State has to look into the future
and set aside recreational areas if possible whether a municipality is
organized or not.
86
Godes mentioned that individuals and families who live in Alaskan cities
are finding it increasingly difficult to locate uncrowded recreational
areas. As the more accessible out-of-the-way places gain interest and
use by out-of-state visitors, the State must anticipate these trends and
provide assistance to smaller communities who must meet the recreational
demands of their own citizens and increased visitor use. Visitors to
remote areas will begin to expect more facilities as well as the fame of
Alaska's recreation resources spreads.
Ivan L. Widom, Kodiak City Manager, referred the Commission's questions
to the director of that city's parks and recreation division and its
community advisory board. However, Widom did point out that during the
summer ferry service brings many tourists and vehicles to the island.
There are few established areas for these tourists and their campers.
Facilities to accommodate the tourist load are expensive, and the city
is only able to provide a skeleton response. Widom thought that when a
city becomes a major destination in the State's tourism program, it
should qualify for grants and technical assistance to enable them to
meet the demands.
The Kodiak Parks and Recreation Advisory Board felt that the municipality
has a responsibility to identify its recreational needs and these should
represent local, State, and national requirements for recreational
services within that municipal area. Once these needs have been identi-
fied, it becomes the State's responsibility to aid the municipality meet
these demands. For instance, Fort Abercrombie State Park is locally
popular but serves statewide and national visitors as well. It is one
of the primary destinations in the Kodiak visitor's schedule. But very
little has been done to keep up or improve this area. Kodiak citizens
feel Fort Abercrombie serves more than local visitors, and the State
should develop them to their full potential to handle the increasing
.tourist load.
The Kodiak Parks Board thought the State should provide technical and
financial assistance for municipal recreation programs and capital
improvements. In addition, the State could aid the municipalities
acquire land for recreation purposes. However, when the State is
providing assistance to a municipality, the citizens of Kodiak feel that
the municipality should have the right to decide what its needs are, and
how it wants to satisfy those needs. The Board also felt that the State
should be providing for future park lands in municipalities which are
yet unformed. They thought this would be an excellent opportunity for
the State to make it easier for municipalities to acquire land. Criteria
for establishing State parks should include preservation, conservation,
recreation, cultural and historical and natural beauty values.
Kenai responded through it's city manager, John E. Weiss. He felt that
the role of each level of government in the provision of parks and
recreation services should relate to its specific constituency. The
State of Alaska should provide areas for camping, sport fishing, hunting,
-
87
and, of course, maintain and guarantee access to such areas. Weiss
thought that communities not on the State highway system will also need
the provision of recreational sites and park areas. He felt they should
only be provided, however, if the community wanted them. In high use
areas, like the Kenai Peninsula, provisions should be made for highway-
related camping, parking, and recreation. He said that economic reasons
suggest Tyonek would soon be a city and the State should identify recrea-
tion areas if State lands were available for these purposes.
The final municipal respondent was the Municipality of Anchorage. Mayor
George Sullivan argued that Alaska has very few communities that can
support diversified park and recreation facilities and programs. The
State should fill the role of "prime mover" in this area. Sullivan
thought the State government should offer planning and technical assist-
ance to small communities. In addition, the State should assist the
parks and recreation funding of the smaller municipal units. Sullivan
designed a role for State park activity both within and outside municipal
boundaries. He thought the State should provide for recreation facilities
such as trails, picnic and camping facilities, and game sanctuaries on
parks and other State lands. Chugach State Park, Potter Marsh, and the
Palmer Highway bike trails are examples of excellent State efforts.
Sullivan also made the telling point that the State should bear the cost
of maintaining its recreation facilities, either directly or through
reimbursable maintenance agreements with the host municipality.
State recreation administrators should also assist communities off the
main highway system develop park and recreation programs. Through
technical assistance, the State could work with communities in program-
ming, development and management of recreation programs. Statewide
athletic programs need this central coordinative assistance as well.
This function should be carried out through the State parks system since
they have contact with recreation programs in all parts of the State.
In addition to these comments and suggestions, Mayor Sullivan submitted
a draft of a organization plan for the Recreation Coordinating Council
(RCC). The program described in his paper is somewhat similar to the
Park and Recreation Council (PARC) that now exists. However, as proposed
by Sullivan, the RCC would have considerably more power and influence
than the existing PARC. The purpose of the RCC would be to assist in
the planning, development, management, and, particularly, the acquisition
and maintenance of funding for recreational facilities in the State.
Coordination and cooperation among recreation providers and a more
regular dissemination of ideas and solutions to common problems would be
useful.
Sullivan agreed that when the State is in position to identify and
classify recreational lands in areas where no municipal government
exists, the State should do so. Without a municipal vehicle for park
land identification potential recreation lands could be lost to the
public or become a costly acquisition burden at a later date. When a
88
municipal government does exist, the State parks division should make
the recreation land selection process a joint venture between the two
levels of government.
State Agency Viewpoint
State agencies, as well as municipalities, are involved in Alaska's
recreation picture. The Commission wrote to those that manage land,
transportation, fish and game, and other resources that have a place in
the recreation equation. Some of these groups have yet to respond and
their viewpoint will have to be collected. However, the issues identified
by those responding deserve attention.
The Commission asked the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G):
(1) How do you think the Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Lands, and the Division of Parks should divide responsibilities
regarding provision of opportunities for public recreation on
State-owned lands?
(2) How successfully has this division of responsibility been
accomplished in the past, and what statutory, regulatory, or
administarative changes would improve this relationship for
the future?
Commissioner Ronald 0. Skoog wrote that recreational use of State lands
will be one of the biggest issues the State must face. As Skoog sees
it, the issue is larger than just those lands that must be addressed
with State park policy (maybe up to 5% of all State lands will be legis-
latively reserved for park and recreational purposes); it must also
address all State lands. Skoog recognizes that the types of recreation
'on State-owned lands are as diverse as the resources themselves. Skoog
believes that it is incumbent upon each resource agency to represent
their interest groups in the planning and use of State park lands. For
example, the interests of the ADF&G are centered on the use of fish and
wildlife resources within park boundaries. ADF&G advocates hunting,
trapping, and fishing as compatible uses within the primary intent of
park management. While Skoog feels that these activities may need to be
constrained when other resource users safety is threatened, generally he
does not believe that there is a conflict between these and other park
uses. In the past, ADF&G has actively participated in management planning
and consultation with other groups. for State park lands. Skoog feels
that there is a need for administrative or statutory changes that articu-
late the specific responsibilities of all parties involved in developing
State park policies. In addition, ADF&G believes that it is mandatory
to expand recreational-use thinking beyond State park boundaries.
The Alaska Division of Parks (ADP) of the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) responded to questions similar to those asked of municipal and
State agencies. The ADP views its role as falling between that of local
89
-----------------------------------
government and the Federal government. The ADP is more concerned with
active recreational pursuits and their attendant facilities than is the
Federal government, which is viewed as being more oriented to preservation.
The Division feels a stronger orientation to communities and the major
travel corridors which tie these communities together. ADP offers
examples such as the Valdez Glacier Wayside, the Chena Wayside and the
Mirror Lake Wayside, as examples of State park activities within municipal
boundaries. In general, the Division has developed these areas but
believes that they can be moreeffectively managed at the municipal
level. Consequently, the Division favors a process through which an
area remains a State park unit in title, but through contractual agree-
ment, the community assumes maintenance and operation responsibilities.
The State Constitution and Title 41 of the Alaska Statutes identifies
the Division of Parks as the State's lead recreation agency. As such,
the Division has a coordinating function to define roles between various
State agencies. The Division suggests that the PARC should serve as a
forum to discuss the best way to resolve possible definition problems
and conflicts between the Division and other agencies involved in recrea-
tion. For instance, it would be useful for each recreation providing
agency to identify and tightly define its respective recreation role for
the lands they have or seek for recreation purposes. In order to achieve
these ends, the Division feels that the PARC should meet on a more
frequent basis and expand their cooperative management efforts.
Another activity assumed by the Division was the identification and
classification of zones within established parks for application of
particular management techniques and programs. The Division believes
that it is its responsibility to institutionalize and establish policies
for the specific resource management zones established within designated
State parks. The identification of management zones will permit the
development of criteria which will give an easy and workable yardstick
for land managers.
Federal Agency Perspective
Federal responses, to the State Park Study Questionnaire, were received
from the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Forest Service. Don Redfern of the Fish and Wildlife Service
wrote that recreational opportunities duplicated by other State and
Federal agencies should be of minor concern as public demand exceeds
available recreational facilities. He expected this trend would continue.
Redfern recognized that most Federal lands are distant from urban centers.
Therefore, the State Division of Parks would be expected to meet recrea-
tion demands nearer to population centers as urban populations grow and
leisure time increases. Redfern identified a role for State parklands
as buffer zones for nationally significant Federal lands. State parks
could provide threshold camping and people services which may not be
compatible with the management of adjacent Federal lands. The resource
management staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service thought that State
90
parks should represent examples of significant State scenic, historic,
natural, geological, and cultural areas which are primarily managed for
the benefit of people in the State or visiting it.
Cary F. Brown, outdoor recreation planner for BLM State office, replied
from that agency. From his perspective, the State parks system should
provide recreational opportunities at a comparatively high participation
rate per acre in comparison to those opportunities provided by Federal
agencies. In the future, BLM expects that their recreation programs
will be oriented toward wildlands recreation and concentrated use will
be directed towards certain rivers and trails. Brown believed that the
Alaska Division of Parks had a unique responsibility to develop distinc-
tive opportunities for recreationists. He suggested that the Division
of Parks should work closely with the Division of Tourism. Brown recog-
nized that there are unique recreational resources located on State land
and in many cases resources such as the the Wood-Tikchik Lakes, McNeil
River, Kachemak Bay Wilderness Park, and Denali State Park represented
examples of distinctive resource values. In areas like these Brown
thought that the State should work closely with tour operators, air taxi
operators, and even concessionaires to develop programs compatible with
land use plans that offer recreational opportunities to tourists.
Brown understood that the Alaska Division of Parks management philosophy
was based on a single use orientation. He thought that this was appro-
priate for lands which were actually identified as State parks by the
Legislature but it also meant that the Division of Parks had a major
responsibility to be an advocate for recreation resource values in the
development of the management plans for all of the State's lands.
James A. Calvin wrote for the Regional Forester in Alaska and described
briefly the role of recreation on lands managed by the Forest Service.
Calvin identified a spectrum of recreation use ranging from highly
developed sites, visited by thousands each year, to vast remote areas
suited for a wilderness experience. Most developments within the Forest
are provided by the Federal government but there are considerable instances
where the private sector provides the service on National Forest land.
Calvin believed that future National Forest recreation plans will emphasize
dispersed recreation as opposed to opportunities that have a specific
site, such as campgrounds. Although National Forests will continue to
be managed for local and State users, there will be an increasing orienta-
tion to meeting national needs.
From the National Forest perspective, the role of the State parks
system should primarily be to meet the specific recreational needs of
Alaskans. If the State system featured developed sites, the approach
would be highly complementary to the policies of the National Forest.
However, if the State were to only encourage dispersed uses, there could
be a tendency to create a gap within the spectrum of opportunities.
Calvin focused on the location of recreational opportunities. For
example, the Chugach State Park provides fast access to more than half
91
of the State's population. He saw a need to encourage daytime use and a
variety of recreational opportunities on State park lands that were
readily accessible to urban population concentrations.
In some cases, Calvin thought that a duplication of recreational oppor-
tunities could actually be desirable. For instance, multiple trail
systems not only disperse use and reduce the impact on the ecosystem but
also increase the opportunities available to the public. But, he also
recognized a need to allow, for-more coordination between recreation
planning entities. Like the Division of Parks, Calvin saw a need for a
strong cooperative management program--cooperative management which
permitted the coordination of all those agencies and landowners which
provide recreation opportunities. The developments possible through the
private sector should be recognized during the planning stages as well.
This would help to insure that all potential users are provided with a
wide range of activities and that no undesirable duplication occurs.
92
APPENDIX III
PAST STATE RECREATIONAL POLICY
Review of Previous Policy Statements
A basic dichotomy underlies much of the past debate about public recreation
policy and the role of the State of Alaska in providing recreation
opportunities on public lands. On the one hand, there is an orientation
towards managing lands for protection of the resource. On the other
hand, the orientation is towards management for human use. Ted Smith,
then the State Park and Recreation Officer, expressed this dichotomy in
a report he wrote in 1966.
"Parks and recreation areas have only two basic reasons for existing:
(l) to preserve some special value, or (2) to provide for use by
people. These two are generally mutually exclusive. They may
permit a limited apount of compatible use but are essentially
single use areas."
In selecting and designating areas for recreation purposes, the same
dichotomy becomes the choice between selection based primarily on the
scenic or natural values inherent in the land, or selection based primarily
on accessibility and usability. There is a general tendency among those
dealing with land and recreation issues to identify the Nation and the
State with the two sides of this dichotomy. Withdrawal of Federal lands
for national conservation systems has been on the basis of the nature of
the land and its resources, whereas the State has given far more weight
to proximity to communities in making its land selections and in identi-
fying lands for recreation purposes. Of the 3.7 million acres either
within the State parks system or proposed for State park status, 95
percent of the area is within 100 miles or more of communities of over
1,000 people.
However, a clear-cut alignment of Federal recreation management with
natural values and State recreation management with human values is far
too simplistic to be accurate, except as a very general characterization
of predominant orientation. Certainly, the natural values of the land
have been a determining factor in State park designation, and the State's
vast and varied landholings include a number of areas with natural
values that argue strongly for recreational designation, despite relative
inaccessibility at the present time.
Within the State Administration, the debate between those who would
emphasize the nature of the land and those who would emphasize accessi-
bility to people has continued over the years. The pattern of existing
State park holdings reflects both views. At present, the system includes
50 highway waysides, located primarily along the main traveled routes in
Southcentral and Southeastern Alaska; and nine larger areas, including
four recreation areas, four State parks and one State wilderness park.
The primary factor in wayside location was highway access and, to some
extent, distribution at regular intervals along the highway. Within -
93
these basic constraints, sites were chosen for their natural recrea-
tional values. On the other hand, the primary factor in designating
recreation areas or parks was the natural recreational value of the
sites, though, in weighing one prime recreation area versus another,
accessibility to major communities was a factor.
The policies which have governed selection and administration of State
recreation lands in past years can be traced by reviewing several key
documents as they address the Iollowing issues: (1) For whom should the
State provide recreation opportunities? (2) What type of recreation
opportunities should be provided? and (3) Where should the State provide
parks and services? As mileposts of State policy over the years the
following documents were selected: (1) Alaska Statues, Sections 41.20.010
to .060, adopted in 1959; (2) a 1969 report prepared by Theodore G.
Smith, then Chief, Parks and Recreation, Division of Lands, entitled
"Alaska State Parks System, 1970-1976;" (3) a 1974 element of the Alaska
Outdoor Recreation Plan entitled Outdoor Recreation Responsibilities in Alaska,
published by the Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources; and
(4) a 1976 "white paper" prepared by Russ Cahill, then Director of the
Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources. A current white
paper is under preparation by Terry McWilliams, Director of the Division
of Parks.
For whom shall the State provide recreational opportunities?
The initial statutes deal with this topic in an expansive and inclusive
manner. Under the declaration of purpose, the State's park and recreation
facilities are for the "enjoyment of its citizens and for the attraction
of visitors to the State." Further, the State is given specific direction
to encourage the "organization of State public park and recreational
activities in the local political subdivisions of the State." These
policies reflect the emphasis on economic development through tourism or
other means that dominated public policy making during the State's early
years, as well as the fact that local governments were relatively weak or
nonexistent. Few at that time could envision that local governments in
Alaska would be able to afford the luxury of their own park and recreation
systems.
The policies expressed in Ted Smith's paper, written ten years later,
are quite different and reflect a recognition, developed through experience,
of the need to limit and focus. The attraction of tourists is no longer
a stated objective, and there is a clear direction to leave the provision
of local park and recreation facilities to local governments. To encourage
local governments to assume this role, the State is to provide technical
assistance and State-owned lands suitable for local recreation purposes
will be transferred to local entities without cost. The State system
should avoid providing "day use" facilities on the grounds that such
facilities are the prerogative and responsibility of local government.
Instead, the focus is on serving the "traveling public" and on providing
recreational areas or waysides for "interborough use."
94
--------------··------------~~~~~~-~--~-~-_,_,.._,.,.,,._, ... -h.,,_ ............. __ ..... ._.,. .......... _
The recommendations expressed in 1974 in Outdoor Recreation Responsibilities
in Alaska, in an element of the outdoor recreation plan, repeat this
emphasis on serving the traveling public and on filling the gap between
Federal and local responsibilities. There is a new recognition of the
need for coordination among the providers of recreation opportunities at
a Federal, State, and local level; and particularily, on the importance
on State recreational services of the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
A 1976 "white paper" prepared by Russ Cahill, then Director of the
Division of Parks, emphasizes the accessibility of the State's park and
recreation facilities, pointing out that on a per acre basis, the State's
recreational lands are far more heavily used than Federal lands and that
the predominance of visitation at State parklands is by residents of
Alaska. His summary of the people who should be served by the State
system reads, "the State needs to respond to the needs of its residents
and those of the traveling public." Cahill's statement expresses a new
and growing interest in the role of the State parks system in historic
preservation and close-in wilderness areas. He notes that such areas
are important as destinations for tourists as well as for local residents.
What should be the purpose of designating lands to the State parks and
recreation system?
The theme of preservation versus use recurs in each of the four sample
policy statements, but there is some shift in emphasis and interpretation.
The 1959 statutes parallel the State's constitutional mandate to provide
for maximum use consistent with the public interest while maintaining
principles for resource conservation. The statutes are written to
include the full range of possible purposes: lands are to be designated
to the system for "scenic, historic, archaeological, scientific, biological,
and recreation purposes." There is little sense of focus or direction
for administrative decisions.
The 1969 plan for the Alaska State Parks System, by Ted Smith directs
the State to preserve historic and natural areas of statewide significance
and to provide recreational destinations and waysides. The 1974 report
carries forth the same theme, but places greater emphasis on the rural
outdoor quality of the recreational experiences that should be available
on the State lands. Russ Cahill's 1976 "white paper" adds more dimension
to the subject by acknowledging that the State is primarily interested
in providing for the use of recreation lands, but he points out that the
State has ample lands to serve both use and preservation purposes and
suggests that the State should find workable compromises between resource
preservation and use. He states: "perhaps the vagueness of the middle
ground between the preserve and the intensive use park is benefit.
Perhaps this is the place to find compromise and real multiple use
designations." As an example, he notes that in the Talkeetna Mountains,
elimination of mining is not essential, but it is important to prevent
"shabby land subdivision proposals" and conveyance of additional property
to private ownership, while at the same time, developing recreation
opportunities for the many visitors to the area. Although he does not
95
propose a new system, he does introduce the concept of a more flexible
method of designating and managing State lands for public recreation
purposes.
Where should State park and recreation facilities be located and services
be provided?
The initial statute contains little specific direction on this question.
The first formal statement of policy about location and distribution of
State park and recreation facilities is in Ted Smith's 1969 paper which
begins, "Recreation facilities shall be so located as to provide a
geographically balanced system, giving consideration to population
distribution, intrastate travel, and out-of-state visitors .... " These
policies are further specified through direction that overnight campgrounds
be provided at intervals not greater than 50 miles. Though geographic
distribution has been emphasized in prior policy statements, in actual
fact, most of the State's facilities are concentrated in Southcentral
and Southeastern Alaska. During his administration, Russ Cahill expressed
a concern that people in rural Alaska may not be receiving their fair
share from the State's park and recreation program, and from Federal
funds available through the Land and Water Conservation Funds. Since
Federal grant administrators look for a high potential participation
rate as one of their criteria for funding, and since most rural communities
lack the experience necessary to prepare a grant application, the program
tends to be weighted in favor of larger communities. However, recently
the Division of Parks has been attempting to provide assistance to rural
communities which will enable them to share more equally in the State's
recreation funds and programs.
l. Theodore G. Smith, Parks and Recreation Officer, "A Proposal for
the Reorganization of Parks and Recreation Functions in the State
of Alaska," 1966, pg. 10.
96
The Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska was
created by Congress and the Alaska Legislature to provide a statewide land
use planning process that will insure the economic development of the State
in a manner that is compatible with the social and economic well-being of
the public, their interests, and the environment.
The Commission also is to improve coordination and resolve conflicts
between the State, Federal government, and private landowners in the State,
and recommend laws, policies and programs to the President, Congress and
the Governor of Alaska for a coordinated comprehensive statewide land use
planning process .
The Commission, created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement ~ct of
1971, is headed by the Governor of Alaska or his full-time Co -Chairman, and
by a Federal Co-Chairman appointed by the President of the United States.
Four Commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and four
by the Governor of Alaska.
.. ,
!
~
'! •
.
; ' .~
• . ..
; . .