Alaska Coastal shoreline access a review of the history, current status and potential for public shoreline use

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

10100

ALASKA COASTAL SHORELINE ACCESS

A Review of the History, Current Status and

Potential for Public Shoreline Use.

State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources

Division of Parks
HT Division of Research and Development
393
.A43 September, 1980
A43
1980

Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

ALASKA COASTAL SHORELINE ACCESS

A Review of the History, Current Status and
Potential for Public Shoreline Use

prepared for the

STATE OF ALASKA

Department of Natural Resources

Division of Parks and

Division of Research and Development

Sally W. Jones Associates

Sally W. Jones, Research and editing
Michael M. O'Brien, Historical research
Ayse Gilbert, Graphics
Kathi Adkins, Clerical support

SEPTEMBER, 1980

This project was supported, in part, by federal Coastal Zone
Management Program Development funds (P.L. 92-583, Sec. 305)
granted to the State of Alaska by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement s ............................................. i

Introduction ................................................... ii

Coastal Access: An Historical and Legislative Perspective
The Federal Program: An Emerging Mandate .............. 1
Alaska's Program: Coordination for the Future ........... 6

Coastal Access: Current Status in Alaska
Alaska Land Policies: An Array of Owners ............... 9
Federal Lands: A Public Trust .......................... 11
State Lands: Alaska's Portfolio .......................... 14
Native Lands: Traditional Rights Asserted ............... 22
Local Access Management: Three Case Studies ............ 25

Coastal Access: Recommendations for the Future
Public Access in Alaska: Options for the Future .......... 32
Recommendations ......................................... 40

References .................................................... 50

Appendices
Appendix A: Definitions
Appendix B: Easement/Access Chronology in Alaska
Appendix C: Directors Policy Memorandums
Appendix D: Potential Assistance for Access Planning
and Acquisition
Appendix E: Excerpt, Steering Council for Alaska Lands/
Rowan Group Poll

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 1: Summary of State Land Disposal Programs. .. .19

Figure 1: Typical Pattern of Beach Ownership ........ 30

Figure 2: Patterns of City Growth ..................... 35

Acknowledgements

A number ofindividuals provided background information and support
in the development of this report. Tony Burns, Kathy Jacobs, Liz
Hill and Lynda Snyder, of the Municipality of Anchorage, and Jon Buchholt
of the North Slope Borough gave insight to local issues and management
problems.

Ike Waits, coastal management coordinator for the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), gave valuable observations on coastal access from a
state and local perspective. Mary Kaye Hession of DNR provided thorough
information on -statutes, regulations and policies.

Al Meiners, of the Division of Parks, was most helpful with direction
and encouragement.

We are grateful to each of these individuals for their professional time
and cooperation.

Introduction

Few coastal states in the U.S. enjoy vast expanses of open space such as
those found in Alaska. Simply speaking, Alaska residents in most areas
possess an asset very few states can match--physical access to a resource
of many leisure benefits.

The pui-pose of this report is to explore the current status of access
management; factors that determine -the extent to which coastal aCcesSifflayS
are reserved; and impediments to assuring that future Alaskans will share
the same opportunities as those today.

Specifically, the scope of study called for a review of state policies re-
garding land selection, management and disposal; the Kandik/Nation court
decision; local coastal access policies; policy Areas requiring more extensive
exploration; and further review of historical factors bearing on access
that were compiled in a previous Division of Parks access study.

This first step to develop a current overview of coastal access status led
to a series of questions for which there are no simple answers without
further exploration.

One conclusion is apparent, however. Alaska is in a unique position
nationwide to employ varied authorities and techniques to avoid disen-
franchising its residents from the coast.

PARKING

OCEAN

ENDEMIC FLORA
LANDSCAPING

BEACH FENCING

PATHWAY
TO BEACH

COASTAL ACCESS

An Historical and Legislative Perspective

In the United States there
is more space where nobody
is than where anybody is.

--Gertrude Stein

T
he Federal Program:
An Emerging Mandate

The concept of reserving lands for public use-of and access to the
coastal shoreline can be traced to English common law which is the basis
of our legal system. Dennis W. Ducsik, in his book Shoreline for the
Public, analyzes the origins of tideland ownership and public rights
to use the coastal shoreline in the United States.
"...Since the original source of most land titles in England was
a grant from the Crown, it thus became possible for the title or
other exclusive rights in @Ry portion of the seashore to be con-
veyed by the King to individual subjects. By the time of the
Magna Charta, private ownership under this doctrine had prolif-
erated to the point of substantial interference with commercial
activities in the nation's waterways. This initiated a gradual
expansion of public rights in tidelands and navigable waters,
which culminated in the application of the 'public trust' theory
to these areas by English common law. Under the public trust,
certain public rights -- a jus publicum -- were reserved or held
in trust for the common use and benefit of the public, even if
proprietary title had been granted to individual subjects."
Thus, a strong emphasis on concept of "public trust" was the state
of the English law at the time of the American Revolution. With
independence, the new nation's original states received both the

proprietary and trust interests held by the crown, and retained these
interests upon formation of the Union. Further, Ducsik says:
if ... each of the non-colonial states took on these attributes of
sovereignty upon their admission to the union, as required under
the 'equal footing' provision of the U.S. Constitution. In a long
line of cases beginning in 1842, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed
state ownership of the tidelands and submerged lands beneath
navigable waters, and ... established that these lands are to be
held in trust for the people of 'the respective states ... In sum,
then, early American law held that each state owned the title to
tidelands and lands under navigable waters within their respective
boundaries and controlled them -- together with the waters
subject to a public trust ... 11
Recent history of legislation concerning coastal zone management and
shoreline access in Alaska can be traced to the early 1940's and 19501s,
when submerged lands ownership was at Issue. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the federal government held rights-to submerged lands offshore
of a state's coast seaward from the ordinary low water mark and outside
inland waters. However, Congress in 1953 relented to pressures from
the states and passed the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (Public Law
83-31; 67 Stat. 29). This act allowed coastal states to extend their
boundaries to three geographical miles from the coast, potentially up to
three marine leagues (10.6 miles) from the coast in the Gulf of Mexico,
and to the international boundaries in the Great Lakes. The federal
government relinquished to the states all interest in the lands beneath
such waters. The federal government retained only those rights necessary
for the regulation of navigation, commerce, international affairs and
national defense.

During the 1960's the U.S. experienced an increased awareness of the
environment. At the same time, the nation recognized the value of the
coastal zone resource. Certain states, such as Oregon, passed bills
protecting their beaches from development. The Oregon Beach Bill of
1967 (Chapter 601, Oregon Laws 1967) expanded existing public rights
to dry sand beaches. These existing rights were based on historic on
use of Natives and early settlers of the dry sand beaches as a transportati

corridor. The legislature expanded the traditional scope of historic
use, saying that Oregon:
11 ... recognizes that over the years the public has made frequent
and uninterrupted use of the ocean floor ... sufficient to create
easements in the public rights through dedication, prescription,
grant or other use ... the Legislative Assembly hereby declares
all public rights ... are vested exclusively in the State of Oregon."
This increasing awareness of the importance of the coastal zone resource
evolved into a national coastal management policy. Congress passed the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583, 86, Stat. 1280)
and the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (Public Law
94-370, Stat. 586) to assure that environmental and economic concerns
were balanced in the management of the coast. The spirit of balance is
exemplified in the Congressional findings of these acts. In Section 302,
Congress found that:
* There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial
use, protection and development of the coastal zone.

9 The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial,
recreational, ecological, industrial, and esthetic resources of
immediate and potential value to the present and future well being
of the nation.

e Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values
in the coastal zone which are essential to the well being of all
citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost.

a The key to more effective protection and use of the land and
water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to
exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal
zone by assisting the states In developing land and water use pro-
grams for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria,
standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water
use decisions of more than local significance.
With these and other findings as the basis of legislative intent, Congress,
in Section 303 of the 1972 Act, laid down policies to govern coastal activity:

"The Congress finds and declares that it is national policy a) to
preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore and
enhance the resources of the nations coastal zone for this and
succeeding generations, b) to encourage and assist the states to
exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through
the development and implementation of management programs to
achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone
giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and
esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development."
Congress alluded to the question of shoreline access referenced in Section
305(b) 3 of the 1972 Act:
"The management program for each coastal state shall include ... (3)
An Inventory and designation of areas of particular concern;"
and Section 306 (c) (9):
11c. Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted
by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find that: ... (9) The
management program makes provisions for procedures whereby
specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or
restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or
esthetic values."
Through the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act and its amendments,
Congress clearly intended that coastal states take the responsibility for
protection and management of coastal zone resources for the benefit of
this and future generations.

Congress' intent on the question of public access to the coastal zone and
shoreline is discussed by Ducsik in his analysis of the Act and its
implementation by the Department of Commerce:
"The language (in the Act) clearly indicates that an important part
of the intent of Congress in enacting this legislation was to enhance
the opportunities for the general public to share in unique experiences
at the land/sea Interface. The intent is also reflected in the leg-
islative history of the act where recreation (including beaches, parks,
wildlife preserves, sport fishing, swimming and pleasure boating)
and related open space uses (including educational and natural
preserves, scenic beauty, and public access to the coastline and coastal
and estaurine areas, both physical and visual) were suggested as

elements that should be included in state management programs.
Finally, the administrative construction of the act by the federal
agency charged with its implementation seems to indicate that the
public access question will be one of the things that the federal
government will look for in reviewing coastal zone management
programs.11
Duesik's analysis in 1974 was confirmed when the Co.'astal Zone Management
Act Amendments of 1976 added Section 305 b(7), which'ihcreased the
states' coastal management program requirements to include:
"A definition of the term 'beach' and a planning process for the
protection of and access to public beaches and other public coastal
areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological,
or cultural value."
The 1976 amendments to the Act @ent even further to emphasize access
to the coastal zone resources -- by providing federal funding to purchase
easements in Section 12 (Acquisition of Access to Public Beaches and Other
Public Coastal Areas).
"The Secretary (of Commerce) may, in accordance with this section
and in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Secretary
shall promulgate, make grants to any coastal state for the purpose
of: (1) acquiring, developing, or operating estaurine sanctuaries to
serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather
data on the natural and human processes occuring within the estuaries
of the coastal zone; and (2) acquiring lands to provide access to
public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental,
recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and
for the preservation of islands ... 11
In summary, the need to provide public access to coastal resources grew
from the recognition that recreation is among significant coastal uses
that require protection in the national interest.

Alaska's Program:

Coordination for the Future

In the years immediately following passage of the federal coastal management
act, Alaska explored the potential of assuming coastal authority through
existing state law.

Initially, little public support existed for adopting statutes specific to
coastal resource management.

Two significant problems arose from this approach, however. One was
that local governments sought increased Influence over land and water
management within their areas. The other was the reluctance of the
U.S. Department of Commerce to approve a state program formulated
without a clear mandate from the state legislature.

The 1976 federal amendments gave Alaska a strong incentive to approve
a coastal management act: eligibility for coastal energy impact funds.
Grants to states to mitigate impacts were authorized under the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of 1976, provided states were in the
process (and succeeded) In developing coastal management programs. As
one of the nation's prime OCS oft and gas lease areas, Alaska stood to
gain not only the authority to manage, its own coastal zone, but needed
funds to plan for and accommodate OCS impacts.

Thus, the State of Alaska, working within the framework established
by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and its 1976 amendments,
enacted the Alaska Coastal Management Act in 1977. The Alaska State
Legislature found that:
111. The coastal area of the state is a distinct and valuable natural

resource of concern to all of the state;

2. the demands upon the resources of the coastal area are significant,
and will increase in the future;

3. the protection of the natural and scenic resources and the fostering
of wise development of the coastal area are of concern to present
and future citizens of the state;

4. the capacity of the coastal area to withstand the demands upon
it is limited;

5. the degree of planning and resource allocation which has occurred
in the coastal area has often been motivated by short-term consideration,
unrelated to sound planning principles; and

6. in order to promote the public health and welfare, there is
a critical need to be engaged in comprehensive land and water use
planning in coastal areas and to establish the means by which a
planning process and management program involving the several
governments and areas of the unorganized borough having an
interest in the coastal area may be effectively implemented."
And further, the Alaska Legislature made a declaration of policy to:
111. preserve, protect, develop use, and where necessary, restore
or enhance the coastal resources of the state for this and succeeding
generations;

2. encourage coordinated planning and decision making in the coastal
area among levels of government and citizens engaging in or affected
by activities involving the coastal resources of the state;

3. develop a management program which sets out policies, objectives,

standards, and procedures to guide and resolve conflicts among
public and private activities involving the use of resources which
have a direct and significant impact upon the coastal land and water
of the state;

4. assure the participation of the public, local government, and
agencies of the state and federal governments in the development
and implementation of a coastal management program;

5. utilize existing government structures and authorities, to the
maximum extent- feasible, to achieve the policies set out in this
section; and

6. authorize and require state agencies to carry out their planning
duties, powers actions authorized by law with respect to the policies
set out in this sections and the guidelines and standards adopted
by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council."
Guidelines and standards concerning coastal recreation and access were
developed and codified for the Alaska Coastal Management Program in
6 AAC 80.060 in 1978:
"(a) Districts shaU designate areas for recreational use. Criteria
for designation of areas of recreational use are;
(1) the area receives significant use by persons engaging in
recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or

(2) the area has potential for high quality recreational use
because of physical, biological, or cultural features.
(b) Districts and state agencies shall give high priority to maintaining
and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal water."
Thus, recreation and public access to and along the coastal shore became
a specific part of Alaska's Coastal Management Program with the codification
of these statewide guidelines.

.0100000010*

MWOOW
MMOW
ago
000

woo

oft

COASTAL ACCESS

Current Status in Alaska

If society is paralyzed
today it is not for lack
of means, but for lack
of purpose.

--Lewis Mumford

Alaska Land Policies:
w 'Rig
_4kV 6@ Al
An Array of Owners

In Alaska, the opportunity for public access re volves around a range of
federal and state activities, most of which were ongoing prior to enactment
of either the federal or state coastal management acts. In any case, land
ownership patterns and historical management policies within Alaska are
probably unique in the nation, in that land ownership is vested in relatively
few entities.

With Statehood, Alaska was to gain title to 104.5 million acres of land.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 granted to aboriginal
Native peoples a total of 44 million acres of land. The 220 million acres
remaining were reserved to the federal government for management principally
by four agencies: the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service.

The authority to manage the second largest single landholdin g- -that of
the State of Alaska--is vested In the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The 44 million acres of Native lands are to be managed as private lands
by 12 profit-making Native regional and some 220 village corporations.

Local governments were not, in the past, significant landholders, but
prior to 1965 many exercized their rights to obtain title to their tidelands.

Municipal land entitlement legislation enacted in 1964 and amended as the
Municipal Land Act of 1978, however, will convey 860,000 upland acres
to 11 organized boroughs and 10 per cent of unreserved state land within
these borough boundaries to 19 cities.

Federal Lands:

A Public Trust

Access requirements and policies can vary markedly an various classifications
of federal public lands. In most cases, public use access ito virtually
unlimited for the foot traveler.

Bureau of Land Management regulations provide generally for grants of
right-of-way for communications, road transportation, reservoir, and other
similar systems and provide that all roadways within these lands may be
used for public access.

In national park areas, access may be provided for motorized vehicles,
aircraft, and other modes of transportation at the discretion of the park

manager.

For refuge areas, motorized and aircraft access is at the discretion of
the refuge manager, provided such public access does not conflict with
the purposes for which the refuge was established.

In the case of all federal lands, the Wilderness Act of 1964 provides that
wilderness areas may be established, essentially limiting all access but
foot traffic, unless historical uses can be shown for other access means.

In almost all cases, historical or traditional use (for example, an airstrip)
can guarantee access in areas otherwise restricted to various access uses.

In December, 1978, the Department of Interior designated some 56 million
acres in Alaska as National Monuments in 17 new and two existing areas.

Interim regulations were developed by the National Park Service (NPS)
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage these new
monuments specific to Alaska's unique situations. These proposed rules
first appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 44 No. 126, on June 28, 1979,
and will remain effective unless amended or overturned by Congress in
d-2 or other legislation.

NPS manages 13 of the new monuments as well as the two expanded existing
monuments- -Katmai and Glacier Bay. USFWS manages two Wildlife Monuments.
Management goals of the two agencies differ. NPS monuments are more
public use oriented. USFWS monuments view-public use and recreation as
secondary or incidental use. Under interim regulations, public use, and
thus access, on USFWS land is regulated by permit contingent on the
compatibility of the proposed use with the management objectives of the
individual monuments.

The least restrictive approach to allowlng public use, while still ensuring
the integrity of the resource, governs these agencies' recreation management
policies cn monument lands. For example, instead of a blanket closure of
an area, the policy might be to disaUow use during certain portions of the
day (depending on the situation) as long as the integrity of the resource
is maintained. Emergency access to these areas may occur without permission
for the protection of life, limb, and property. Uses that may be determined
compatible include, but are not limited to, sport hunting (USFWS monuments
only) and fishing, cross country skling, camping, boating, snow machines,
use of fixed-wing aircraft, and other similar uses.

Neither NPS or USFWS regulations specifically mention access to navigable
waters. However, in both cases, if specific uses are determined compatible,
(le. foot-travel, fix-winged aircraft, etc.), access would not be impeded
to navigable or public waters unless expressly prohibited. Thus, the

regulations suggest that if a person could get to the waterway, access
along and on the watercourse would be permitted, at the discretion of the
area manager, as long as the integrity of the resource is insured.

Finally, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has management authority over
the remaining two national monuments. Hunting, fishing. trapping, and
recreational use may continue as in the past. USFS internal guidelines
for forest management allow oil and gas leasing. No new timber sales or
new mining will be allowed. The Forest Service chose to use existing
regulations for monument management, rather than adopt additional rules.

7))

State Lands:
f

Alaska's Portfolio

With Statehood in 1959, Alaska joined 48 other-states in receiving title
to tide and submerged lands extending to the three-mile limit as prescribed
in the 1953 Submerged Lands Act.

The Alaska Statehood Act. (Public Law 85-508) provides:
"An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Alaska into the
Union. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That, subject
to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the proclaination
required by Section 8(c) of this Act, the State of Alaska is hereby
declared admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other-
states in all respects whatever."
Section 6(m) of the Alaska Statehood Act provides:
"The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Public Law 31, 83rd Congress, first
session.-67 stat. 29, shall be applicable to the State of Alaska arid
the said state shall have the same rights as do existing states thereunder."
Thus, Congress clearly intended that ownership and management of tidulkiiids,
submerged lands, and lands beneath navigable waters be vested in the
State of Alaska.

Even before Statehood. however, Alaska set the framework for resotirce

management in the Alaska Constitution in 1956. Article VIII is clear
in its expression of management policy pertinent to coastal resources
and access:
"It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its lands
and the development of its resources by making them available for
maximum use consistent with the public interest."
Section 1
"Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters
are reserved to the people for common use."
Section 3
"Free access to the navigable or public waters of the State, as defined
by the legislature, shall not be denied any citizen of the United
States or resident of the State, except that the legislature may by
general law regulate and limit such access for other beneficial user,
or purposes. 11
Section 14
Prior to the enactment of either the federal or-state coastal management
programs, Alaska was involved in providing access to and along navigable
and public waters. Three areas of concern have been key to the development
of Alaska's access policies: land selection, land management, and land
disposal activities.

Land Selection

The Statehood Act entitled Alaska to select 104.5 million acres of land
from the federal government for the settlement of its people and to
provide a base for Alaska's economy. One of the first tasks facing the
new state government was deciding on what lands to select to fulfill
Alaska's entitlement.

Alaska's goal in selecting lands prior to 1976 was to ensure the state's
commercial future. These lands were selected for potential mineral, gas
and oil development as well as settlement lands. These pre-1976 selections
totaled nearly 72.5 million acres. To ensure that the remaining 30 million
acres of entitlement met the mandates of Alaska's Constitution, a resource
inventory and assessment system was developed and implemented in 1976.

This system was instigated to assure that the state would be able to
carefully identify the lands suitable! for various uses, i.e. homesites.
agriculture, mineral development, recreation, gas and oil exploration
and development, timber, and community settlement.

A selection team was created to implement the resource inventory and
assessment process. Based on public input, as well as input from commerce
and industry and other state agencies, this team developed a series of
guidelines to use as a basis for fine-tuning the resource inventory system
and selecting the remainder of Alaska's entitlement:
* Land should be selected tp meet existing and future settlement
and population needs.

* Resource lands should be selected to encourage general commerce
and continued economic stability.

* Land should be selected to provide for Alaska's recreation demands,
including hunting, fishing, trapping, intensive recreation development,
and open space.

e Land should be.selected to preserve fish and wildlife habitats critical
to subsistence lifestyles, to the extent this lifestyle is not protected
by other landowners.

* Lands should be selected where activities "fit" with the physical
environment.

9 Lands should be selected in wise management patterns in relation
to natural boundaries, access corridors, private lands, federal lands,
and other state lands so that the optimum multiple use of Alaska's
lands is assured.
In essence, the resource assessment set a kind of rating priority system
to choose lands. Ultimately, some 41 million acres were selected in 1978,
and have been included in State of Alaska position(s) on various Alaska
lands d-2 bills pending in Congress. Access across federal lands to
state and private lands has continued to be at issue in federal d-2
legislation.

Land Management

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is charged with the management
of Alaska lands and natural resources, excepting fish atid wildlife.
Included with the Department's responsibilities is the management of
forests, lands, water, parks, minerals, oil and gas. These resources
are to be managed in the maximum public interest. Over the last 20
years the DNR has grown from a small agency where policies and management
techniques were informal to a large agency with nine divisions specializing
in management of targeted resources.

Closely tied to the growth of DNR and the changes in management policies
is the refinement of the policies surrounding access easements to public
and navigable waters.

As with land management in general, access -management evolved from
somewhat casual policies of the early 1960's to the more refined regulations
of today. With the growth and development in Alaska came the increased
need to ensure public access.

A chronology of access/easement activities compiled by DNR has traced
early and recent policies (Appendix B).

Early state policy (1964) reserved only narrow, streamiside easements
of 10 feet. In 1970, the Division of Lands decided to retain a small
percentage of lands in public ownership. But It was not until 1975 that
the concept of maximum access to public waters was accepted as a policy
for any transfer of public lands to private ownership. By 1980, the
state set a minimum 50-foot easements along the coast and inland waters.

Since Statehood, the refinement and codification of access regulations
and policies had become increasingly important as access became more
limited. In the near future, Native land selections, d - 2 land legislation,
Increased private land ownership, and Municipal land conveyances all will
have significant implications for coastal access.

Land Disposal

Historically, land availability for private use has been a concern in
Alaska, since the days of Statehood when only one per cent of Alaska's
367 million acres was in private ownership. One of the highest priorities
of the new state was land, and framers of the Alaska Constitution clearly
mandated in Article I that land be made available for settlement by residents
of the state.

Under the Statehood Act, Alaska is to receive a total of 104.5 million
acres. The state, however, has received only some 38 million acres of
that entitlement, due in large degree to a series of federal land freezes
since the mid-1960's. Nevertheless, the state over the years has used a
variety of mechanisms to sell, or dispose, of lands for residential and
other uses, such as commercial and agricultural development.

The most common land disposal mechanism since Statehood has been sale
by public outcry auction. Auctions generate the most income to the
state in land disposals, but exclude a significant portion of potential
buyers by boosting the sale price beyond their means.

To broaden opportunities for ownership, the state, in 1968, initiated
the open-to-entry (OTE) program, a version of the federal homesteading
laws that conveyed land to residents relatively cheaply. Under the OTE
program, residents were allowed to file for entry on five-acre parcels
in designated areas. For a nominal fee, the entrant received a five-year
lease, during which time he was required to survey the land as a condition
for gaining title.

Once surveyed, the parcel was conveyed to the entrant after payment of
the fair market price of the land, calculated from the time of entry.
Because of administrative problems and abuses, the program was suspended
in 1973, and terminated by the Legislature in 1979.

In its place, the Legislature in 1978 and 1979 enacted a series of land
disposal programs. Seven programs, briefly summarized below, are
currently operative. Table I further describes these programs.

Table 1

DNR Land Disposal Programs

DISPOSAL PARCEL PRICE TO FREQUENCY METHOD OF OVER APPLICANT ON SITE
TERMS OF DETERMINING THE 04JALIFKATIONS REQUIREMENTS
PROGRAM SIZE PURCHASER PARTICIPATION WINNER COUNTER AGE LojXRESIff. FOR TITLE
SURVEY AND LENGTH OF APPLIES TO 3 YEARS CONSTRUCT DWELLING;
MAXIMUM PAYMENTS I IN A LIFE- IMMED.
PLATTINGCOSTS SPECIFIED BY TOE PER RESIDENCY REMAINING I& PRIOR-OR OCCUPY LAND 35 ENTRY PERMIT NON-ASSIGNABLE
HCWESITE 5 ACRES ONLY CONTRACT HOUSEHOLD OR BY PARCELS 20YEARS MONTHS IN 5 YEARS
LOTTERY CUMM. I
0 LEASE CANNOT BE ASSIGNED
MAXIMUM ArpRAISE0 FAIR 150 FOR 2-5 ACRES PLUS CONSTRUCT DWELLING; CONVEYED OR OTHERWISE TkANSFERRED
40 ACRES MARKET VALUE :30 FOR EA04 ADDITIONAL APPLIES TO CONSTRUCTOTHER
REMOTE ACRE FOR YEARLY LEASE SEE LOTTERY LOTTERY REMAINING 18 1 YEAR 0 LAND MAY NOT BE SOLD, LEASED,
IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONVEYEDOR SUBDIVIDED FOR 10 YEARS
PARCEL MINIMUM AT DATE OF RENTAL THEN 5% DEPOSIT PARCELS ADDITIONAL ACREAGE; FROM DATE OF SALE CONTRACT
2ACRES APPROVAL OF PLAT WITH 20YEAR PAYOFF SURVEY BOTH AREAS 0 LAND DISCOUNT APPLICABLE

I PER I YEARS 0 DEVELOPMENT OR USE
APPRAISED FAIR 5% DEI`0517, EXCEPT FOR SALE APPLIES TO )YEAR USUALLY NONE EXCEPT MAY BE REQUIRED
LOTTERY ANY MARKET VALUE MAXIMUM 20 BY LOTTERY OF LOTTERY REMAINING to EXCEPT HOMESITE AND 0 LAND DISCOUNT APPLICABLE
YEARPAYOFF PLANNED AGRI. PARCELS HOMESITE REMOTE PARCEL (EXCEPT FOR COMMERCIAL OR
PROJECTS INDUSTRIAL PARCELS)

BID PRICE H" BID LAND DISCOUNT APPLICABLE
AUCTION IOSDEPOSIT. I PARCEL AT PUBLIC MAY is NONE NONE (EXCEPT FOR COMMERCIAL OR
SALE ANY (MINIMUM BID: 10YEARPAYOFF PER AUCTION AUCTION APPLY INDUSTRIAL PARCELS)
APPILIUSED VALUE)

%OF APPRAISED PAYMENTS IPARCEL HIGH BID MAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
LEASE ANY VALUE OR SPECIFIED BY AT PUBLIC Is NONE NONE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
HIGH WD CONTRACT PER AUCTION AUCTION APPLY USE REQUIRED

0 ASSIGNABLE ONLY BY ORIGINAL
REMOTE MAXIMUM PREFERENCE BY APPLICATION PERMITTEE
RIGHT IF SOLD $100 PERMIT I PER PERSON OR LOTTERY IF APPLIES is NO TITLE 0 SEPT. 1.1990 MAY ISSUE PERMITS INSIDE
CABIN 5 ACRES OR LEASED PER YEAR MORE THAN ONE MUNICIPALITIES
PERMIT APPLICATION 0 SEPT. 1. 1981 MAf ISSUE PERMITS OUTSIDE
MUNICIPALITIES

BY LOTTERY APPLIES TO 0 A FARM DEVELOPMENT *MAY REQUIRE PRE@QLIALIFICAT ION
ACRES MIN. 6100/ACRE SEE LOTTERY OR LOTTERY; I YEAR PLAN MAY BE REQUIRE
AGRICULTURAL 20 APPRAISED VALUE OR 0 RECEIVES AGR. INTEREST ON0
INTEREST MINIMUM HIGH BID AT . MAY APPLY 0 A FARM CONSERVATION
OR HIGH BID AUCTION TERMS PUBLIC AUCTION TO AUCTION PLAN IS REQUIRED 0 LAND DISCOUNT APPLICABLE

MARCH, 1990

The Homesite Pr2yr@a
@@ allows D-12sidents to obtain up to five acres,
tit survey and platting costs, for construction of' a dwelling within hve

years.
The Remote Parcel Pi:Mj@m allows disposal or two to 40 acres by
lottery, for the fair market value of' the ]arid.
The Lottery PKo tied for a viriety of spue-ific land dis-posal
gr@@m. is u.
designations, allows purchase of '[arid at fair market value and 111ay be
subject to development or use requirements set by the state.
The Auction Sale Program allows residents to obtain land for the
high bid over the minimum set by the state, and applies to acreages of
all sizes, as set by the state.
The Lease Program grants use of land by high bids at public auction,
but title is not conveyed.
The Remote Cabin Permit Program does not grant title to the land,
but does allow the permit holder a preference right if the state determines
to sell or lease the land. The remote cabin sites are limited to a maximum
of up to five acres and payment of a $100 annual permit fee is r(.@(Iuired.
The Agricultural Interest Program allows the state to convey only
the agricultural interest to lands of 20 acres or more, either by lottery
or auction.
In all land disposals, the state is required by 11 AAC 53 to preserve access
to arid along navigable and public waters by reserving a 50 foot easement
in land conveyances. In addition, the Department commonly specifies that
access is to be guaranteed, as in the following example from a June 1980
lottery public information disposal brochure.
"Access to all state lands may toe gained along all section lines with
very few exceptions. Access across unreserved state lands may be gained
by foot, pickup, snowmachine or by similar means without permit, provided
no improvements are undertaken. The State has no obligation to construct
roads to any parcel.
An easement is retained for public access to and along all navigable
and public waters.
Construction of access improverrients requires a permit from the Department
of Natural Resources."
Specific access/easement provisions for each parcel, as applicable, are
included on the plat that successful applicants receive.

Lands conveyed to boroughs and municipalities also are subject to
uirements for reserving access.

As LoVislative and public demand for land disposals havc- increased, the
meclianics of' the programs have grown incrcasinVly complex. To clarify
and interpret the intent of' statutes, the Division of' Forest, Land and
Witter Management has developed a series of Director's Policy Memorandums.
In Appendix C, memoranda pertinent to easements /access are reproduced.

Native Lands:

Traditional Rights Asserted.

Following the passage of the Native Claims Settlement Act, one of tile most
controversial issues surrounding the transfer of public lands to Native
corporations was the extent to which the Bureau of Land Management was
authorized to reserve public easements.

Guidelines for reviewing these easements through Native selected lands
were promulgated in 1976 by Secretarial Order 2982, including a continuous
shoreline easement of 25 feet above the mean high water mark. The order,
however, was successfully contested in U.S. District Court by several
Native corporations in Calista, et al, vs. Andrus, et el (45 F. Supp.
664. D. AK. 1977).

As a result of this decision, the.Bureau of Land Management in November,
1978 adopted regulations to govern reservation of easements for public

access.

Under the regulations, BLM may reserve road and trail casements on
Native lands for public access to publicly owned lands; major waterways and
the marine coastline; communities; airports or docks; groups of private
holdings, or government installations. These transportation easements
may range from 25 to 100 feet in width, depending upon their intended

use. In all cases, the road and trail casements must mect a series of.
tests, including, iii ptirt, findings that there is no reasonable alternative
routc; that the easement is nonduplicative: that the easement is specific
as to location, size and use; that the easement falls in a topographically
suitable location; and that the easement is a primary route of travel
between coastal communities, publicly owned uplands or communities arid
publicly owned uplands along the marine coastline.

Site easements may also be reserved by BLM at a trailhead, along an access
route or waterway, or for aircraft landing, boat or vehicle parking,
temporary camping, or loading and unloading.

The regulations, however, forbid the reservation of casements across
Native lands in a number of cases, including: for hunting, fishing
or unlimited camping on Native lands; for scenic or recreational purposes;
on the beds of major waterways (except where related to road or trail
purposes, portaging or changing the mode of travel); arid on the beds of
nonmajor waterways, except when related to road and trail purposes.

Another issue surrounding the claims act also has implications for coastal
access as it is enhanced or increased by navigable fresh-water streams.
The Kandik/Nation decision by a Department of Interior administrative
law judge broadened the deffnition of navigability.

In 1975 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued an interim (Native
claim land) conveyance to Doyon, Ltd. (Doyon), with n finding that no
navigable waters were within the conveyance '. Doyon appealed the navigability
issue to the Alaska Native Claims Board, which joined the state of Alaska
in 1976 to appeal BLM's non-naviga.bility decision. The State hold that
the non-navigability determination would be adverse to the state's claim
of title to lands under the Kandik and Nation Rivers.

At issue was whether the Kandik and Nation Rivers were navigable in whole
or part. Earlier, courts had held that the question of navigability was
a federal question as applied in the United States v. Holt State Bank,
270 U.S. 89 1926, which held that determination of navigability is based

on the usefulness of the waterway as a highway for travel or trade in the
local area. Further, Utah v. The United States, 403 U.S. 1971, emphasized
that sporadic, short-termed use of waterways for travel and transportation
by local residents for their own purposes and not for hire meets the need
that a waterway be useful as a highway for commerce. The decision stressed
that navigability is determined by the extent that the commerce relates to
local needs as opposed to the volume of commerce.

Based on historical data, accounts of witnesses, and testimony by expert
witnesses showing proof or susceptibility of use for commerce, the
administrative law judge found that both the Kandik and Nation Rivers
were navigable all the way from the Yukon to the Canadian border.

This recommended decision was reviewed by the Alaska Native Claims
Appeal Board, which affirmed the judge's decision. BLM was instructed
to take necessary action to comply.

This decision provides a broader definition of navigability; rivers once
considered non-navigable may be redefined "navigable". Consequently,
Alaska should receive additional title to submerged lands throughout the
state. Important here is the category of ownership of lands upland of
the mean highwater mark. If these lands are Native or federal, state
ownership will be limited to the streambed inclusive of the mean highwater
mark. Access would be limited to the area between the two mean highwater
marks. In some instances, this could severly limit pedestrian access during
the summer due to high water, hazards, and natural barriers. Boat access
could be limited by natural hazards or barriers unless the Federal government
reserves portage easements. These rivers would not actually increase
access to the coastal shoreline unless access is provided to them. Access
to navigable-rivers is not necessarily guaranteed through Native or Federal
lands. However, if these rivers are connected to state lands or public
access corridors either directly or by means or a navigable or public
tributary stream, access to the coastline would theoretically increase.

L
1111@1@vlwlw

Now Local Access Management:

Three Case Studies

Even though local governments have not been -large landowners, they
hold the major aut hority-- through planning, zoning, subdivision, platting
and other authorities- -for land use decisions in their areas. And, where
local governments do or will own land in the near future, these lands
are generally near population centers, where access needs are the greatest.

The cities' and boroughs' aggressive pursuit to gain increased influence
over coastal resource management decisions prompted the Legislature to
adopt strong provisions in the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act for
local district control.

With more than 200 local governments in Alaska, each with their own
community goals and management philosophies, no single, gencral statement
can be made that describes the local experience in access management.

Three general case studies, however, illuminate some of the access issues
that may arise in Alaska and how these issues are approached at the local
level.
I IL r1l

'!!m

The three areas used for discussion were chosen because of the diversity
they represent.

North Slope Borough residents live in one of Alaska's remotest at*eas.
The Municipality of Anchorage is Alaska's largest and most urblinized
community. The Kenai Peninsula Borough is a developing population
center and one of the state's most popular recreation areas, drawing

thousaiids of' resident and

nonresident visitors to a
variety of leisure opportunities.

North_ Slope -Borough

The North Slope Borough
encompasses most of Alaska
north of the Brooks Range. AV
Its people depend on a 'AW
subsistence lifestyle, and
yet are foced with petroleum
development thtit brings conflict and change W a elose-knit social structure
that has endured for centuries.

As it has developed its coastal zone management program, the North Slope
Borough (NSB) has taken the position that access to and along the coast
poses minimal problems for residents, except for cases in which longshore
access is disrupted by industrial development. Such is the case for the
Prudhoe Bay oilfield, where the oil industry has discouraged and limited
activities other than those associated with petroleum exploration and
development.

Officials within the borough have consistently taken the position that
nonresident access to the Beaufort sea coast is a minor issue within the
borough, since most recreational activities, in their view, would he
inappropriate. Even so, the use of the Douglas Arctic Wildlife Range
has grown from 70 visitors in 1977 to an estimated 300 in 1980, based on
registrations with a charter pilot in Kaktovik.

Subsistence use of fish and wildlife within the borough is among the prime
priorities the borough has identified within its coastal management prograin

The program proposes to disallow all hunting and fishing activity within
five miles of a road. Camping and other activities would be limited because
of fragile and sensitive tundra characteristics. The borough also intends
to discourage such other recreational activities as river-running nnd
inarine inammal tours, but proposes to allow such nonintensive recreational
activity as birdwatching. Tours would be discouraged foi- all areas but
that along the north-south haul road.

In short, the borough has taken the position that the North Slope is
so remote that it is unlikely the pressures for settlement (such as in
more accessible areas) will occur. Further, the borough holds that the
tundra cannot support intensive use because of its fragile ecosystem.
Finally, the borough believes that the traditional lifestyle of people on
the North Slope will make it unlikely that access to coastal waters will
ever be jeopardized.

The Kenai Peninsula

Unlike the North Slope, the Kenai area is one of the major destinations
for a large segment of the population in the most settled area of Alaska.

An array of state and federal ranges, parks, waysides and campgrounds
draw Anchorage and borough residents to land and sea in the borough from
Hope arid Seward to Clam Gulch, Ninilehik and Homer. Hunting, boating,
fishing, camping, clamming, beachcombing, snowmachining and cross--country
skiing are a way of life on the, Kenai.

And because of these pressures from borough, non-borough, and non-Alaskan
residents, access problems on the peninsula are likely to grow in coming
years. Industrial access, as well, will add to the pressures for prime
coastal lands@, since the borough lies in the center of a prime oil and gas
industry area.

Most coastal lands currently are held in private ownership on the west side
of the Kenai mountains. And in at least two cases, obtaining additional
public access has been costly. The State Division of Parks was required to

pay some $5,000 per acre for a road and rigbt-of--way to increase access
to the popular Deep Creek shore. In the Funny River area, a 14--acre
lot for wayside access cost some $110,000. And the Division of Parks
estimates that some 50 per cent of sportfishing along the Sterling Highway
from Soldotna to Homer involves trespassing on private property.

In the past, the borough has been met with resistance in attempts to
have portions of subdivisions dedicated for the purpose of useable public
access. And because the borough does not possess areawide recreation
powers, any land obtained for recreation access must be purchased at fair
market value through negotiation, rather than by eminent domain procedures.
Land that cities accept from developers must be maintained, in most cases,
by city budget funds.

The borough may have the potential for providing increased coastal public
access, however, in future land sales, when lots and/or easements may be
reserved for sales of lands conveyed to the borough through the Municipal
Land Act. In addition, current state regulations call for reserving to the
state a 50-foot easem'ent along all public waters and limited upland access
to these waters in these land transfers.

Because federal and state requiremen ts for access planning are only general
in nature, the Kenai borough and other municipalities have not dealt
comprehensively with the issue in current early phases of coastal planning.
The borough's draft coastal development program contains no specific
discussion of public access, but does identify areas which merit special
attention for industrial site access.

The Anchorage Area

The Municipality of Anchorage is the largest community in Alaska, with sonic
200,000 persons residing in an area from Portage on the south to the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough on the north.

Land use and ownership patterns along the coast vary within the Municipality.
Along the shoreline from Potter Station to the downtown area are a wildlife

refuge, public shooting range, residential developments, Alaska Railroad
right-of-way, international airport and military lands, and the Port of
Anchorage.

The Municipali(y of' Anchorage is among several local grovernments it) Alaska
with a coastal zone management plan approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy
Council and the Legislature. The approved plan did not address specific
access areas that will have to be addressed in coming years, but did contain
an access planning process under which the municipal program would be
implemented.

The process called for an inventory of current access sites, development
of site plans for areas that access should be provided, and analyses of
alternative techniques the municipality may employ to guarantee or acquire
needed access sites.

As the municipality undertook the first phas6-of its access planning
process in 1980, one of the first problems it encountered was identifying
specific areas where public access could be guaranteed. It found that a
majority of lands along the 20-mile corridor from Potter Marsh to Ship Creek
are held either by the federal government through the military and the
Alaska Railroad or by private owners. Thus, although Anchorage residents
traditionally have enjoyed relatively free access to this area, in most cases,
the municipality found, public use of these areas is technically trespass.

And although the municipality considers the corridor a high priority area
for public access, the public's use of these areas may be jeopardized
because access sites have not been uniformly formalized or are clouded by
legal questions because of land ownership. (See Figure 1).

Initial indications within the municipality are that a range of techniques
may be required to assure that future access is provided. For example,
the municipality is exploring the potential use of memorandums of under-
standing between federal landowners for public use areas; the potential of
working with other agencies to provide for easement dedication; the potential
of including access considerations in the Comprehensive Port Plan; and
legislative funding for site access.

Figure 1

PUBLIC PRIVATE PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE

Upland Road
Ocean wet Dry
Sand 11 Sand I

A TYPICAL PATTERN OF BEACH OWNERSHIP indicates that accessways
to public coastal areas often are blocked by private lands.

Source: "Access to the. Nation's
Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives," David Brower

Also under consideration are limitations on developing a number of earthquake
hazard areas along the coastline, including a site proposed for construction
of a state corrections facility.

And although implementation studies and analyses for providing access are
not completed, the municipality has recommended a series of projects that
will assure future access along the coast. One is a scenic /recreation
corridor along the Turnagain Arm, which would be established with
cooperation of the Alaska Department of Transportation as part of the
Seward Highway road widening project. Another is the creation of a bicycle
and hiking trail along Cook Inlet from Potter Marsh to the Ship Creek area.
A Ship Creek Greenbelt is also being considered, although the military has
opposed the idea.

Planning officials within the municipality have indicated that the major
problem in obtaining and providing access along the coast will lie in
acquiring necessary sites and corridors. To date, federal landowners
have been little inclined to declare coastal lands surplus for municipal
public use. And because most of the land along the shoreline is owned by
the federal government or private landowners, the municipality has little
opportunity to obtain additional coastal lands through state Municipal
Land Act selections.

COASTAL ACCESS

Recommendations for the Future

Make no little plans;
they have no magic to
stir men's blood...

--Daniel Burnham

Public Access in Alaska:

Options for the Future

Man, throughout history, has been drawn to shoreline areas. His earliest
trade depended on the commerce routes, the shoreline and what its water
afforded. Early food-gathering efforts were intimately linked to freshwater
and marine shorelines. In time, the world's great civilizations evolved from
the coastal areas and waters that linked them to other civilizations for

trade and commerce.

And in time, the shoreline came to mean more than merely a trade link.
With the advent of commerce and agriculture, man settled. And as his
technology increased, so, too did his leisure and discretionary time
increase.

By all accounts, the demand for public lands on shorelines and coasts--
and access to these land a-- continues to grow.

Just 10 years ago, the leisure industry in the United States was estimated
to reach $290 billion, a 58 per cent increase over 1958. Tourism is one
of Alaska's largest industries, second only to gas and oil.

In 1973, the then - U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation reported that

swimming was the nation's number one! outdoor recreational activity. And
although swimming is a relatively insignificant use in Alaska, a similar
survey also found that outdoor recreation enthusiasts Want water to sit
by, stroll along, fish in, ski across, dive under and pilot their boats
over. A 1978 Alaska Division of Parks survey showed that 48 per cent of
the most popular leisure activities- -arid 60 per cent of activities in some
areas--are water-related. A statewide poll conducted by the Rowan Group
for the Steering Council for Alaska Lands in 1978 indicated that more than
70 per cent of Alaskans have taken vacation trips within their own state;
51 per cent have taken a trip down an, Alaska river and 77 per cent
identified access to parks as important. Although the Rowan poll did not
specifically address coastal access, its findings have implications for
the issue. (An excerpt from the final report on the poll may be found
in Appendix E).

Another telling indication of the importance of coastal access was found
in the 1970 U.S. Census, which indicated that more than 50 per cent of
the nation's population lives within 50 miles from the beach. Some 75
per cent of the nation's residents reside in states bordering the oceans
and Great Lakes.

But as late as 1978, some 19,934 of 21,724 miles of prim e public recreation
shoreline along the 28 contiguous U.S. states was privately held. And
why not? The amenities provided by the coast are in large part the reason
why the demand for such land often places it financially out of the hands
of those who would seek to dedicate it to public access or use.

In 1935, for example, the Department of Interior estimated it could acquire
scattered beach areas along the Atla:.ntic Seaboard for an average cost of
$9,000 per mile. By 1955, the price for that same beach acreage rose to
$110,000 per mile and by 1975,. the cost had risen to $1.5 million per mile.

The fact that public access to coastal (or shoreline) areas provides
amenities and an improved quality of life has not, however, been lost on
many of the nation's greatest cities. These cities may not possess within
their boundaries large pockets of land suitable for public recreation, but

they have, over the years, made giant strides in providing their residents
with the aesthetically pleasing areas to undertake leisure activities- from
swimming and fishing to shoreline strolls.

Notwithstanding that the pattern of growth for most cities has spread
from the shoreline inward (See Figure 2 ), a number of cities nationwide
had the foresight to plan for the future use of the coastline by the general
public.

City planners and architects, such as Frederick Law Olmstead, saw in the
mid-1800's that open spaces were as integral to the city's well being as
commerce and industry. He designed the Columbian Exposition in Chicago,
making use of the lakefront for exposition centers, docks and greenswards
that are still in use today. The architect for Central Park and the Boston
Commons, he conceived of aesthetic amenities for these areas that today

are landmarks.

For entirely different (and more self-serving) reasons at the turn of the
century, Montgomery Ward filed a lawsuit in Chicago to restrain the
city from allowing any buildings to block his view of Lake Michigan.
The legacy of that suit, filed solely to provide visual access for one
individual some 100 years ago, is Chicago's lakefront park, an open
greenspace that boasts public beaches, parks, bike paths, marinas, a
lakefront theater, riding stables and a zoo.

Seattle and New Orleans have converted waterfront ports, undersized for
today's larger vessels, into public shops, parks, walkways, open air
markets, with leisure attractions such as aquariums and world fairgrounds
as part of the whole.

San Francisco's Fisher men's@*Wharf is a prime U.S. tourist attraction, as
is Atlantic City's boardwalk and public beach.

And what of Alaska?

Few would agree that Alaska's open land and access problems are anywhere

Figure 2

Tb. K.; Y%A R-s-,
1700
%

1776

low

106@

1910
op
.0# lot
C#2
C.,

4
M Coy Qpvolh: TM SaMon ftegim
3& City Gewaft Mw York CHY

T 00
JIM 1941

34. Cky GrowM: The Ch-V Reebw
PATTERNS OF CITY GROWTH indicate that shorelines are subject to growth first, and inland areas later.
19
1@lr 4---

Source: "Frederick Law Olmstead and the
American Environmental Tradition,"
Albert Fein

near in proportion to the problems faced by the continental U.S. Alaska's
coastline is too vast, her population too sparse. Less than 5 per cent of
Alaska's coastal area is developed. A significant majority of its remaining
coastal lands lie within the public domain, managed by the National Park
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the State of Alaska.

Unlimited access to Native lands previously held by the federal government
will become a thing of the past in Alaska. But the BLM, as noted previously,
is required to reserve access and other easements to some degree across
Native lands in conveyance procedures.

The potential for Alaska's residents to be disenfranchised from access
to the coast, however, is present for the more than half of Alaskans who
live in developed and urban coastal communities.

The challenge Alaska faces, especially In her developed or developing
areas, is to balance economic goals and aspirations with the needs of
residents who, through attainment of these aspirations, win achieve the
kind of lifestyle that enables increased leisure and discretionary time.

Equally challenging is to craft the kinds of policies and management tools
that will fit the needs of all public interests in coastal access.

Alaska's social, environmental and economic diversity makes it unlikely that
any one tool or strategy will answer each area's needs. More likely, access
strategies will have to be devised that afford maximum flexibility and
compatability with a community's goals, legal authorities and public
preferences.

In many cases, Alaska need make no apologies for its planning for coastal
recreation and leisure use.

The west side of Homer Spit has long been suited to recreation use, for
camping, fishing and beachcombing, although pressures to use the spit
for commercial use have increased.

In Kodiak, Cordova and Seward, residents and nonresidents have access
to recrational docks, in complete compatibility with commercial fishing
activity. Public access is available by foot or road from the city to
Shotgun Cove, in Whittier. Fort Abercrombie State Park is biking
distance from downtown Kodiak, and the city's annual King Crab Festival
draws thousands to the waterfront.

Juneau residents have access to most of the coastal area, and the City
and Borough of Juneau recently completed three-phase development.of a
marine park, public dock and tourist facility in the downtown area. The!
American Landscape Architects Association awarded the Marine Park its
award of design excellence in July, 1980. The $5 million project was funded
cooperatively by state, local and federal agencies, and some $3.5 million
was required to purchase private lands for the park and its associated
companion projects. It is among the most well-received programs ever
undertaken by the city and borou gh- -principally, according to one
assemblyman, because of Its proximity to where people gather daily for
their employment.

Nome's beaches have long been known for their public access--access
that allows beachcombtng and hunting for gold.

In Anchorage, a large portion of the coastline is undeveloped military arid
railroad lands; and residents heavily use a number of waterfront parks
(Resolution, Elderberry, Nulbay and Earthquake Parks). Current proposals
for Port of Anchorage land development call for dedicating and developing
a portion of an industrial site as parkland.

If only these cases were considered, it would look, on the surface, like
Alaska has few problems with providing access to the coastline for its
residents.

However, if historical and traditional coastal growth patterns emerge in
Alaska as they have for other parts of the nation, future problems could
easily emerge with them. For many areas in the continental U.S., the time
has long past for solving access problem s- - especially in developed areas--

inexpensively and with foresight. Alaska is unique in that it has the
opportunity to assure that enjoyment of the coastal zone will not be
disrupted by the kind of policies that reserve a coastal resource owned
by all to a select few.

The recommendations presented in this report are intended to encourage
free public access, assuming that this goal does not preclude balanced and
thoughtful economic development.

The recommendations also are based on clearly stated policies of federal
and Alaska coastal management legislation and national historical experience.

Thus, three major assumptions were used in framing recommendations:

(1) - That, based on historical coastal development patterns, pressures
to restrict public access and use will increase and, therefore, broad
public use opportunities will decrease.

(2). That once public use opportunities deteriorate to a certain level
(often unquantiflable), government historically has been called upon
and urged to reverse this trend and recoup lost opportunities--often
at great public expense.

(3). That all levels of the government and their constituents have
become aware of the critical role meaningful access plays for all coastal
endeavors.

The recommendations also were based on the following findings:

(1) - Federal and state coastal zone management legislation places a
high priority on public access to coastal areas.

(2). The coastal zone, nationally and in Alaska, is a prime resource
for preferred public leisure activities.

(3). A lack of coastal access is not perceived as a critical statewide
issue in Alaska.

(4). The potential for diminishing access in developed and developing
areas is the most serious coastal access issue at this time.

(5). There appears to be no uniform local policy for reservation of

access lands.

(6). There appears to be no apparent uniform state policy for
reservation of access on public lands.

(7). There appears to be little cooperation among federal, state and
local governments and with the private sector in planning for and
providing public access.

(8). Regulatory and management authorities at all levels of government
appear ample to maintain and increase access to coastal areas.

(9). Techniques and strategies for obtaining accessways vary and
have potential application for various land management jurisdictional
agencies.

(10). There are no minimum statewide requirements for access planning
and management.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Alaska Coastal Policy Council should expand
0 0 requirements for identification and management of
coastal access areas.

DISCUSSION: Section 6 AAC 80.060 of the Guidelines and Standards of
the Alaska Coastal Management Program requires coastal resource districts
and state agencies to give high priority to public access; and to designate
areas for recreational use. Based on the evolution of coastal management
and access programs nationwide and in Alaska, a direct relationship
between recreation and access should be established in terins of designation
and management. The standards do not clearly require either the designation
of access sites, or the management of public access areas. Further, the
standards do not require state or local agencies- to identify and plan for
future access demands. A series of activities should be undertaken to
assure that the public, now and In the future, is provided access to a
coastal resource shared by all.

Determining current location and status of access areas is important,
to assure that legal instruments, such as plats, status maps, titles, and
land recordings reflect the presumed dedicated access use.
Identifying areas of future access potential will enable the state and
local districts to consider use of these lands for access, plan for this
use and assure that future land actions do not preclude this use.
Determining future access demand is a critical step in assuring that
plan development will pinpoint those areas that will best satisfy public
needs.
Developing fnanagement plans and/or programs for access will provide
a uniform policy and approach for providing public access in identified
need areas.

If these elements are included in state and local planning activities,
potential conflicts can be more readily resolved, and site specific uses more
readily prioritized. Finally, a clear understanding of future needs will,

in the long run, save significant tax monies where demand for coustal
access Is expected to grow beyond opportunities that are presently
available. If early settlers in Juneau had anticipated the future and
planned for coastal leisure, the City and Borough of Juneitu may not
have been required to pay $3.5 million, for 1. 5 ikeres of' marine parkland.

2. Coastal resource., district contracts for program
development and implementation funding should include
0 requirements for identification of access areas; determining
access demand; and development of an access management

program.

DISCUSSION: Although different communities will identify varying access
planning and dedication needs. all communities should be treated equally in
uniform, minimum statewide requirements for providing public access. Commun-
ities, however, should be permitted to develop programs pertinent to their
special needs in assuring public access within those minimum requirements.

3. The Office of Coastal Manogement should provide
funding for an analysis of state land disposal procedures
and their relationship to providing public access as
required In 6 AAC 80.060.

DISCUSSION: In some cases, Department of Natural Resources Procedures
for providing public access in land disposals are not uniform, depending
upon the type of disposal being used, and the statutes and regulations
governing the disposal. In addition, there appears to be no uniform
policy for site-specifte procedures in cases where a particular problem
or issue is not addressed by statute or regulation.

4. The Alaska Coastal Policy Council and Office of
0 Coastal Management should work with communities to
provide maximum assistance to local governments for
access planning and acquisition.

DISCUSSION: The current and immediate demands on local government to

accommodate a complex array of coastal management planning requirements
make it unlikely that local resources can be further strained to consi -der
more detailed planning for coastal access. Communities should be granted
increased funding and technical assistance, in three principal areas: assis-
tance in on-site evaluation; assistance in land status research; and
assistance in legal analysis of access acquisition techniques.

Funding will be required for access planning, and state/federal grant
funds may be the only means by which communities can acquire additional
prime access areas. Appendix D is a brief summary of funding sources
available to state and local governments for access and access-related
projects.
Technical Assistance can assist communities in planning for and resolving
coastal access issues. Assistance in two principal areas would be of special
benefit to communities at this time: assistance in inventorying current
and future access possibilities; and assistance in identifying both proven
and innovative means for acquiring access lands. Any number of tools may
have promising application for Alaska. Several are summarized below:
Fee simple title
Purchase in the open market is one of the most-employed means of
acquiring access and other lands for public use. It is also the most
costly and its success depends upon finding a willing seller.

Highly developed areas In Florida, near Boca Raton, have successfully
used public bond issues to acquire beach and uplands, and Alaska
is using similar techniques along the Kenai Peninsula coastline. The
acquisition program has been well received on the grounds that if the
highly used shore areas were not acquired, they would be the site of
private development, with few access areas left remaining.
Easement purchase
With this method, only partial interest in land is obtained, with
resulting lower cost. Private owners of coastal property may be
persuaded to sell casements if their property is revalued for property
tax purposes. Care, in most cases, can be taken to assure that
impacts from public use would not impose on adjacent property
owners. Other states have used this tool for areas where parking
and adequate roads are present.

Prescriptive easement
Prescription is a means of obtaining use, but not title, of another
person's land by a person or group in some specified manner. Two
issues are important in proving prescriptive use rights:
Length of time the use has occurred; and the
type and manner of use that occurs.
Alaska law discusses prescription in AS 09.10.030 and .050:
"No person may bring action for the recovery or real
property, or for the recovery of the possession of it unless
commenced within 10 years. No action may be maintained
for the recovery unless it appears that the plaintiff, his
ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized, or possessed
of the premises in question within 10 years before the com-
mencement of the action."
Case law further defines prescriptive rights in footnoted discussions:
"To establish a prescriptive right to an easement, the use
must have been open, continuous, and adverse under claim
of title or right, and with the knowledge and acquiescence
of the owner of the servient estate. (Roberts v. Jaeger,
5 Alaska 190 (1914).)"

And:
"Possession must be open, visible and notorious-- Unless the
true owner has actual knowledge of the hostile claim, it is
essential to the acquisition of the title by prescription or
adverse possession that the possession be open, visible,
public and notorious. (Ringstad v. Grannis, 11 Alaska 393
(1947), rev1d on other grounds in 12 Alaska 190 171 F. 2d
170 (9th. Cir. 1948).)"
This discussion also separates prescription from adverse possession.
The difference is subtle, but the two should not be confused. Brower
and Dreyfoos discuss this difference in Public Access to Ocean Beaches:
"Prescription is closely tied to, but is not adverse, possession;
title to the property is not in question. In a beach-access
context, the concern is not with the title, but with the right
of access. Accordingly, the local government will seek to
establish that the public has continuously used the accessway
in question for the requisite number of years. if areas

traditionally used by the public exist in a community, it
should be possible to acquire an access easement by pres-
cription. The local government would not have to pay for
such right of access. However, litigation is generolly
required to establish the existence of an easement by
prescription, and the costs of litigation should be calculated
in determining the cost of using this tool to acquire access."
The prescriptive tool has disadvantages politically, especially in
cases where the landowner and agency seeking to acquire the
easement are adversary parties.
Eminent domain
Condemnation differs significantly from other purchase options in
that it solves the problem of finding a willing seller. Government
entities holding eminent domain authority are empowcred to use it
as long as the condemnation is fo r public purposes. Compensation
must be made to the property owner, based on fair market value,
which often is difficult to determine.

Historically, the most popular use of eminent domain has been to
acquire road and utility corridors. The latter can be effectively
used for public recreation with cooperation of the owner or utility.
The popular powerline ski trails in Chugach State Park are prime
examples. The power of eminent domain, however, is not commonly
used for acquisition of park or recreation lands, but may be appropriate
for access routes. Alaska Attorney General's opinions have held
that the state, through the Division of Parks, does not possess
eminent domain powers for recreation. In addition, where eminent
domain has been used, the price has been high. Florida and California
in the early 1970's purchased beach acreage by eminent domain for
costs ranging from $1 million to $6 million per mile.
Dedication
Rights of way or roads from upland developments to the ocean may
be dedicated to an appropriate agency by the owner or developer.
Through platting or outright dedication, accepted by the government
agency, residents outside the project area are guaranteed access.
The dedication tool may have significant application when coupled

with land status inventories. Courts have construed a platted
roadway, alleyway or street to be an offer to dedicate for public
use by the owner. Perfecting that dedication through local government
acceptance potentially could be an inexpensive nicans of obtaining
additional access, without the adversary implications attached to
the prescription method.
Conservation easement
Under this technique, a present landowner imposes future limitations
on the land's use by encumbering land for easement purposes in
subsequent title conveyances. Tax benefits in the form of reduced
property taxes for the encumbered land can accure to the landowner,
as an added incentive for assisting local government in providing
access. In essence, conservation easements involve the donation of
property interest rights to a future public.

The most prevalent use of the conservation easement strategy has
been in Maine, where it is allowed for any entity having the power
to acquire interest In land.
Leaseholds
Another le ss- than- fee- simple technique, a leasehold grants the
interested party the right to use another's land for a specific manner
over a specified period of time. All remaining property rights are
reserved to the owner. Leases are legal instruments that can be
applied to any number of other uses, including oil and gas development,
farming, fishing, hunting and access rights. A renewal clause is
common in a lease, as well as a lessee's option to purchase for fee-simple

at a later date.

Leasing may provide only a temporary or short-term answer to
coastal access needs, but the tool could be valuable in areas where
no other option is available or where other options are too costly.
Gifts
The gift of land for public use has become increasingly common but
remains relatively unusual compared to other, conventional ways in
which governments receive private land for public purposes. The
major incentive to the donor is the potentially significant tax benefit.

To qualify, however, the gift must be given to and accepted by a
government agency or nonprofit organization that will use the lands
for public benefit.

In the past decade, government entities have found increasing
success in obtaining charitable gifts of land. A number of conservation
organizations (such as the Nature Conservancy) aggressively assist
government entities in finding potential donors. At least part of the
reason for the increasing popularity of land gifts is found in the way
the Internal Revenue Service treats such gifts. An income tax
deduction is allowed. And for individuals in higher tax brackets who
intend to dispose of the land in question in any event, a donation can
free the individual from high capital gains taxes. In many cases, the
tax savings associated with the donation can exceed the original cost
of the land severalfold.

In New York, more than 30 per cent ot federal, state and county
parkland has been acquired through donations. Iowa's conservation
district program has attracted many gifts of rough, otherwise unuseable
lands St. Louis, Mo., has encouraged small donations as "living
memorials" in greenbelt programs. In Illinois, the Morton Arboretum
was established through gifts of land by family owners. Wtsconsin
received the tip of Door County Peninsula as a gift; a Chicago doctor
donated his Michigan summer home as a nature study center; and Indiana
obtained the last undeveloped remnant of the Valparaiso Moraine as a
gift for a nature preserve.
Bargain sales
Bargain sales occur when an owner can no longer retain his land,
cannot afford to make an outright gift, and will have difficulty finding
a buyer who will pay fair market value. In these cases, a owner can
make a "bargain sale" to a public or private landholding agency. He
sells it for the price he originally paid for it; recovers his initial
cost tax-free under Internal Revenue Service rules; and is credited
with a deduction amounting to the appreciated value of the land from
the time he bought It. The deduction may save him more than what
would remain had he sold the land at fair market value and paid a
capital gains tax.

Trades
Land trading between and among agencies and private landowners is
a tool little explored to its full extent in Alaska. If this authority
were used in the context of planning for access and other open space,
private real estate developers and subdividers could be persuaded to
trade public use lands in exchange for lands of equal value in other
areas where access Is not critical.
Post disaster acquisition
The National Flood Insurance Program allows the federal government
to purchase properties damaged substantially by flooding, rather
than compensate the insured to rebuild. This technique apparently
has not been tried in the context of coastal zone management or
access planning, but statutes and regulations for the program
appear to allow it. The tool may have application to other types of
disasters common to the Alaska coast, such as tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, and earthquakes. This course of action would have a
twofold benefit: accessways would be provided and public safety
would be protected through discouraging rebuilding in hazardous

areas.

Land use controls
The authority of government to exercise planning, zoning and
subdivision controls can contribute measurably as tools for acquiring
or preserving the public's access to resources such as the coastal
zone. These controls can require access easements and right-of-way
dedication, as well as set maximum density. Some communities also
are empowered to zone in the floodplain, which can include beaches
and uplands. These land use controls are especiaUy important for
areas in which a signifleant portion of open land is in private ownership.
In summary, there is no uniformity of land management authority among all
levels of Alalska government. Specific acquisition or land use control
techniques among those discussed above, therefore, probably will not have
application in all cases. A more comprehensive analysis of these tools, how
they may be used, and their legal constraints in Alaska would open up
increased possibilities for meeting public access needs.

A I

5. The Alaska Coastal Policy Council should reassess
and reevaluate present policies that give overwhelming
priority to coastal sites for activities that are water-
dependent, and give high priority to development that
increases public enjoyment of the coast.

DISCUSSION: If one of the goals of access planning is to provide for and
encourage public use and enjoyment of the coastal area, it follows that
activities that will draw people to the waterfront should be encouraged. In
cities and developed areas, economic development find leisure opportunities
could go hand In hand if " public- dependent" development were given high
priority in determining allowed uses of coastal lands. By "public-dependent"
we mean the kind of development that draws people to a given coastal
facility, whether or not the facility depends on a coastal location to operate.
Such facilities can include:

Museums
Aquariums
Exposition centers
Theaters
Open air restaurants
Public markets
Public fishing piers
Theme and marine parks
These kinds of facilities often are capable of being designed, sited and
landscaped to blend with existing landforms and to take full advantage of
views, vistas and scenic benefits. They encourage creative economic
development and provide increased amenities for not only local residents,
but tourists, as well.

6. Geophysical hazard areas should be reserved for
public, open-space use.

DISCUSSION:- Developing in areas with known geophysical hazards can
result in loss of life or property, with significant implications for liability.
Design and engineering techniques can often reduce or mitigate this danger,
but equaUy as often these design standards can be extremely costly. By
reserving these marginal lands for public use, more prime, cost-effective

development areas can be utilized for industrial, commercial, high density,
or residential projects.

7. Where public coastal lands have not been conveyed
to other ownership, a liberal policy should be maintained
for reserving longshore and upland access to the coast,
as well as sufficient public use areas to meet current and
future demands of coastal communities.

DISCUSSION: State regulations already apply a minimum 50-foot longshore
access in conveyance of state lands; but there is no clear, uniform access
policy on lands for which the state retains ownership. Local governments
are not required to reserve access in land conveyances. And like state
lands, there is no uniformity in policy for providing access on lands
retained in local government ownership. The State. and Local governments
should adopt similar easement requirements for tide and other lands within
their management control. Reservation of easements and access routes to
the maximum degree while land is in public ownership will preclude future
necessitie s to repurchase the lands tit exhorbitant cost.

REFERENCES

Alaska Administrative Code. Titie 6 Governor's Office; Chapter 80
Standards of the Alaska Coastaf-Mi-r iagement Program.

Alaska Administrative Code. Article 2 Uses and Activities; Section 060
Recreation.

Alaska Administrative Code. Article 3 Resources and Habitats; Section 150
Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeo-lo-g-irc-al Resources.

Alaska Administrative Code. Article 4 Areas Which Merit Special Attention;
Section 160 Areas Which Merit Special Attention.

Alaska Administrative Code. Title 11 Natural Resources; Chapter 53.330
Easements to and Along Navigable and PubTfc-Waters.

Alaska Administrative Code. Title 11 Natural Resources; Chapter 70
Easements and Rights-Of-Ways; Xrticle I Easements to and Along
Navigable and Public Water.

Alaska Administrative Code. Section 010 Determination of Navigable and
Public Water.

Alaska Administrative Code. Section 020 Written Decision Concerning Easements.

Alaska Administrative Code. Section 030 Easements to and Along Navigable
and Public Water.

Alaska Administrative Code. Article 4 General Provisions and Definitions;
Section 910 Definitions.

Alaska Coastal Management Act. 1977. Section I Legislative Findings.

Alaska Coastal Management Act. 1977. Section 2 Legislative Policy.

Alaska Division of Forest, Land and Water Management. 1978. Land for
Alaska.

Alaska Division of Forest, Land and Water Management. June, 1980.
Disposal Brochure.

Alaska Division of Land and Water Management. Tideland Lease Agreement
Form.

Alaska Division of Parks. 1978. Alaska State Park Visitor: Who They
Are and Their Views on thi-15-e-WeFopment and Management of the
Alaska State Park System. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Division of Parks. 1976. Coastal Recreation Resources: Wes-t
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1972. Public Law 92-203. Section
12(a). Native Land Selections.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1972. Section 17(b). Public
Use and Access.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1972. Section 17(d)(2), Withdrawal
of National Interest Lands.

Alaska Office of Coastal Management. 1979. Alaska Coastal Land and Water
Use Guide. Volume 1.

Alaska Statehood Act 1958. Public Law 85-508; Section 6(m), Alaska's
Ownership of Tidelands. --

Alaska Statutes. Title 9 Civil Proceedings; Chapter 09.10.030 Actions
to Recover Real Property In 10 Years.

Alaska Statutes. Title 38 Public Lands; Chapter 05 Alaska Land Act;
Article I Administration; See-tro 20 Authority and Duties of the
Commissioner.

Alaska Statutes. Title 9 Civil Proceedings; Chapter 09.25.050 Conclusive
Evidence of Adverse Possession.

Alaska Statutes. Article 3 Leasing of Lands Other Than for the Extraction
of Natural Resources; Section 070 Generpy.

Alaska Statutes. Article 5 Reservation of Rights to Alaska; Section .127
Access to Navigable or-T-ub-IFF-W-aters.

Alaska Statutes. Article 6 Leasing of Mineral Lands; Section .135 Generally.

Alaska Statutes. Article 12 General Provisions; Section .365 Definitions.

Alaska Statutes. Title 41 Public Resources; Chapter 20 Parks and Recreational
Facilities; Article I Acquisition, ffe-velopment and Maintenance of State
Parks and Recreational Areas GeneraUy; Section .020 Duties of Department
of Natural-R-esources.

Alaska Statutes. Section .040 Establishment of the State Division of Parks.
Alaska Statutes. Title 46 Water, Air and Environmental Conservation; ties
Chapter 40 The Alaslia. Coastal@i ment Program; Section 0411 Du
of the Alask-a--C-oa-s-ta-r-P-575-y- council.

Alaska Statutes. Section 210 Definitions.

American Institute of Geology. 1974. Dictionary of Geological Terms.
Anchor Books. Garden City, New-Y-or-K-.
Bascom, Willard. 1964. Waves and Beaches: The Dxnamics of the Goean's
Surface. Anchor Books. tlarae-n--M-y, New York.

Black, Henry Campbell. 1968. Black's Law Dictionag, Revised Fourth
Edition. West Publishing Company, ME Paul, Minnesota.

Brower, David J. and William Dreyfoos. 1979. Public Access to Ocean
Beaches: If You Find Parking Space, How Do You Get To T Beach?
Coastal Zone Management Journal. Volume 5, NumEer 1/2 Russak & CO.
Crane, New York.

Brower, David. 1978. Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-77-rS-.

Bureau of Land Management. 1978. Personal Discussion With Agency Personnel
on ANCSA and Public Access Easements.

Clark, John. 1974. Coastal Econstems: Ecological Considerations for
Management of Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation.
Washington, D.C.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Public Law 92-513 and its 1976
Amendments Public Law 94-370. Section 302 Congressional Findings.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 303 Declaration of Policy

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 305(b)(3) Inventory and
Designation of Areas of Particular Concern.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 305(b)(7) Inventory and
Reservation of Shoreline Access.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 306(c)(9) The State Management
ProgEam, Establishes Procedures for Preserving or @@ Areas for
Their ConservifGH, Recreationz, E-C-0 al, or Esthetic Values.
gigc

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 20 Research and Technical
Assistance for Coastal Zone Mansrement.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section 315 Acquisition of Access to
Public Beaches and Other Public Coastal Arias.

Constitution of the State of Alaska. Article VIII Natural Resources.
Section 1. Statement of Policy.

Constitution of the State of Alaska. Article VIII, Natural Resources
Section 3, Common Use.

Constitution of the State of Alaska. Section 14, Access to Navigable Waters.

Department of Natural Resources. Alaska State Land Selection Program:
Its History and Guidelines. 1978.

Department of Natural Resources. 1979. The History of Title Navigability
in America and its Application to the State of Alaska.

Ducsik, Dennis. 1974. Shoreline for the Public: A Handbook of Social,
Economic, and LepT_Uo_n_sTcTe_rat1ons We- )lic INTZT-tlie Notion's
Coastal Shoreline. M.I.T. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Federal Register, Volume Q, Number 28, 1976. Title 36 - Parks, Forests,
and Public Property; Chapter VIII - Advisory Council on Historic
Fr-eservation; Part 800, Section 9, Criteria of Adverse E-?Te-ct. - I
Federal Register, Volume 48, Number 41, 1978. Title 15 - Commerce and
Foreign Trade, Chapter IX - National Oceanic, AtmospEeric Administration;
Part 923 Section 25 Shorefront-Te-cess and Protection Planning.

Field Research Corporation. 1976. Manag@ment Digest An Overview of the
Significant Findings From Prospect, Visitor and Travel Agent_Surveys
and Their Implication for Developing a Program for Tourism in Alaska.
Vo-r the Alaska Visitor Industry.

Fein, Albert. 1972. Frederick Law Almstead and the American Environmental
Tradition. George Braziffe-r. Inc., New YoFk, N.Y.

Gifis, Steven H. 1975. Law Dictionary. Rarrons Educational Series, Inc.
Woodbury, New Yory.--

Hession, Mary Kaye, Publications Specialist. April, 1977. Department of
Natural Resources; Memorandum. Local Easements.

McHarg, Ian L. 1969. Design With Nature. Doubleday Press, Garden City,
New York.

Koppel, Jacques. 1980. Guide to Federal Resources for Economic Development.
Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, D.C. 20

Northrim Associates Information and Communication Services. 1977. "Results
of the Coastal Management Survey." Prepared for the Alaska Coastal
ManagemeRt -Program. Anchorage, Alaska.

O'Brien, Michael Murphy. 1978. Coastal Shoreline Access in Alaska, (draft)
Alaska Department of Naturaf Resources, Anchorage, Alaska.

Oregon State of, Parks and Recreation Branch. 1977. Oregon's Beaches A
Birthright Preserved. Salem, Oregon.

Platt, Rutherford B. 1971. Oven Land in Urban Illinois. Northern Illinois
University, De Kalb, Ill.

Secretary of the Interior. 1976. Order 2982: Reservation of Local
Easements Pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. Re5iiliT.7-

Simonds, John Ormsbee. 1961. Landscape Architecture. McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.

The Submerged Lands Act of 1953. PubHc Law 31-83. State Ownership of
Tidelands and $ubmerged Lands.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1979. 36 CFR Part 13.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1979. 50 CPR Ch. 1.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1980. 43 CFR Part 2800.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1978. 43 CFR Part 2650.

United States Department of Interior. Feb., 1980. Memorandum To: State
Director BLM, From: Regional Solicitor, Alaska Subject: Kandik, Nation
Decision on Navigability.

United States Department of the Interior. Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board,
Dec. , 1979. Decision and Order of Remand: In reference: _ Appeal of
Doyon Limited from Decision of BLM F-19155-T6, -ANCAB RLS 76-21.

Webster's New World Dictionary. 1974. The World Publishing Company, Inc.
Cleveland, Ohio: New York, New York.

I --
I -
I -
I --- APPENDICES
I -
I --
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -,
I
I
I
I -
I -
I -
I -
I

I -
I-- Appendlx A
I-
I-
I-
I-
I
I
I
I-
I-
I-
I----
I -
I -
I

APPENDIX A

Definitions

Access. A way or means of approach.

Adverse Possession. A method of acquisition by title by possession for
a statutory period under certain conditions.

Beach or shoreline is the zone or area lying between the mean lower
low water mark up to the shoreward limit of non salt-tolerant vegetation;
or, where unvegetated bluffs occur, the elevation reached by extreme
high water or storm surge conditions.

Custom, Customary Use. Usage or practice of the people which, by common
adoption and acquiecsence, and by long and unvarying habit, has become
compulsory, and has acquired the force of law- with respect to the place
or subject-matter to which It relates.

Dedication. A conveyance of land by a private owner in the nature of a
gift or grant and an acceptance of that land by or on behalf of the public.

Easement. A right in the owner of one parcel of land, by reason of such
ownership, to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent
with a general property in the owner.

Easement of Access. Right of Ingress and egress to and from the premises
of a lot owner to a street appurtenant to the land of the lot owner.

Longshore Access. The means of approach that exists along the shoreline.

Prescription. A means of acquiring an easement in or on the land of
another by continued regular use over a statutory period.

Right of Way. The right of passage or of way is a servitude imposed by
law or by convention, and by virtue of which one has a right to pass on
foot, or horseback, or in a vehicle, to drive beasts of burden or carts,

through the estate of another. When this servitude results from the law,
the exercise of it is confined to the wants of the person who has it. When
it is the result of a contract, its extent and the mode of using it is
regulated by the contract.

Upland Access. The means of approach that exists from the lands above the
shoreline down to the shoreline.

Vacation. The act of making void.

Navigable Waters. Any water of the state forming a river, stream, lake,
pond, slough, creek, bay, sound, estuary, inlet, strait, passage, canal,
sea or ocean, or any other body of water or waterway within the territorial
limits of the state or subject to its jurisdiction, that is navigable
in fact for any useful public purpose, including but not limited to water
suitable for commercial navigation, floating of -logs, landing and take-off
of aircraft, and public boating, trapping, hunting waterfowl and aquatic
animals, fishing, or other public recreational purposes.

Public Waters. Navigable waters and all other waters whether inland or
coastal, fresh or salt, that to reasonably suited for public use and utility,
habitat for fish and wildlife in which there is public interest, or migration
and spawning of fish in which there to a public Interest.

Submerged Lands. Lands covered by tidal waters between the line of mean
low water and seaward to a distance of three geographical miles or further
as may hereafter by properly claimed by the state.

Tidelands. Those lands which are periodically covered by tidal waters
between the-elevation of mean high and mean low tides.

Sources: Alaska Statutes; Black's Law Dictionary.

I -
I --
I -
I -
I - Appendix B
I -
I -
I -
I
I
I
I-
I--
I-
I-
I-
I-
U
I

APPENDIX B
Easement /Access Chronology
in

Alaska

May 8, 1964: Division of Lands Issued policy statement on reserving
101 linear streamside easements for public use. Easements were to "float"
with changes in the stream channel.

Feb. 9, 1970: Division of Lands Issued policy statement on retaining
lakeside lands In state ownership, with the amount to be based on the
size of the lake.

Nov. 15, 1974: Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission completed
its Local Easement Study recommending easement size and use standards
for lands to be transferred into Native ownership under ANCSA.

Feb. 6, 1975: Gov. Hammond, In a letter to Interior Secretary Morton,
endorsed LUPC's study and advised the Secretary:
"The Constitution of the State of Alaska specifically provides that
wherever occuring in their natural state the waters are reserved to
the people for common use. The same Article (VIII) further states
that free access to the public waters of the State shall not be denied
any citizen or resident of the State. This concept has been upheld
by the Alaska Supreme Court which recently ruled that the provisions
in Article VIII were Intended to permit the broadest possible access
to and use of State waters by the general public .... It is therefore
of the greatest importance to the State that appropriate safe-guards
to guarantee reasonable access to public waters are recognized during
any alienation of State or Federal public lands Into private ownership."

April 4, 1975: In a second letter to Secretary Morton, Gov. Hammond
stated,"...1 have directed that the local easement guidelines adopted by
the Planning Commission be implemented, as a minimum, on all State lands."

April 15, 1975: The Director (of the Division of Lands) set up an
easement task force to implement the LUPC guidelines.

B-2

June 28 and 30, 1975: Early drafts of the task force's easement
guidelines received informal distribution to state agencies and the staff
of LUPC for comments.

July 25, 1975 and Sept. 10, 1975: The easement task force submitted
proposed policy to the Director, urging that It be put Into effect.

Feb. 5, 1976: Secretarial Order #2982 was Issued by the Interior
Department. It ordered the reservation of local easements on Native
lands.

Spring, 1976: The state legislature passed a bill defining navigable
and public waters in very broad terms and requiring easements to and
along such waters to provide reasonable access. State land disposals
were halted pending regulations to implement this law.

30, 1976: Task force's easement guidelines, now marked 11pre-
Uminary,11 were again Informally distributed for comment. Throughout
the review process that had begun in June of 1975, response had generally
been favorable, although more generous standards were suggested repeatedly.
Decision was made to begin immediately on easement regulations based on
these guidelines. There was no further revision of the policy statements.

Nov. 24, 1976: Division of Lands completed a comprehensive set of
proposed easement regulations. In an effort to give planners maximum
freedom, no size and use standards were established.

Feb. 2, 1977: So that disposal of state lands would not be further
delayed during a potentially lengthy review of the comprehensive regulations,
the Director directed that work on the other easement regulations be stopped
and that emergency regulations covering easements for navigable waters be
prepared. It was subsequently decided that these would be permanent,
not emergency regulations.

Dec. 29, 1977: 11 ACC 70.10 - U ACC 70.910 establishes guidelines for
reserving easements and right -of-way a. Article I deals with easements

B-3

to and along navigable and public waters. A 25 foot easement above and
below the mean high tide mark is established and reserved as state lands
are conveyed. If access is not reasonably provided, the Director (Division
of Lands) shall provide an easement to coastal or inland navigable or public
water. This easement must be a minimum of 25 feet wide.

March 27, 1980: Regulations as codified by 11 AAC 53.310 - 370
supplant 11 AAC 70. This chapter increases the width of longshore
easements along coastal waters from 25 feet to 50 feet above and below the
mean high water mark. Easements along inland waters now extend 50
feet above the ordinary high water mark. Finally, easements to navigable
coastal or inland waters must now be at least 50 feet wide.

U
U
I --
I -
I -
I - Appendix C
U
U
U
U
U
F
I
I
I -
I --
I --
I --
I

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND A WATER MANAGEMENT
TO Commissioner DATE December 13, 1979
All Directors
FILE NO

TELEPHONE NO

SUBJECT
FROM Theodore G. Smith Policy Statements
Director

In the day to day activities of the Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management, individual problems arise in the management of State Lands.
To expedite the solution of these problems we have adapted a method of
"Memorandums to the Director's Policy File" to present policy quidelines
to the problem.

For your information copies of those memorandums are attached.

Your office has been placed on the circulation list to receive copies
of future memorandums.

STATE
of ALASKA
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

TO DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE October 9, 1979
80-4
FILE NO 1130, X-File 2370

TELEPHONE NO.

FROM THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Section Line Easements
and Use Thereof
Director

Situation: Section line easements (50 feet each side of the section
line) have been dedicated for use in construction of public roads on
all lands transferred to the State under the Statehood entitlement.

Because of this dedication, does the public have the right to construct
public roads on these section line easements without permit?

Does a public utility have the right to construct improvements on this
easement without permit?

Policy: It is the policy of the Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management that anyone does have the right to construct road on these
section line easements without permit and regardless of ownership
without sanction of the permitting authority. However, the constructed
road becomes a public land and may not be used as a controlled access
by the builder or owner of the road.

It has been determined by the Division that enough legal precedence
exists to support this policy.

In any case, we should urge the public to check with the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities on planned future uses of the
easement.

In the matter of the easements use by public utilities, the following
Outlines the policy:

A public utility must gain sanction by the landowner, whether it be
state, federal or privately owned, in order to construct an improvement.
on the easement. Furthermore, a letter of nonobjection must be obtained
from the Department of Transporation and Public Facilities.

In a case where the State has sold land involved in a section line or
is the owner of such lands, the Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management reserves the rights of the landowner in the issuance of
permit sanctioning the utility's use of the easement.

Note that this interim policy is subject to revision upon adoption of
regulations exercising the State's police authority to require certain
standards of construction.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

TO DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE October 9, 1979

FILE NO 1130, X-File 2350

TELEPHONE NO

FROM THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Homesite Location in
Director Surveyed Subdivisions

Situation: In surveyed subdivisions in which parcels are being used
for both homesites and lottery and/or sale lots, should homesites be
located in a specific location within the subdivision?

Policy: It is the policy of the Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management to place homesite parcels in a subdivision closest to the
available subdivision access. As homesites require successful applicants
to live on the land and perform improvements, while other disposals do
not, homesites should have the higher degree of accessibility for
access to the property and transportation of building materials.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

TO DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE October 9, 1979
80-9 FILE NO 1130, X-File 2310

TELEPHONE NO

FROM: THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Subdivision Surveys
Director Fiscal Year 80 Fall
Disposals

Situation: It is the policy of the Division of Forest, Land and Witter
Management not to retain ownership of right-of-ways in surveyed
subdivisions or surveyed parcels to be disposed of. In some cases in
the fiscal year 80 fall disposal a misunderstanding occurred regarding
this policy in that prcperty lines were terminated at the edge of
right-of-ways instead of the centerline of the right-of-way.

Policy: In the above stated cases the following will be the policy:

1. Recorded plats will not be changed, however, it is the
Division's intent to amend these plats at a later date.

2. Unrecorded paper plats of aliquot parts that show rights-of-way
will be amended immediately.

3. Right-of-ways in surveyed subdivisions for this disposal
will be assigned to a homeowner's association.

This policy statement also reaffirms the decision's policy not to
retain ownership of such rights-of-way in future disposals.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

TO DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE October 24, 1979
80-14 FILE NO 1130 X-File 2375

TELEPHONE NO

FROM THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Easement Reservations on
Director Lands Offered for Disposal

Situation: During the fiscal year 79 land disposal program, road,
utility, and access easements/rights-of-way were surveyed and platted
out of the parcels, rather than subjecting the parcels to easements.
The results were that acreage was reduced significantly and the State
was left as owner of the land within the easements/rights-of-way.

Does the State wish to retain ownerships within newly platted
subdivisions of the easements/rights-of-way?

Policy: In all future state land disposals, parcel property lines
shall run to the center line of the easement and not to the facing
edge of the easement. The Division has established this policy, as it
no longer wishes to have the continuing management responsibility of
the property within the easement. However, all such lands will be
sold subject to the easement reservation.

In addition, as time permits title underlying easements will be
transferred to abutting property owners.

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES-DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER

TO Director's Policy File DATE: December 27, 1979
80- 12 FILE NO: 1130, X-File 239 &VISIon of Parki

TELEPHONE NO:

FROM. Theodore G. Smit.h.-Z SUBJECT: Municipal Selection
Director Graphic Depiction

Situation: During the process of granting title for municipal selections
it has been necessary to prepare a plat for the entitlement that shows
navigable and public waters and, therefore, shows the reductions of
acreage transferred to the boroughs. In handling this as a plat, it
becomes necessary to record this work because it is a change from the
existing survey plat and (for those selections approved prior to
July 1, 1978) changes the acreage of the approval by showing non-
transferred water bodies. This causes an additional time lag in issuing
title to the boroughs.

Policy: In the future this "plat" will be prepared as a graphic
depiction or "map" of navigable and public waters. This map will be
the formal depiction of the easement location and this must be
referenced to the patent for all conveyances to the boroughs after
July 1. 1978.

This map will include:
1. Depiction of navigable and public waters,
2. Easements along navigable and public waters, and
3. State retained interests (i.e., state owned rights-of-way,
park sites, etc.).

This map will not include state or federally conveyed third party
interests.

As this will be a "graphic depiction" of those non-vacatable easements
reserved to the State, it will be desirable for the borough to record
it. In order to save time in the conveyance of municipal selections, the
final decision will recite specific reservations, plus a definition of
waters to and along which easements will be reserved. The maps will be
prepared after the final decision and attached to the patent when issued.

THIS POLICY STATEMENT REPLACES DPF 80-112. PLEASE CANCEL, BUT KEEP THAT
MEMORANDUM. (October 9. 1979)

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES-DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND AND WATER
TO Director's Policy File DATE-. January 2, 1980
80-14 FILE NO: 1130, X-File 2375; 2310

TELEPHONE NO:

FROM Theodore G. Smit SUBJECT: Easement Reservations on
Director 17-V Lands Offered for Disposal

Situation:

Director's Policy File #80-9 stated that it is the Division of Forest,
Land and Water Management's policy not to retain ownership of Rights-
of-Way or easements is surveyed subdivisions or surveyed parcels at
disposal.

Director's Policy File #80-14 (October 24, 1979) set forth the
procedure as to how easements were to be considered in the design and
survey of State subdivisions. That policy file statement also stressed
that the Division did not wish to retain ownership of Rights-of-Way or
easements within these subdivisions. --

Since the writing of DPF #80-14 (October 24, 1979) many questions have
arisen on the mechanics of that policy statement. Is there a more
definitive policy on the on easement reservations of State subdivided
lands offered for disposal?

Policy:

The policy not to retain ownerships of specified lands within State
subdivisions still stands. The mechanism for transferring title to
these lands are as follows:

1. Paper Platted Subdivisions; Easements in paper platted subdivisions
will be treated as outlined in the original DPF 80-14 (October 24, 1979).
Parcel property lines will run to the centerline of the easement.
Parcel owners will own the property to the centerline of the ease-
me n t. However, all such lands will be sold subject to that easement
reservation.

2. Surveyed Subdivisions Outside Municipalities or Boroughs; The
subdivisiop will be designed and surveyed with 1 - lines ending at
the boundary of the easement or Right-of-Way. The underlying title
to the easement or Right-of-Way will be transferred to the Home-
owner's Association as outlined in DPF 80-30.

3. Surveyed Subdivisions Inside of Municipalities (Including Boroughs);

a. The subdivision will be designed and Surveyed with lot lines
ending at the boundary of the easement or Right-of-Way. The
specified Right-of-Way and title will be transferred to the
Municipality.

02-001A(Rev.10/79)

b. If the municipality or Borough refuses title to the dedicated
Right-of-Wdy, the Division will pass title to the Hoiieowner's
Association as outlined in OPF 80-30.

Along with easements or Rights-of-Way, material sites identified by
the district offices in the subdivision layout will be transferred
according to the same criteria outlined above.

WHEN POLICY STATEMENT REPLACES 80-14 (OCTOBER 24, 1979). PLEASE CANCEL.
BUT KEEP THAT MEMORANDUM.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

TO DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE November 28, 1979
No. 80-25

FILE NO

TELEPHONE NO

FROM THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Public and Private
Director Rights-of-Way and
Survey Requirements

Situation: The Division has been faced many times with the problem of
how to handle private right-of-way requests versus public right-of-way
requests. The question of whether or not surveys are required on both
types of requests has also been raised.

What is the Division's policy regarding issuance and survey requirements
on public and private rights-of-way?

Policy: It is the policy of the Division that as-built surveys are
not required for public rights-of-way. However, a sketch plat must be
prepared by the applicant showing approximate locations of corner ties
as the right-of-way crosses surveyed section lines.

The puhlic right-of-way issued easement will remain in the name of the
State against future disposals.

As-built surveys are still required on private rights-of-way requested
from the State. Private rights-of-way will be issued in the name of
the applicant.

Requests for rights-of-way by utility companies will be treated as a
request for a private right-of-way. Utility companies will be required
to provide an as-built survey and must monument section line crossings
and angle points.

A request for private right-of-way by a utility company in a public
easement, such as a section line casement, will still require an
as-built survey with the appropriate infonnation displayed.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESS
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & MANAGEMENT

To DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE December 3, 1979
80-26 FILE NO

TELEPHONE NO

FROM THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Land Planning Reports
Director on Municipal Selections
and Public Interest
Classifications

Situation:

Under state law the Division is required to prepare a land planning
report for classifications of state land.

In the case of municipal selections and public interest lands a decision
is prepared at the district level which outlines and identifies the
lands to be classified for both categories. The additional time spent
preparing the land planning report, especially in the case of municipal
selections, adds major time delays to the actual classification.

Would it not be possible to provide it briefer land planning report,
since much of the information is contained in the districts final
decisions, in order to provide for faster classifications?

Policy:

It is the policy of the Division that in the case of classifications
for municipal selections, land planning reports per se are not necessary.
The method used to prepare the district's final decision on municipal
selections answers the same questions necessary in preparing the land
planning report. Since the final decision epresses the result of
joint consideration under the same criteria used in outlining and
identifying these lands, the final decision will simply be used as the
land planning report.

In the case of classifications for public interest lands, once again
the basic questions of the land planning report have been answered in
the decision-making process. Therefore, the preparation of the land
planning report would be redundant and unnecessarily time consuming.
The final decision outlining and identifying public interest lands
will be used as the land planning report.

In both cases a cover memborandum should accompany the decision papers
identifying them as the land planning report.

It is our opinion that since the necessary criteria has been evaluated
during the decision process, the Division has complied with state law
and department regulations.

STATE
of ALASKA MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

To DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DATE December 12, 1979
80-30 FILE NO 1130

TELEPHONE NO

FROM
THEODORE G. SMITH SUBJECT Land Disposals Home
Director Owners Association

Situation:

It is the policy of the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management
to set up home owners associations in surveyed subdivisions that are
being offered for disposal, unless a municipality establishes a service
area pursuant to AS 29.63.090(f). One of the purposes of setting tip
this association is to provide an entity to hold title to public lands
within this subdivision. This is in line with Director's Policy File
Number 80-9 which states that the Division does not wish to retain
ownership of rights-of-way within subdivisions.

The establishment of a home owners association would allow the Division
to pass title to such areas as rights-of-way, greenbelts, wood lots,
etc., along with the management authority of easements within the
subdivision.

What are the actual mechanics of setting up such an association?

Policy:

The mechanics of the setting up of such an association are actually
fairly simple.

First, the appropriate district office shall request the municipality
to establish a service area. If for any reason the municipality fails
to do so, the lands unit in the central office will prepare and submit
paperwork to the appropriate authorities, including the internal
revenue service for non-profit status, to provide for an incorporated
entity under the corporate laws of the State of Alaska.

Certain division employees within the district of the subdivision
offering will be appointed by the Director as temporary officers of
the corporation.

After the drawing on the parcels has been accomplished, all successful
applicants for parcels in that subdivision will be notified of their
success and asked if they are interested in serving as an officer of
the corporation. The Division will then appoint, from those interested
purchasers, new officers of the corporation to succeed the Division
personnel temporarily filling those positions. This appointment will
take place before the first meeting of the home owners association.

Director's Policy File 80-30 2 December 12, 1979

After all points of applicable corporate law have been staisfied the
Division will pass title or management authority on all applicable
lands in the subdivision to the home owners association.

In any cases where the Division still owns lots in the subdivision,
the Division will be treated by the association as a property owner
with the same voting power and rights as any other property owner.

Q U01h '". 10, i@

STATE
of ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OV NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FOREST. LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT

'0 F DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DAIE, December 26, 1979
No. 80-32 f Ilk No

III tPH()N(. NO

I ROM viFODORE G. SMITH )I( IVacation of Set-tton Line
Director Easements in State Subdivisions

Situation:

In the design of some state subdivisions prepared for disposal, some
lots within the subdivision contain portions of existing section line
easements. These section line easements are not designed as subdivision
access and J'4dedicated as a right-of-way within the subdivision.

Since subdivision access is provided within the design, would it be in
the State's best interest to vacate these section line easements?

Policy:
In this case, as in all cases of section line-easement vacation, the
Division's policy should be one of a conservative approach. If tliere
is an alternative access provided for the subdivision without the use
of these section line easements, they may be vacated only within the
lot lines of the disposal parcels, or where alternati7ve access to
adjoining lands is provided by the subdivision design.

The exception to this is where the retention of isolated segments of
the easement is necessary for associated uses of that,,easement, for
example, where power line or utility corridor uses ar'e'-as access to
state-owned, land-locked parcels behind the platted subdivision. A
great deal of thought about future uses should be considered before
such a section line easement is vacated.

0., du.ki V- 10 1(-

STATE
of ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RES011RCES
DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND AND WATFR MANA-GEMPNT
lu DIRECTOR'S POLICY FILE DAli DecQmber 26, 1979
80-33 1111 No I 30@ X - F, 40.) Z -3-1

I I PHON1 NO

Wm THEODORE G. SMITH, SMUICA Applicability of Documents
Director of Lease, Permit, and
Easement

Situation: Confusion has surrounded the applicability of the documents
for lease, permit, and easement. Clarification follows.

Policy: Lease -- if an individual requests exclusive, long-term (over
a year) use of a parcel of ground for a particular purpose, the individual
will be issued a lease. A lease may be for a specific area such as a
right-of-way or subdivision lot, or for exclusive but partial use such
as agriculture or grazing. The lease grants a large measure of sovereignty
over the land.

Permit -- if an individual requests a nonexclus-iVe use, permanent or
temporary, of a parcel of ground for a particular purpose, the individual
will be issued a permit. The State does not yield sovereignty when it
issues a permit. The State can terminate a permit without cause after
giving thirty days notice, or immediately with cause. The policy on
mooring buoy permits 080-31) is an exception to this rule because the
exclusive occupancy is of an insignificant amount of area occupied by
the anchor.

Easement -- if an individual requests nonexclusive use of a parcel of
ground for a particular purpose, the individual may be granted an
easement. The State will yield sovereignty when it issues an easement.
Ens6ments may be term or indefinite and are vacatable. Fxamplur' are
right-of-way, scenic. and pedestrian easements. Construction on an
easement way be undertaken pursuant to an easement construction permit.

Easements and leases are grants of interest in land and are therefore
subject to AS 38.05.035(a)(14) and AS 38.05.305. A permit is not a
grant of intvrest in land and is therefore not subject to the above.

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES-DIVISION OF FORES1, LAND AND WATER

To Director's Policy File DATE December 31, 1979
80-37 FILL NO@ 1130, X-File 2343

TELEPHONE NO:
Theodore G. Smith-,77- SUBJE(I Subletting of Tide-
Director Land Leases

Situation: The policy on allowing the subletting of the tideland
leases has been cloudy for some time.

Are there any circumstances under which the Division will allow the
subletting of tideland leases?

Policy: It is the policy of the Division that improved tidelands may
e subleased if the improvements are completed in accordance with the
accepted development plan or are substantially complete within the
time frame of the development plan.

Under no circumstances will unimproved tidelands or lands not in
compliance with the timeframe of the development plan be considered
for subleasing.

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES-DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND AND WATLR

TO. Director's Policy File DA I E December 31, 1979
80-40 FILE' NO 1130, X-File 2320;2343

FI-1 EPHONE NO'

FROM. Theodore G. Smith SUBJECT: Appraisals for Tide &
Director Submerged Lands

Situation:

How shall tide and submerged lands be appraised for the purpose of
offering for lease at public auction if the particular lands have
trespass improvements on them.

This involves two questions:

1. Should the trespass Improvements be considered when determining the
rental value?

2. What should be done if it is determined-that the tide and submerged
land will not be offered for lease?

Policy:

Generally, improvements will not be considered in determining the
rental when being appraised for lease. However, market value of the
trespass improvements will be estimated by the owner and confirned by
the State appraiser prior to auction.

The tide and submerged lands shall be appraised without consideration
given to the trespass improvements, and the lease entered into shall be
for the parcel only. The successful lessee of the tide and submerged
lands offered if other than the trespasser may purchase the improvements
from the trespasser, or the trespasser will have 120 days within which
to remove the improvements. The 120 days comences at date of auction.
Other than lessee owned improvements, those remaining 120 days after
auction become the property of the State, and the State may dispose of
them as they see fit.

If the tide and submerged lands have improvements plac(.,d on them in
trespass, fhe trespasser shall be notified that he is in trespass and
notice given that their improvements are to be removed within 120 days.
If notice is not complied with, the case is then turned over to the
Attorney General's Office for action.

02-001 A I W...1017Q1

I
V
I
V
I - Appendix D
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I --
I
I

APPENDIX D
Potential Assistance for Access Planning and Acquisition

A number of federal agencies provide funding to state and local governments
for access-related projects and programs. Agencies and their programs
are briefly summarized below.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
(1). Land and Water Conservation Fund
The fund provides monies to acquire federal wildlife refuges and
recreation areas; and matching project'grants for state recreation
planning, and state and local land acquisition and development.
Funds are derived from the sale of federal surplus property, federal
motor boat fuels tax and Outer Continental Shelf mineral receipts.

(2). Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance
The technical Assistance Program provides advisory services and
counseling to all sectors to increase the number and quality of
recreation areas. Program assists state and local governments in
applying for federal surplus property to the General Services
Administration, but does not provide acquisition funds. Program
also works with government and private interests to help obtain
private contributions of land or money for recreational purposes.

(3). Water Resources Planning Program
The water program has two major purposes: to protect outdoor
recreational resources from development and determine recreational
potential of water resource development. Program also reviews all
applications before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
identify recreational potential in hydroelectric and nuclear energy
projects.

(4). Historic ireservation Assistance
The Historical 1preservation program authorizes the Service to acquire
and restore structures (and resources) of historical significance.

D-2

Properties must be listed on National Register of Historic Places
through state's historic preservation office.

(5). Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
The recreation recovery program provides funds to local government
to rehabilitate recreation areas and facilities and to develop improved
recreation programs. Three forms of funding are available: Program
grants, Innovation and rehabilitation grants; and discretionary grants.

Bureau of Land Management
(1). Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes and Historic
Monuments.
Under this program, federal, state and local government agencies
and nonprofit associations or corporations may lease or purchase
available BLM lands for recreation, historic monuments and public

purposes.

National Park Service

(1). Technical Assistance
The park service administers more than 300 units in 47 states,
including national parks, historic sites, monuments, recreation
areas, lakeshores, seashores, preserves, battlefields and military
parks. It is charged with the dual mission of preserving natural,
cultural and scenic resources, while at the same time providing for
public enjoyment through recreational use of these resources. The
park service provides technical assistance to state and local agencies
in planning, developing and managing park and recreation areas.
The assistance program has no acquisition authority, and no funds
are provided to other agencies under the program.

Fish and Wildlife Service
(1). Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation
The Secretary of Interior, through the service, may transfer to
states any lands surplus to the need of the federal government, for
wildlife conservation purposes, at no cost to states. Local governments
h transferred lands, but may work with
are not eligible to receive suc
stated in planning for the land's acquisition.

1)-3

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farmers Home Administration and Soil Conservation Service

(1). Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans
Agriculture's programs may relate to access provisions and enhancement
in two major areas: cooperation in establishing improvements to
reduce erosion, flood water and sediment damage (including development
of recreational facilities); and loans to help finance the local share
of the cost of implementing watershed and flood prevention works of
improvement. The agency may give either technical or financial
assistance. It also will provide a share of the cost in installing
improvement for agricultural water management, fish and wildlife
conservation, and recreational development, including the cost of
access to recreational areas. The agency does not have a direct
acquisition program for access lands, however. Local organizations
must acquire land, water and other rights, but the agency will pay
up to half of these costs.

(2). Business and Industrial Development
The Farmers Home Administration will assist organizations in rural
areas to improve, develop, or finance business, industry and
employment; and to improve the economic and environmental climate
in rural communities. Funds are provided through guaranteed loan
authorities and project grants on a state-by-state allocation process.
Eligible applicants are private firms or individuals in nonurban
areas with populations of less than 50,000.

(3). Community Facilities Loans
These FHMA loans are granted to construct, extend or improve
community facilities that provide essential services to rural residents.
Insured loans are available for up to a 40-year term at five per cent
interest. Public bodes and nonprofit corporations in rural areas
with populations under 10,000 are eligible.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING a URBAN DEVELOPMENT

(1). Community Development Block Grants
The Department administers these grants both for large and small

cities, the latter falling within the agency's discretion for provi ding
funds. The broad, overall objective of the program is to alleviate
physical and economic distress through the stimulation of private
investment and community revitalization. Formula grants, determined
by population, poverty levels and other demographic characteristics
are provided to cities of 50,000 or more in population. The use of
the funds is at the discretion of the city, but ineligible projects
include public facilities, rehabilitation of government facilities, and
rehabilitation of libraries, sports arenas and cultural and convention
centers. In small cities, funds are provided through comprehensive
grants, single-purpose grants and through "settlement" (completion
of programs begun under Model Cities and Urban Renewal programs).

(2). Comprehensive Planning Assistance
The so-called Section 701 program is designed to encourage and
financially support state and local governments and regional planning
agencies in upgrading their comprehensive planning capabilities.
Funding is through project grants that pay up to two-thirds of the
cost of the project. The development and implementation of plans
for housing and land use, transportation, recovery from disaster,
and energy conservation are among eligible activities for the program.

(3). Federal Flood Insurance Program
The pertinent aspect of the flood insurance program is it applicability
to compensation once loss has occurred. The program allows the
federal government to purchase damaged properties, rather than pay
the insured to reconstruct buildings on the property before damage
occurred. Once purchased, these lands may be. transferred (by sale,
lease or donation) to state or local governments for uses "consistent
with sound land management and use". The major drawback to the
program is that it has never been implemented by funding.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
(1). Technical Assistance, Research and Planning (Title III)
Grants are provided to develo, the capability of state and local
.P

D-5

governments to undertake comprehensive economic planning which
is coordinated with other state planning activities. The grants
provide up to 80 per cent federal funding. Technical assistance may
be granted for studies that combine human and natural resources
to determine the impact of proposed or eidsting employers or
projects within an area.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
(1). Highway Research, Planning and Construction
The federal-aid highway program is a large one, and provides
states with funding for a number of Items, including roadside
beautification, recreation (including access roads to recreation areas),
bikeways, pedestrian walkways, fringe and corridor parking areas, and
rest areas. Projects are funded through grants. Formal grants
may be given states to assist in planning, constructing and rehabilitation
projects. Eligible activities also Include right-of-ways, surveying,
and engineering. Urban areas also qualify for the grants, if projects
are approved by the state. .
Federal Aviation Administration
(1). The FAA provides technical and financial assistance to public
agencies for planning and developing airports under the Airport
Development Aid and Planning Grant Programs. Airport planning
is coordinated with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
and local planning authority so that consideration is given to the
use of lands surrounding airports for recreation. The FAA encourages
using these lands for recreation because such a use is among the
few considered compatible to airport operations.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
(1). Small Beach Erosion Projects
The Corps of Engineers, under the River and Harbors Act, is
empowered to aid state and local agencies in controlling beach and
shore erosion in public areas. The Corps designs and constructs
the projects, and the nonfederal sponsoring agency must agree to

D-6

"provide and maintain" necessary access roads, parking areas, and
other public use facilities. The federal share may be 70 per cent of
the project cost or $1 million, whichever is lower.

V
V
V
V
V
I - Appendix E
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I
I

Steering Council Study
This is a report on the method-
in the statewide sur 'iffy
ology used A
vey of Alaska residents 18 or
older, conducted by Rowan
Group Inc. for the d(2) Steering
Council for Alaska Lands.
Ouestionnaire
The questionnaire was devel-
oped to probe Alaskan use and
interest in the land, general atti-
tudes toward the classifications
being considered in the Con-
gress, and specific experience
in the use and enjoyment of the
state's land and environment'.
The exact wording of the ques-
tions is presented in the Survey
Data section of this report. We
believe the questions are - on the face of it - basically statistical in nature.
While the Steering Council suggested the issues to be raised in the study,
Rowan Group Inc. designed and applied the questionnaire with complete inde-
pendence, and respectful professional distance.
The Sample
The sample plan produced a total of 465 completed interviews. Of these 441
were conducted by professional interviewers, face to face with the respondent,
in the home of the respondent; in 24 cases, all in distant rural areas such as
Wales or Point Hope, the questionnaire was self-administered.
The sample was distributed proportionately into four major areas of the state,
based upon the population In each area. The firm's previous surveys indicate that
this sample number is more than adequate to represent the adult population in
Alaska.
Respondent Selection
Each area was assigned its population-proportional number of interviews.
Then, households or cluster points (such as an apartment building, the side of
one street block) were selected based upon population-proport ion of neighbor-
hoods and random selection within the neighborhood. Only Alaska residents
found at home were interviewed.
Rowan Group Interviewers are experienced people who ask the questions in
a uniform way and collect the respondent's information or opinions with careful
attention to the exact Words used by the respondent. Open-ended questions
are reported in the Data-Narrative with the verbatim responses that were forth-
coming.
Electronic Data Processing
The survey was coded and data-processed by Rowan Group staff and in con-
junction with Alaska Data Systems*, using a Fortran package permits multi-
variable crosstabulation presentation.
Summary
An analysis of the sample's demography shows that the sample closely repli-
cates the actual Alaskan population. The factors considered are age distribu-
tion, sex distribution, location of the respondent, racial composition, income
of the family, and employment status of the respondent. Statistical certitude
can be corroborated in several areas where these factors are known to govern-
ment or other information sources. As a result of these indices, the sample
distribution method, the reports of the interviewers who conducted these inter-
views, and the history of previous surveys based upon the identical sample plan,
we feel certain that the responses coming from this sample are within � 2.7%
of the percentages one would achieve if all residents of Alaska 18 or older were
interviewed using the same questionnaire during the same period. In sum, the
data can be used by the Steering Council as evidence of the experience and opin-
ion of the Alaskan adult population toward the issues and questions raised in the
questionnaire. - Rowan Group Inc.
6 525 W. 3rd Ave., Anchorage, Alaska

The Survey Data

1. Are you a resident of Alaska?

99.8% Yes
0.2 No

2. How long have you lived in Alaska?

17.6% Lifetime (born in Alaska)
11.6 25 years or more
26.8 10-25 years
35.0 2-10 years
9.0 Less than 2 years

3. (If "Not Born in Alaska")Why did you come to Alaska?

17.8% Not applicable
35.6 Job/work opportunities (trasferred; in service;
husband's job)
17.6 Moved with family (came up with parents, relatives)
8.4 Lure of Alaska lifestyle (wilderness; adventure;
the outdoors; scenery; hunting and fishing; the
last frontier, etc.)
4.7 To get away fro Lower 48 (away from rat race,
steel and concrete, big cities, pollution; better
quality of life here, etc.)
3.4 Visited Alaska -- decided to move
4.7 Always wanted to/just wanted to
6.0 Other
1.7 No opinion
Other comments in numbers: not percents: Health
reason; Own property; It was first point North on
the money I had; Just like it here(2); To investigate
the country; Immigrated from Denmark; Immi-
grated from Europe; To go to school; Because of
religious beliefs (2); Born here, decided to come
back; Was geeting a divorce; Good schools.

4. What do you like about Alaska-in other words-why do
you live here ratehr than someplace else?

11.0% Natural surroundings (scenery; wilderness; beauty;
the land; geography; ruggedness; openness)
9.7 Outdoor life (hunting; fishing; camping; oppor-
tunity to enjoy the land)
4.1 Climate
5.4 Work/job
6.0 More opportunities (business; economic; job)
4.9 Good wages/money
8.8 Less crowded (Not so many people)
9.5 Quality of life(casual; slower; no pressure; not as
developed; less congested; quieter; lack of
social problems; allure of the last frontier)
5.2 The freedom
7.7 The people
11.6 It's home (have roots here; born/raised here; been
nowhere else)
5.2 Everyting; just like it
1.9 Family reason (husband/wife likes it; married
someone from here, etc.)
6.0 Other
3.0 No opinion
Other comments in numbers; not percents: The
Lord wants us here; Don't like it - we're moving
out of state(2), God has put me here. It is the
geographical will of God that I stay here; No
snakes or insects; I like anywhere the Lord sends
me; Don't got money enough to get out of here;
Have some input in the government; Still going to
school; Health reasons(2).

5. In Alaska there are about 20 communities of a few
thousand people or more. Of these major places, how
many have you visited?

15.5% All or almost all
14.8 Three fourths
20.8 About half
20.2 About one-fourth
28.1 Only a few
0.6 No opinion

6. In Alaska there are also about 300 communities of a few
hundred people each, or less. Of these places, how many
have you visited?

1.5% All or almost all
2.6 Three fourths
9.7 About half
17.6 About one-fourth
44.2 Only a few
23.8 Virtually none
0.6 No opinion

7. Do Alaska's 300 small communities desire to be part of the
state's surface transportation system?

32.4% Yes
35.4 No
28.5 No opinion/don't know
3.6 Some do, some don't

8. Do you feel the existing access to Alaska's 300 small
communities is adequate to meet their community needs?

39.3% Yes
28.2 No
20.6 No opinion/don't know
1.7 In some cases

9. Do Alaska's 300 small communities desire visits by large
numbers of recreationist and sightseers?

14.6% Yes
61.6 No
18.0 No opinion/don't know
5.8 Some do, some don't

10. In all, there are 365 million acres of land in Alaska, most of
it accessible only by plane, boat, or off-road vehicle, and
some by road. Of it all, what would you estimate as the
amount you have been able to experience?

1.1% All or almost all
6.0 Three-fourths
8.6 About half
17.4 About one-fourth
13.7 Less than one fourth
50.4 A few percent or less
2.8 No opinion

11. Have you ever taken a one week trip inside Alaska for
recreation purposes?

71.7% Yes
28.3 No

12. (If "yes")The last time you did that, how far did you go?
(Estimate in miles).

27.8% Not applicable
20.7 250 miles or less
15.3 251-500 miles
7.1 501-750 miles

12.3 751-1000 miles
3.0 1001-1250 miles
4.3 1251-1500 miles
0.9 1501-1750 miles
3.9 1751-2000 miles
0.2 2001-2250 miles
0.6 2251-2500 miles
0.2 2501-2750 miles
1.1 2751-3000 miles
1.5 Over 3000 miles
1.1 No answer

13. (For those who answered Question 12)...And how did you
travel?

9.7% Air
6.0 Water
35.6 Surface/road/railroad
27.7 Combination in numbers: not percents; Air-
surface (17); Air-water (13); Surface-water (51);
All(13);
Not applicable

14. Do you feel satisfied with how much of Alaska you have
so far actually seen and experienced, or are you interested
in experiencing much more of it?

12.2% Feels satisfied
65.5 Satisfied, but wants to experience more
22.3 Wants to experience more, is unsatisfied

15. What would be your favored means of traveling to remote
areas of Alaska in the future?

28.4% Air
6.9 Water
21.9 Surface/road/railroad
42.8 Combinations in numbers; not percent: Air-
surface (36); Air-water(52); Surface-water(36);
All (66).

16. Do you feel certain public lands in Alaska deserve receiv-
in permanent protection as national parks or wildlife
refuges even though you may not be able to visit all of
them?

61.0% Yes, deserve permanent protection
20.8 No
7.7 No opinion/unsure
10.5 Yes, though not in amounts reported
_______________________________________________________________________

Here are a number of National Park lands either existing
or proposed in Alaska, and this map shows where they
are. Tell me in each case if you have already been to each
park, and if so, if you intend to go back sometime, and if
not, if you ever intend to go.
_______________________________________________________________________

Intend Won't Intend Won't No
to return return to go go Opinion

17. Denah National
Park (Mt. Mckin
ley) 59.3% 4.9% 28.3% 4.3% 3.2%

18. Glacier Bay
National Park 22.3% 3.2% 49.7% 18.8% 6.0%

19. Kobuk Valley
National Park 5.4% 1.7% 53.7% 29.1% 10.1%

20. Lake Clark
National Park 12.2% 0.9% 53.1% 21.6% 12.2%

21. Gates of the
Arctic National
Park 7.1% 1.7% 54.0% 28.3% 9.0%

Intend Won't Intend Won't No
to return return to go go Opinion

22. Katman National
Park 12.4% 1.7% 63.0% 14.6% 8.4%

23. Wrangell St
Elias National
Park 17.1% 3.4% 54.0% 16.3% 9.2%

24. Do you belive roads, railroads, or some other form of
surface transportation should be built to these parks to
provide easy access to large number of people?

30.5% Yes, to all parks
47.9 Yes, to some parks
20.6 No parks
1.1 Depends (on which parks, etc.)

25. Tell me the name of any national wildlife refuge you visited
for recreational purposes since you have lived in Alaska?

41.5% None
25.8 Mt. McKinley (Denah Nation Park)
14.8 Kenar Mooso Range (or named Kenar, Kenar area,
etc.)
1.9 Potter Marsh/Flats
3.7 Glacier Bay
1.9 Chuqach area
0.9 Katman
1.3 Mendenhall Peninsula/Flats
8.2 Other
Other comments in numbers; not percents: 66
Mite Steese (2); St. Lazufus Bird Refuge (3), Kodiak
(3); Adinirality Island (2); Wrangells; Afognek (3);
Katchemak Bay; Fonresferr Island; Portage; Prince
William Sound; Aleutians; Arctic Wildlife Refuge
(2); Eklutna; Copper River Water Foul Refuge (2);
St. Paul's; Susitna Flats; Chukchi (2); Tongass (2);
Sheep Mountain (2); Kualinie Wildlife Refuge; By
Tustumena Lake; Tanana Flats; Kobuk area; Minto
Flats.

26. (If a wildlife refuge is named) What was you main reason
for visiting the refuge?

42.8% Not applicable
16.1 Recreation/vacation (to get away; fun; something
to do; an outing)
15.7 Sightseeing (scenery, taking visitors, to visit; see
what was there; to check it out)
6.9 Fishing and/or hunting
4.5 Camping
6.9 To see wildlife (animals; birds; flora and fauna;
nature)
2.6 Passing through area
1.7 Other specific sport (backpacking, hiking, canoe-
ing, etc.)
1.7 Other
1.1 No response
Other comments in numbers; not percents: Closest
and most convenient (2); On the job information
(3).

27. How far from this home do you have to go to be in a real
wilderness experience?

61.3% 25 miles or less
13.3 26-50 miles
3.4 51-75 miles
8.2 76-100 miles
0.2 101-125 miles
1.5 126-150 miles
2.6 151-200 miles
2.6 Over 200 miles
6.9 Don't know

28. Have you visited any of Alaska's national forests since 46.5% Feels statements can be combined without con-
living in Alaska? (And if yes) Which one? tradication
41.1% Yes, have visited Chugach National Forest 8.4% Other comments
11.1 Yes, have visited Tongass National Forest
24.2 Yes, have visited both 3.2% No opinion/unsure
23.6 No

29. Have you ever flown into the Alaskan wilderness? Other comments in numbers, not percents: We don't have that
62.3% Yes much oil here and we need to preserve the wildlife more. We
37.7 No need industry for the people already here. Wilderness is more
important than minerals, leave it the way it used to be before
30. Have you ever taken a trip down an Alaskan river? pipeline. We should preseve as much as possible-slow down
51.4% Yes progress. It is America's last frontier don't wreck it. Alaska
48.6 No should exist as wilderness area renewable should be developed;
I feel it properly done, energy resources can be used while
31. (If "no" to either Q. 29 or Q. 31) Have you ever wanted to leaving nature to revew itself. It doesn't need to spoile the
do such a thing? environment. There can be a compromise of wilderness inter
36.0% Yes ests and commercial interests with majore interest in wildlife
14.8 No preservation and limited exploration. There will have to be a
2.4 Unsure trade-off between the two standards; Our purpose is not to
46.9 Not applicable supply the nation's oil and you can't leave the whole state as
wilderness. You have to have a happy medium; Alaska is a
32. (If "yes" Q.31)Why haven't you? "state of mind", not a "breadbasket" for the gluttenous Ameri-
63.8% Not applicable can economy, nor a "park" for the affluent society. We need to
21.4 Not enough time and/or money approach our own lives with lugality and emphasize the
3.4 Never had opportunity rewards of spirit rather than things: Statements could be com-
3.0 Small children bined, but I don't think they will Disagree with first statement
1.9 No equipment - should not exist for the Lower 48; Keep as close to nature
1.3 Inaccessibility as possible and gel what is needed; Alaska is America's largest
1.5 Just haven't renewable and non-renewable resource state. The develop-
2.8 Other ment of all the resources would have a small environmental
0.9 No response impact on the state, but it is inevitable that the resources will
Other comments in numbers; not percents: Usually be drawn from the state and the best that can be hoped for is
go outside for vacations(2); Other priorities; Didn't that the amount of destruction to the property is controlled
think of it until now: Not enough knowledge (2); Also the wilderness should be left for hunting, fishing and
Haven't been here long enough (2); Plans didn't use of renewable resources and recreation: Why do they think
work out right; Never got it together; Too cold; Too we have to have a role in this game? Why can't we be free to
chicken to go alone; Husband doesn't want to. develop our resources without any burden of bureaucracy;
33. Are there parks, refuges or other scenic areas of Alaska Alaska is my home and whosoever desires anything should
you would liek to visit, but which are generally inaccessible contact us too, along with the state; If Alaskans were allowed
to you because at the cost of getting there? to, they could develop their own resources better than the
federal government; Feds should leave Alaska alone - some
61.9% Yes development, some preservation; Some areas of Alaska should
32.8 No remain undisturbed. Also feel the resources should be used;
5.4 Unsure I feel Alaska has already shared its resources without benefit.
34. How important is the scenic beauty and frontier rugged- Any in the future should be determined by Alaskans, Feel we
ness of Alaska to you , in terms of living here as opposed should make judicious use of renewable resources and wise
to another state? use of our non-renewable resources; If we can't use the
resources of Alaska we should give it back to Russia; Neither
80.3% Very important statement - Alaska need not be raped to supply the rest of
16.3 Somewhat important America and need not be locked up for birdwatchers; What was
2.6 Unimportant the agreement between Russia and U.S. when Alaska was
0.9 No opinion purchased by U.S. Isn't one going a little far off at times?:
Don't agree with either - you have to have roads to build any
35. Here are two statements about Alaska's role. Tell me sort of state; Statements must be combined - and there is
which one comes closest to your view, or it you feel these contradiction. Moderation is advised. They are beating a dead
statements can be combined-without contradiction. horse by getting progress up here. Save it for later. We should
Alaska is America's energy breadbasket, and its be able to drive to all places in Alaska. We need more roads
15.6% major purpose is 10 supply the nation with oil, gas, We also need the oil. I'm againest more parks. Oil rigs and
minerals, limber and other resources, without exploration might ramrod into wilds without proper planning
despoiling its natual environment. . . .d(2) bill is not a danger U S will use resources if neces-
Alaska is America's last wilderness, and its major sary: States do not have purposes. People here are obligated
purpose is as a habitat for undisturbed nature. to supply energy. Do it without screwing up our state. Should
26.3% the protection of migratory wildlife, recreation. be available for use by people. Both a bunch of malarky. Some
and scenic values, and without despoiling its place in the middle - both statments are to extreme (2).
economy It is not possible to have either one without contrade both (3)

AMEIMMW-@--- , __ .'': -, @ - , , I
118,111111111911i,
3 66158 14101 7881 -