THE NATI01NAL PARK SYSTEM IN ALASKA · Mount McKinley National Park 50 11 Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs, Mount McKinley National Park 51 12 Operation and Maintenance

THE NATI01NAL PARK SYSTEM IN ALASKA

An Economic Impact Study

by

Pamela E. Rich and

Arion R. Tussing

Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research University of Alaska

This report was made possible through United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Contract No. 8928P10803 to the Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research of the University of Alaska

Library of Congress Catalogue No. 73-620004 ISBN 0-88353-008-2 Series: ISEGR Report No. 35

Published by Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research College, Alaska 1973

Distributed nationally by the University of Washington Press

PREFACE

This report describes the impact of the National Park System on Alaska's economy. The economic impact of the Park System in Alaska has essentially two dimensions: expenditures by the federal government to operate and mamtain the various parks, and expenditures by park visitors, most of whom are tourists from outside the state. Of greatest significance is the impact of these expenditures on local economies, since the parks are located in areas with very restricted economic activity.

This study did not provide the opportunity to generate primary economic data. Rather, it was necessary to rely exclusively on public and private sources.

Valuable assistance in compiling information and statistics for this report was provided by the Anchorage office staff of the National Park Service, especially former general superintendent Ernest Borgman and the superintendents, staffs, and concessionaires in the parks. Neil Newton, Chief of the Bureau of Statistical Analysis, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. helped initiate this study and made helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors and the Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research gratefully acknowledge their assistance and also thank the helpful personnel of other agencies, particularly the Alaska Travel Division, the Alaska Division of Parks, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Forest Service.

Pamela E. Rich prepared this report under the direction of Adon R. Tussing. Ronald Crowe edited the report, and Peggy Raybeck prepared the manuscript for publication. The cover is by Patricia Kunz.

Victor Fischer Director, ISEGR

January 1973

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1

~m~cy 1 Methodology 4

CHAPTER II. INFLUENCES OF TOURISM AND OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE ALASKA ECONOMY 7

General Economic Background 7 Tourism 9 Outdoor Recreation in Alaska 14

CHAPTER III. THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM IN ALASKA 21

Glacier Bay National Monument 21 Katmai National Monument 34 Mount McKinley National Park 43 Sitka National Monument 57

CHAPTER IV. ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 61

Present Contribution to Local Economies and Alaska Regional Economy 61

Future Contribution of National Park System in Alaska 66

CHAPTER V. OPPORTUNITY COSTS 75

Mineral Resources 76 Timber Resources 80 Hunting 82 Recreational Use 84 Conclusions 86

LIST OF TABLES

1 Distribution of 1971 Tourist Expenditures of $45 Million 10

2 Alaska Tourism-Related Nongovernment Primary Employment, 1970 11

3 Projected Levels of Tourism and Investment Required by 1975 13

4 Comparison of Wages, 1964 and 1970 14

5 Reasons for Wanting to Visit Alaska, 1963 19

6 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures, Glacier Bay National Monument 28

7 Operation and Maintenance Costs - Concessionaire, Glacier Bay National Monument 29

8 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures, Katmai National Monument 38

9 Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs, Brooks Lodge and Grosvenor Camp, 1971 Katmai National Monument 39

10 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures, Mount McKinley National Park 50

11 Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs, Mount McKinley National Park 51

12 Operation and Maintenance Expenditures, Sitka National Monument 59

1:3 Tourist Expenditures Related to Use of the National Park System, 1971 6:3

14 Wages Paid in National Park Service, Permanent and Seasonal Employment, FY 1972 64

15 Projection of Visitor Use of National Park Areas, 1981 70

16 Levels of Investment Required by FY 1975, Park Service Operations 72

17 Operating Costs of Completed Facilities 73

18 Average Stumpage Price of Timber Sold on National Forest Lands, Alaska

19 Present Value of Yearly Cut at Varying Interest Rates 82

20 Travel Costs to National Park System Area, Alaska, From Nearest Major Urban Center, Round-Trip, 1971 85

21 On-Site Costs of Concessionaire Facilities, National Park System, Alaska, 1970 86

LIST OF FIGURES

1 The National Park System in Alaska (map) 2

3 Glacier Along Flank of Fairweather Range in Glacier Bay National Monument (photo) 24

4 Katmai National Monument (map) 35

5 Naknek Lake Near Brooks River Area (photo) 36

6 Mount McKinley National Park (map) 44

7 Mount McKinley and Alaska Range From a Point Near Wonder Lake (photo) 45

8 Dall Sheep in Lowlands of Mount McKinley (photo) 47

9 Totem Pole Along Trail Within Sitka National Monument (photo) 58

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Summary

This study evaluates the economic impact of the National Park System in Alaska (see Figure 1) upon local economies adjacent to the parks and upon the Alaska economy as a whole. The economic impact results from visitor expenditures and federal outlays for maintenance and operation of the four national parks in Alaska-Mt. McKinley, Glacier Bay, Katmai, and Sitka. These expenditures enter the Al ask a income stream, creating additional income and stimulating employment.

Economic Contribution of the Park System

The National Park System's main economic contribution is its role in stimulating the tourism and outdoor recreation industry. That this is a valuable contribution is emphasized by the importance of tourism and the outdoor recreation industry on Alaska's economy. For example, in 1971, the industry resulted in expenditures of $45 million by out-of-state travelers and generated up to 2,508 jobs ( 4 percent of the state workforce) in tourism-related services. The author's calculations have shown that tourists visiting one or more of the national parks or monuments in Alaska spent $29 million of this

~'>

'

~Q "-i:1:J

\ \ \ \

\ ofoirbottk5

\

~OUNT McKINLEY .......... ~~TIONAL PARK

\ \ \ \ \ ' ,, '._,..,_ ..

Figure 1: The National Park System in Alaska

$45 million, or approximately 64 percent of the total tourist expenditures, on their visits to these four areas. We can thus conclude that the four national park areas are the mainstay of the Alaska tourism industry.

Factors Limiting Economic Contributions of the Park System

The Alaska · The National Park System in Alaska is small relative to its potential, being limited primarily by the undeveloped structure of the Alaska economy. For example, no local economies exist adjacent to Alaska park areas which are comparable to those surrounding units of the park system in other states. Further, Alaska's economy suffers high leakage effects because federal and private organizations in Alaska buy a good percentage of their supplies and services out of state.1 These high leakage effects and a correspondingly low economic base multiplier limit the park system's direct economic contribution to the state's economy.

Because the relatively small spillover of monies into other economic sectors within the state are not unique to park-related activities, but are generally characteristic of Alaska's economy as a whole, we conclude that the park system's impact will become even more significant as the Alaska economy develops a broader economic base.

Lack of Accessibility: Lack of accessibility to the park areas has been another factor limiting the present economic contribution of the National Park System. Visitor levels have been generally low, especially at the more remote Katmai and Glacier Bay National Monuments. On the other hand, the opening of the new Anchorage-Fairbanks highway via Mount McKinley National Park and the resulting increase in tourist usage of the park demonstrates that improved accessibility increases visitor use level. This increase will enhance economic contributions of the park, since increased visitor use results in increased spending and demand for services, in turn generating additional employment and income.

Outlook

The National Park System in Alaska shows a considerable economic potential for Alaska that will not be realized until the economy develops a broader base and the transportation system becomes more highly developed. Therefore, the Park System's influence is that of a potential growth industry whose full impact will be in the long-term future. To evaluate its economic

t.o thP Park

System's interrelationship with the economic development of Alaska.

We further conclude that the economic effects of establishing areas under the National Park System are so positive as to justify their continuance and to recommend further additions where possible. The study also shows that sustaining the unique, natural, and historical qualities of certain areas is in the economic interest of the state, for these are the qualities which sustain the tourist industry. Rather than "locking up" vast areas of natural resources, the National Park System preserves for recreatiom1l (and educational) use these areas, whose socioeconomic value will increase greatly over time.

Methodology

The methodology for this study is the same as used in the Cresap, McCormick, and Paget study, A Program for Increasing the Contribution of Tourism to the Alaska Economy (1968). In addition, methodological insights were obtained from economic studies of National Park System areas in other states. National Pru:k Service expenditure ·and visitor-use data were compiled from records of the National Park Service and concessionaires. Alaska tourism data were obtained from the Cresap, McCormick, and Paget study; the Alaska Travel Division; and other studies of tourism in Alaska. In addition, useful information about outdoor recreation use patterns in Alaska was provided by the Division of Parks and Recreation. Transportation development plm1s and use levels were supplied by the Division of Marine Transportation and Highways.

The undeveloped structure of the Alaska economy, in particular the lack of identifiable local economies, made it impossible to carry out strict regional input-output analysis. Budgetary limits of this study prevented the collection of primary data. For example, while a survey of visitors to each of the Park System units could have established accurate visitor spending and use patterns, an accurate ratio of Alaska resident to nonresident users, and a better sense of the drawing power of the park areas in Alaska, we have had to rely on existing tourism and Park Service

The lack of any econometric analysis of the Alaska economy has made it impossible to trace the flow of Park System and visitor expenditures through the state economy. Generally, all of the Park System units are located in rural areas where, with the exception of Sitka, there is no local economic base. However, it is believed that each dollar of "outside" money spent on goods and services produced in the state generates about $1.50 of total income in Alaska.2 In the case of tourism it may be higher, as the multiplier coefficient tends to be smaller for capital intensive industries (such as petroleum) and larger for labor intensive industries (such as tourism). Also, this coefficient can be expected to continue increasing with the further growth of the support sector of the Alaska economy.

We have examined the impact of tourism through analysis of visitor expenditures and the level of primary employment stimulated through tourism-related services. Revenue generated was estimated from visitor expenditures in the categories of lodging, restaurants, transportation, food stores, personal services, and other. The level of employment generated was calculated on the basis of tourism's percentage contribution to total revenues in each sector.

The economic role of the National Park System within the tourism industry was calculated through estimates of percentages of tourists who visited each of the Park System units. These percentages were related to expenditure categories to compute total tourist visitor expenditures.

References

Rogers, George W. "Alaska's Economy in the 1960's" in Gordon Scott Harrison, ed., Alaska Public Policy, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska, 1971, pp. 81-82.

Tussing, Arlan R., George W. Rogers, Victor Fischer, et al. Alaska

Research, University of Alaska, 1971, pp. 115-116.

CHAPTER II

INFLUENCES OF TOURISM AND OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE ALASKA ECONOMY

This chapter outlines pertinent characteristics of the Alaska economy and describes the impact on it of tourism and outdoor recreation.

General Economic Background

State, Federal, and Private Lands in Alaskal

Alaska has a landmass of approximately 365 million acres, 99.8 percent of which is presently owned by the federal and state governments. Under the Statehood Act, the state may select up to 103.35 million acres, or 28.3 percent of the total area of Alaska: 102.55 million acres of "unreserved, vacant and unappropriated" public land, 400 thousand acres for education and mental health, and 400 thousand additional acres of "vacant and unappropriated" National Forest land for community expansion. The recent Native Land Claims Settlement (December 1971) granted the Natives of Alaska (Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts) a total of 40 million acres to be sPIPdE'd from lands surrounding 205 designated Native population cPnters. The Secretary of the Interior was granted authority to withdraw up to 80 million acres of unreserved public lands for inclusion as units of the National Park, Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The selections will require at least 5

years. Management of all lands will be affected as the often-conflicting relationships between federal, state, and Native interests are worked out.

Population and Growth Rate

Alaska's population was estimated at 304.6 thousand in the Cl70 Tt. thP around thP

major urban centers: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. Growth rate is higher then the national average: the annual rate between 1950 and 1960 was 4.8 percent; between 1960 and 1970, 3.3 percent. The growth rate is characterized by marked fluctuations, reflecting primarily the employment pat.terns of the Federal government.

Federal Government Influences on the Alaska Economy

The Federal government has been the dominant influence in the development of the Alaska economy. Federal outlays in the state in 1970 constitute well over 50 percent of the economic base sector. Federal employment, civilian and military, directly provided 45 percent of personal income, and about one-half of the total workforce was employed either by the Department of Defense or by a nonmilitary government agency. Thus, Alaska's economic base has been narrow, characterized by high leakage rates and small spillovers into other sectors.

Economic Growth and Change

Between 1960 and 1970, economic activity in Alaska, as measured by personal income originating in the state, more than doubled, and average employment grew by more than one-third. This growth was accompanied by a radical shift in the sectoral origin of income; Defense Department military and civilian employment were 42 percent of the total in 1960 and 29 percent in 1970, while the proportion of the employed workforce in the distributive industries

increased from 21 to 29 percent. This deepening of the service sector indicates an increase in the share of income generated in the state that is spent in the state. This general reduction of "leakages" and increase in income "multipliers" suggests that each additional dollar injected into the Alaska economy by tourists or by Park Service or concessionaire employees, will have a greater impact than it would have had a decade ago.

Tourism

The scope of the present study has not permitted the construction of an input-output model or other aggregate analytical model of Alaska's economy, and no such model is available elsewhere. However, because most of the activities associated with tourism have comparatively high ratios of value added to sales and high ratios of labor compensation to value added, the second and higher order effects of tourist outlays are without doubt higher than those of a similar level of expenditures in other of the state's basic industries, particularly oil and gas.

Tourism affects the state economy directly through visitor expenditures and employment in tourist-related services. The Alaska State Travel Division estimated that total tourist expenditures in 1971 totaled approximately $45 million. This estimate includes the portion of interstate airline travel attributed to tourism, but excludes all other costs of travel to and from Alaska.

Patterns of Tourist Expenditure

Previous tourism studies as well as studies of the tourist in Alaska have indicated that tourists spend their money in fairly wPll-l'st.ablished patterns. The following percentage distribution of tourist. expenditures shown in Table 1 is adopted from the Cresap, McCormick, and Paget study, based upon patterns established in ot.lwr states and modified to fit Alaskan travel characteristics.

Sector

Table 1

Distribution of 1971 Tourist Expenditures of $45 Million

Percentage

Lodging (including food and beverages) 30

Restaurants 20 Transportation 20 Food Stores 10 Merchandise 10 Other Services 10

Total 100

Amount (in millions)

$13.5 9.0 9.0 4.5 4.5 4.5

$45.0

SOURCE: Cresap, McCormick, and Paget. A Program for Increasing the Contribution of Tourism to the Alaskan Economy. p. II-9; authors' calculations.

Impacts of Tourist Expenditures

No comprehensive analysis has yet been undertaken to measure the impact of revenue generated from tourist expenditures. Lodging facilities and transportation facilities (including gas stations), the Alaska Railroad and state ferry system as well as airline package tours receive a considerable portion of their revenue from tourist expenditures. Table 2 presents estimated nongovernment primary employment generated by demand for tourist services. Levels of total employment in each sector have been calculated on the basis of the proportion of tourist expenditures to total revenue in each sector.

The total figure 2,508 (see Table 2) for nongovernment employment represents slightly more than 4 percent of the total nongovernment workforce. The Cresap, McCormick, and Paget study

estimated the same percentage for 1964; the Alaska Visitors' Association had a similar tourist workforce estimate for 1970.

Table 2

Alaska

State Tourism-Total Related

Lodging 1,680 756 Restaurants 3,019 362 Trans porta ti on 4,500 330 Merchandise 6,109 660 Guide Services 400

Total 2,508

SOURCE: Cresap, McCormick, and Paget, 1968, op. cit., p. II-10; Alaska Department of Labor, Workforce Estimates, 1970; authors' calculations.

Presently, the impact of spending and employment is felt most strongly in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. In those regions are found 98 percent of developed tourist and recreation facilities, and the transportation network, primarily highways, is most complete. The Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan estimates that 78 percent of the tourists visit Southcentral Alaska, 62 percent visit the Interior region, and 58 percent go to Southeast Alaska; the Southwestern and Northwestern regions receive only 11 percent and 20 percent respectively. 2

However, potential also exists in these outlying regions where more uniquely "Arctic" or "Alaskan" environments and life styles may be experienced. Airline tours are bringing tourists to Nome, Kotzebue, and Barrow. Transportation developments into these

regions will undoubtedly bring more people into them. Additional facility development could encourage the growth of tourism in these areas. If development reflected and sustained the fundamental qualities of these regions, tourism could stimulate local economies and nurture the growth of regional identities. Tourism can, however, also aggravate the already chronic Alaskan problem of seasonal employment.

The Future of Alaska Tourism

The future of the tomism industry in Alaska depends at least partially upon the ability of state and pdvate investors to provide necessary facilities that can meet and sustain tourist demand levels. The Cresap, McCormick, and Paget study maintained that the amount of overnight accommodations, the type and level of <level opment of the state's natural and historical sites, and improvements in the transportation network control the growth of tourist travel and expenditures in Alaska.3 No statewide information is available for the past and expected growth of lodging facilities. However, a study of Anchorage municipal facilities in 1971 showed that the number of hotel rooms in Anchorage and tourist volume in the state have been increasing and will continue to increase at least proportionately, from approximately 600 hotel rooms and 69,000 tourists in 1965 to 1,200 hotel rooms and 125,000 tourists in 1971.4 Analyzing the growth expectancies of these vaxiables, the team concluded that while transportation facilities could be expanded to accommodate a 15 to 20 percent annual increase in tourist travel, the investment in overnight facilities could handle at maximum a 10-percent annual increase. This would mean an investment of approximately $79 million by state and private investors, a massive effort given the high seasonality of the tourism industry and the general unavailability of investment and construction funds. However, the CMP team felt this level of investment could be supported by the tourism industry since the added facilities would attract more tourists and induce them to remain in the state for a longer time. Their level of expenditures in the state would increase accordingly. Table 3 illustrates the levels of investment required by 1975 to handle expansion of tourist travel at growth rates of 5, 10,

and 15 percent. The estimates are based upon the assumption that travel patterns established in the preceding years would continue.

Table 3

Projected Levels of Tourism and Investment

No. of Cumulative Investment Annual Growth Tourists Required for Additional

Rate in 1975 Overnight Facilities, 1975

5% 128,000 $ 39 million 10 186,000 79 15 265,000 117

SOURCE: Cresap, McCormick, and Paget, op. cil., p. X-3.

Although tourism is still a young industry in Alaska, it has shown increases since 1964 which attest to its relative and potential importance in the Alaska economy. For example, comparing wages in tourist-related industries with wages in other sectors (see Table 4) indicates that by 1970, the wages paid in tourism had increased by 119 percent, second only to spectacular increases in the oil and gas industry.

Tourism is a growing industry, and visitor numbers are projected to continue increasing about 10 percent annually. The significance of tourism as an Alaskan industry will continue to increase, valuable because its resource base is Alaska itself-its vast, relatively unspoiled natural environment, which offers a variety of cultural and recreational opportunities. However, developing the industry to increase its economic contribution threatens the resource qualities upon which tourism depends. Careful and appropriate planning will be necessary to expand tourist facilities in a manner which sustains the environmental qualities stimulating tourist demand.

Table 4

Comparison of Wages, 1964 and 1970

Industry

Contract Construction Oil and Gas Logging, Lumbering,

and Pulp Tourism a Metal and Other

Mining

Total Wages (Millions)

1964 1970

$66.0 $107.0 8.5 45.0

19.8 28.2 6.6 14.5

4.3 5.0

Increase 1970 over 1964

Amount Percent

$41.0 62% 36.5 429

8.4 42 7.9 119

.7 16

alt should be noted that "total wages" from tourism excluded wages from self-employment. If included, self-employment wages would substantially increase the amount of total wages.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, "Survey of Current Business, August 1971, August 1965." Alaska Department of Labor, "Statistical Quarterly," 1970; Cresap, McCormick, and Paget, op. cit., p. II-11; authors' calculations.

Outdoor Recreation in Alaska

Demand for and participation in outdoor recreation activities are influenced by two sets of factors: (1) the socioeconomic characteristics of the users and (2) the type and number of available facilities. 5 Outdoor recreation in Alaska is influenced not only by national trends, but also by several factors unique to Alaska, including facility development and leisure time use patterns. We will define demand variables on both the national and state levels.

Population, Disposable Income, and Paid Time Off

The socioeconomic characteristics influencing demand for outdoor recreation-tourism activities are population, disposable income, and the amount of paid time off.

According to the 1970 census, population in the United States was 203. 7 million, with an average annual increase of 1.1 percent. Per rapita disposable inrome in 19n9 was . compared to $2,000 in 1960, increasing annually about 7 percent.6 Annual paid time off per member of the labor force has increased from 2.5 days in 1929 to about 2.0 weeks in 1970; changes in the timing of increasing leisure enhance the possibility of taking vacations away from home.

Increases in Outdoor Recreation

The upward trend in each of these factors is matched with an upward trend in outdoor recreation participation. Greater proportions of per capita disposable income, between 3 percent and 5 percent annually, are being spent on recreation, particularly outdoor recreation. 7 Significant portions of leisure time are being devoted to outdoor recreation and particularly visits to federal and state parks. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) Study Report No. 20 showed that in 1960, one-third of the adults taking vacation trips (more than three days) and one-fourth of those taking weekend trips visited state or federal parks. The average number of visits to all the National Park System areas is increasing at an annual rate of 8 percent-faster than both the increase rates for both national population (1.1 percent) and per capita income (7 percent).8

Physical factors have undoubtedly also contributed-in particular, the increasing availability and promotion of publicly owned recreation/tourism areas, and quicker, cheaper, more convenient means of transportation.

Thus, the amount and timing of leisure, reinforced by increasing levels of income and degree of mobility are positively related to

participation in outdoor recreation, and positively influence use of the National Park System and other federal/state areas. This is a national trend which bears similar effect for tourism-outdoor recreation in Alaska and the use of Alaska federal and state recreation areas. The Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan (AORP) prepared in 1970 by the State Division of Parks and Recreation indicated that the majority of tourists participated in some form of outdoor recreation, particularly driving for pleasure (7 3 percent) and trail-related activities (71 percent). 9 It is probable that the extraordinary outdoor recreational opportunities offered by Alaska combined with the crowded conditions plaguing many facilities in other states contribute to this high rate of participation. Demand generally is influenced by the national set of socioeconomic variables; the following paragraphs, however, focus on several factors peculiar to Alaska.

Recreational Use Patterns

Leisure-time use patterns in Alaska are influenced more strongly than in other areas by the physical setting of the state. Continued exposure to the richness and diversity of the natural surroundings draws more people into active outdoor use of their leisure time. The AORP indicated a high participation in outdoor recreation activities with the following percentages of residents participating on a regular basis: 87 percent, trail-related activities; 80 percent, picnicking; 73 percent, sightseeing and driving for pleasure.IO

Importance of Accessibility

Nonetheless, the physical setting has also placed definite limits on the type and location of outdoor recreation activities. Difficult access into many areas of the state and the severe seasonality of some outdoor activities somewhat limits participation. For example, the remoteness of Katmai, Sitka, and Glacier Bay National Monuments has kept Alaskan visitation relatively low. Glacier Bay and Sitka National Monuments are accessible by air or water, and Katmai National Monument only by air. It simply costs too much for most

; r:,

residents to travel to one of these areas when approximately similar environments or experiences may be had closer to home. Before October 1971, Mount McKinley National Park was accessible only by private plane, train, or a 170-mile unpaved road; it was 533 miles from Anchorage, 349 miles from Fairbanks. The fall 1971 completion of the new Anchorage-Fairbanks highway, however, makes the park directly and rather easily accessible to two of the major population centers in Alaska.

Furthermore, tourism promotion is seldom directed at the local populations, and many Alaskans are hardly aware of the more remote units like Katmai and Glacier Bay. The relatively high rate of participation in sightseeing and driving for pleasure, 73 percent, as well as in trail-related activities, 83 percent, indicates, however, that Alaskans are heavily involved in those outdoor recreation activities possible in National Park Service areas. It is possible to assume then that with improved accessibility and promotion, more Alaskans will direct their sightseeing towards areas of the National Park System .11

Future of Recreational Activities

Socioeconomic characteristics essentially reflect national trends. Alaska's population is growing at a faster rate than the rest of the United States, with an average annual growth rate of 3.3 percent between 1960 and 1970.12 Per capita personal income is trending upward. The amount of leisure in Alaska is projected to increase at the national rate, insofar as labor practices will essentially be influenced by nationwide policies.

Thus, the socioeconomic factors of demand in Alaska are generally increasing as they are in the U.S. Coupled with the already established use patterns of leisure time in Alaska and assuming a trend towards improved accessibility and more recreational/tourism facilities, demand for and participation in a growing number of outdoor recreational activities in Alaska will continue increasing.

Reasons for Visiting Alaska

In am attempt to place the National Park System in the context of tourism and outdoor recreation in Alaska, we have identified the qualities which lured the tourist-outdoor recreationist to Alaska. Judging from both a 1971 and 1963 visitor survey, it appears that first of all, the undeveloped quality of Alaska-its natural resources and physical setting-makes Alaska unique among other states.

characteristic of Alaska offers a wide variety of experiences not necessarily obtainable elsewhere. The 1971 survey, conducted by the Alaska State Travel Division, indicated that "wilderness-related activities possible in Alaska" and the state's "natural setting" comprised a majority of 61 percent responses to the question "What did you enjoy most in Alaska?" Scenery, people, Mount McKinley, wildlife, mountains, glaciers, fishing, Valdez-Whittier ferry, wildflowers, and Homer were the ten highest ranking responses to the question, in that order. The results of the 1963 survey are illustrated in Table 5.

Several of the most important reasons for wanting to visit Alaska may be fulfilled by experiencing areas of the National Park System in Alaska. Insofar as the Park System embraces the natural, wild, scenic, and unique resource qualities, it can make an important contribution to the state economy through the tourism-outdoor recreation industry. This contribution will be described in the following two chapters.

Table 5

Reasons for Wanting to Visit Alaska, 1963

Reasons for Wanting to Visit Alaska

Scenery and wilderness A vacation in the wild,

uncrowded outdoors Chance to travel along

the Alaska Highway Chance to fish Opportunity to hunt Desire to visit a

friend or relative Adventure of the

"last frontier" Have considered living

there and would like to look Alaska over

Seeing Mt. McKinley Idea of traveling north

of the Arctic Circle Meeting some Eskimos Other

al,045 persons surveyed.

bl,051 persons surveyed.

Respondents Respondents Who Have Been Who Have Not

In Alaskaa Been in Alaska b

75.4% 83.3%

44.3 57.3

36.1 50.1 40.0 46.2 32.1 39.8

37.0 29.5

33.9 31.4

25.8 31.1 21.1 25.1

15.8 18.2 10.7 19.4 15.0 6.4

SOURCE: Little, Arthur D., "Survey of Potential Interest of Tourists." Travel to 11/aslw, 1968, p. 4 - Table 28.

References

1. All statistics quoted in this section are taken from: Tussing, Arlan R.; G. Rogers; V. Fischer; et al., Alaska Pipeline Report, University of Alaska; Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, Fairbanks, 1971, pp. 8-28.

2. Alaska Division of Parks and Recreation, Alaska Outdoor 1970 Vol 1. . 1 ri.

3. Cresap, McCormick, and Paget, op. cit., p. X-3.

4. Ellerbe and Consultants, "City of Anchorage-Preliminary Report for Municipal Facilities," 1971.

5. Little, Arthur D., Tourism and Recreation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, 1966, p. 61.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract, 1970."

7. Clawson, M. and Jack Knetsch, The Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966, p. 109.

8. Ibid., p. 185; Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 20, "Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults," 1962, p. 56.

9. Alaska Division of Lands, "Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan," 1970, pp. 1-16.

10. Ibid.

11. This assumption can be substantiated by the sharp increase in Alaskans visiting Mount McKinley Park this summer since the opening of the new highway. Full visitor counts, however, had not been completed when this document was published.

12. Tussing, Arlan R., et al, op cit., p. 8.

CHAPTER 111

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM IN ALASKA

Glacier Bay National Monument

Description

Glacier Bay National Monument is situated in the northwestern portion of Southeastern Alaska (see map, Figure 2). It lies between Icy Straits to the south and the Canadian border on the north. The area's dominant physiographic features are a result of glacial activity: the rugged cirques of the Fairweather Range, the icefields, glaciers, fjords, and coastal areas (see Figure 3). It is a large monument, 2,803,554 acres, whose primary protected resources are its glacial landscape and ecological diversity.

The region was set aside in 1925 as a national monument "to conserve this extraordinary segment of Alaska, the magnificent tidewater glaciers and mountain ranges in its natural condition for public use and enjoyment, and for scientific inquiry into glaciology and related ecological succession."! Since that time, the boundary has been enlarged (1939) by 900,000 areas, but reduced in 1955 by 29,118 acres to exclude Gustavus. Mining and subsistence and commercial fishing are legally sanctioned activities in the monument. There are 286 acres of privately owned lands, held as inholdings.

SCALE IN NILES 20 25

LEGEND AIRPORT

q,J RANGER STATION

ROAD

GLACIER

X PEAK

-·- PARK BOUNDARY

Figure 2: Glacier Bay National Monument

I CEFI

Figure 3: Glacier Along Flank of Fairweather Range in Glacier Bay National Monument

The primary resource protected by monument designation is the landscape. In a flux of continual change, the landscape has an unusual quality, with some areas only recently having been deglaciated, whereas other areas (in the Fairweather _Range) are becoming· glaciated. No other area of the National Park System so totally represents the glacier-sea environment. The Glacier Bay Master Plan expresses the need to maintain the ineplaceable quality of the landscape against the pressures of public use. Developed facilities are kept to a minimum; appropriate, nonconsumptive uses encouraged are exploring, climbing, camping, and scientific research.

The landscape is essentially divisible into three broad categories: (1) approximately 35 percent of the land is covered by snow, ice, and rock, (2) about 30 percent of the land is occupied by successional vegetation, and ( 3) about 35 percent is land of mature vegetation.2 Fresh water is found throughout the deglaciated regions, though many of the streams and small ponds are almost completely filled with ice.

Eighty-five percent of the Monument is occupied by glaciers .or contains geological features left by recent glacial retreat. The major glaciers are the Brady Glacier along Cross Sound, the Fairweather -in the north, and the LaPerousse extending west to the Gulf of Alaska.

I

The Fairweather Mountains occupy the western third of the Monument, extending roughly north and south for about 40 miles. Many peaks are over 10,000 feet high, the highest being Mount Fairweather at 15,300 feet. Complex glacial systems originate in these mountains. While glaciers in the St. Elias Range are retreating, those of the Fairweather are for the most part advancing. 3

The marine area is characterized by fjords and fjord systems of varying depths, carving glacial bays and "salt chunks" or nearly isolated basins. About 20 tidewater glaciers meet the sea at the inlet !wads.

The animal and plant life in the Monument are of particular int.ert>st as examples of post-glacial succession.4

The first plants to colonize an area recently covered by ice are prPdominantly wind-disseminated species such as mountain avens,

dwarf fireweed, willows, cottonwood, horsetails, and moss. These pioneer species are found in low depressions, clay outcrops, and rock-sediment interfaces where water supply and soil stability are more favorable; recently deglaciated soils are characteristically coarse, poorly consolidated, often dry and lacking in carbon and nitrogen. Alder may also be found among the pioneer species; it tends to grow rapidly due to its ability to fix nitrogen. Willows and cottonwood, although already well established, flourish in alder

1 also The mature zones are characterized by the spruce-hemlock coastal "climax" forest typical in Southeast Alaska, peat and pine muskegs and flatland bogs where drainage is poor, and alpine heaths and meadows in the higher altitudes which give way to crustose lichens and mosses towards the snowline zone.

Animal reinvasion of deglaciated areas differs essentially from plant: plants tend to invade as a series of communities, to be succeeded by another set; pioneer animals appear as individual species, to be joined by increasing numbers of species. Moreover, mammal movement into an area may be initially characterized by a transient movement, with a base of operation located in a more favorable area, and it is apt to be impeded by salt-water or other geographical barriers which exert no limiting effects on plant dissemination. Mammal reinvasion of neoglacial land is nonetheless generally successional; that is, tends to approach conditions outside neoglacial lands.

Twenty-eight terrestrial mammal species are known to presently inhabit the Monument. These include coyote, wolf, fox, bear, weasel, wolverine, otter, lynx, moose, mountain goat, shrews, mice, voles, beaver, marmots, rabbits, and bats. Cormorants, bald eagles, mallards, scooters, gulls, ravens, swallows, and warblers are some of the birds common to the Monument.

Harbor seals, sea lions, humpbacked and killer whales, and porpoises are most common marine mammals. Sea otters have been reintroduced into the Monument. Fish are abundant, particularly the following: salmon, Dolly Varden, char, herring, and invertebrates such as crab, shrimp, and clams.

The climate is dominated by the generally low pressure weather systems of the Gulf of Alaska, which bring much rainfall and moderate temperatures. Clear skies and rapid temperature changes occur when the winds shift to the north. Generally, the climate is like that of Southeast Alaska-temperate and rainy, with cool summers and moderate winters. Temperatures are mild, ranging between 50 and 60 degrees F. in the summer, and in winter between 20 and 30 degrees F. Average annual rainfall is about 81 inches; snowfall about ] 54 inches annually th011gh winter rains reduce total accumulation to about 5 feet.

There has been virtually no development in the region. Earliest traces of man, just outside the Monument, date back about 8,000 to 11,800 years. The Tlingit Indians were numerous throughout the Southeast but left no visible impact in the Monument. Mineral prospecting has brought a few people into the area during the last century, but the rubble of the John Muir Cabin is all that remains of these early prospectors. Current mining operations and visitor use in the Monument have until recently been rather low-key. However, rapidly increasing visitor use and potential mineral development are probable in the near future.

Access to the Monument is by boat or aircraft. Tour, charter, cruise, and private boats serve the Monument; there is no scheduled ferry service. Five cruise ships serve Glacier Bay and account for about 72 percent of the visitors.5 Alaska Airlines has scheduled service into Gustavus from Juneau and Skagway. Within the Monument, charter flights and boat tours are available. There is only one road in the Monument, linking Bartlett Cove with Gustavus.

Investment and Operations

Glacier Bay National Monument is one of the most undeveloped units of the National Park System. Relative inaccessibility has restril'LPd ust>; demand, however, is increasing, pressuring the Park SPrvice to decide what level of development necessary to meet dPmand is appropriate to the Monument.

Presently, the concessionaire-operated Glacier Bay Lodge at Bartlett Cove offers the only visitor accommodations in the monument. The lodge contains a kitchen, dining room, and cocktail lounge, and is surrounded by 20 individual lodging units. A dockside facility houses ranger headquarters and is the launching point for the concessionaire boat tours. A small campground and three trails-a mile-long nature interpretive loop near the lodges, a 9-mile trail to Bartlett Lake, and a 2-mile trail to Wood Lake on Geike Tnlet-complete the c:urrent visitor facilities. The National Park Service and concessionaire residential and storage buildings are in the Bartlett Cove area.

National Park Service operation and maintenance expenditures have been compiled in Table 6.

Table 6

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures Glacier Bay National Monument

1960 FYa 1965 FY 1970 FY

Management and Protection $ 44,334 $ 81,769 $139,125

Maintenance and Rehabilitation 60,256 54,698 161,500

Mission 66 Construction Program 53,429 97,000

Forestry and Fin' Control 3,800

Total $158,019 $233,467 $304,425

1972 FY

$139,600

145,420

$285,020

a1960 FY and 1965 FY expenditures combine Glacier Bay National Monument and Sitka National Monument

SOURCE: National Park Service.

Payroll figures for Fiscal Year 1972 are presented as follows:

Permanent Employees Seasonal Employees

TOTAL

$128,368 47,582

$175,950

Of the 13 seasonal employees, seven were hired out-of-state, six from Alaska

The concessionaire estimated visitor expenditures to be about $50 per person per day. Glacier Bay Lodge was constructed by the National Park Service in 1965 through 1966, at a total investment of some $1.5 million. The concessionaire made no initial investment. Table 7 presents a breakdown of expenditures since that time.

Table 7

Operation and Maintenance Costs-Concessionaire Glacier Bay National Monument

1966 1970 1971 Expansion Year

Investment Construction Materials Employment

Operation Supplies Employmrnt

'I'otal

$ 4,000

:38,000 1'1,000

$56,000

$ 8,000

68,000 4'1,000

$120,000

SOURCE: Frank Kearns, Concessionaire, Glacier Bay Lodge.

$380,000 210,000

10,000

106,000 50,000

$756,000

The concessionaire reported that "materials" were purchased in Juneau ($210,000). However, the lodge construction contractor was a Seattle firm, and construction materials were barged in from Seattle ($380,000). About 85 percent of his employees are nonresidents. 6

Use Patterns

Visitor use of the Monument has been increasing steadily since 1960: 900 in 1960; 1,800 in 1965; 29,700 in 1970; with a slight decrease to 25,700 in 1971. In 1970, 843 visitors stayed at the campground, and 2,935 at the lodge. An additional 17,841 visitors stayed overnight in the Monument, presumably on board cruiseships or private boats.

Visitor use patterns in Glacier Bay are influenced primarily by the existing transportation facilities. To a large extent, these determine length of stay, sphere of activity, and level of expenditure. For example, visitors entering via cruiseship (approximately 71 percent) are not usually permitted to disembark though this situation may change in the near future. Other boat passengers, arriving by charter or private boat, usually remain aboard when away from Bartlett Cove, some staying overnight in the interior regions of the Monument. The concessionaire-operated boat tour is available, leaving Bartlett Cove daily for a 9-hour trip to Muir Inlet. Some passengers leave the boat for overnight camping trips.

Most people arrive by air overnight at the lodge and take the boat tour the following day. Many visitors with private aircraft only spend a day. Floatplane service is available at Bartlett Cove for charter flights throughout the Monument.

The back.country receives light use relative to its size. The National Park Service attributes the following factors: lack of access, limited general awareness, rugged terrain and inclement weather.7 Likewise, camping is usually in the coastal areas. On the other hand, visitors make good use of the trails near the lodge.

Several research projects are underway, primarily glacial and post-glacial studies. Researchers, commercial fishermen, seal hunters, and prospectors constitute about one-third of all visitors.

The Monument (but not the lodge) is open year-round, though almost all visitors come between May and September.

Glacier Bay National Monument is bounded on the northwest and east by Tongass National Forest and on the northeast by public lands administered hv the Bureau of Land Management. Very little use is made of these adjoining lands, except for a small logging operation near Excursion Inlet in the National Forest. Some recreational hunting and fishing and a few mountaineering expeditions also occur in the area. Accessibility and rugged terrain appear to limit general use. No developments on the adjoining lands potentially affecting management objectives in the Monument are planned for the foreseeable future.

In the Monument itself there is some subsistence and commercial fishing as well as mineral exploratory work. The Tlingit Indians legally harvest about 200 hair seals each year in Monument waters. Commercial fishing is sporadic but sustained. The fisheries include: halibut with 14 boats in Glacier Bay, Dundas Bay, and Icy Strait; King and Tanner crab with two boats in lower Glacier Bay; and a small shrimp fishery with one boat in Lituya Bay. These operations have little impact on the Monument landscape. They have, however, made it difficult to propose closing areas such as Lituya Bay to motorized craft. In some instances, closing water areas may be desirable, although the prelimina1y wilderness classification proposal presently excludes all waterways since they serve as the primary transportation arteries.

Th ere has been considerable prospecting activity in the Monument, though no actual mining has yet taken place. Eight companies and/or individuals had among them 262 mining claims on which annual assessment work had been done as of March 1970. Only one of these claims, the Brady Glacier (copper, nickel) is patented. Prospecting to date has indicated the existence of significant molybdenum, copper, and nickel deposits. The "lost opportunity costs" of closing the Monument to mining will be examined in Chapter V.

Description of Local Region

Gustavus is the only town in the area of Glacier Bay National Monument. In 1970, its population was 64; population of the Yakutat-Skagway Census District was 1,149. Fishing and some logging operations form the economic base of the region (Lynn Canal-Icy Strait Labor Area). Employment is fairly seasonal, although some fisheries such as the halibut have a relatively long

nu=,,~+ in service industries ranges from 61 to 78 persons between June and September and 34 to 43 between October and March.8 The summer rise in service industries may be attributed to the influx of commercial and recreational fishermen.

References

1. National Park Service, "Master Plan-Glacier Bay National Monument," August 1971, p. 32.

2. Steveler, Gregory, and Bruce Paige, The Natural History of Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska, National Park Service, 1971, p. 4.

3. National Park Service, op cit., p. 8.

4. The following discussion is taken from Steveler et al., op cit., pp. 26-43.

5. Letter from Frank Kearns, Glacier Bay Lodge, January 1972.

6. National Park Service, op cit., p. 14.

7. Conversation with Lawrence Heiner and Jeff Knaebel, Resource Associates of Alaska, November 1971.

8. Alaska Department of Labor, "Workforce Estimates," July 1971.

Katmai National Monument

Description

Katmai National Monument, located on the northeast section of the Alaska Peninsula (see map, Figure 4), is a vast expanse of active volcanoes, lakes, valleys, and coastal inlets and bays, roadless and primitive (see Figure 5 ). The Monument was established by presidential proclamation to preserve the site of the eruption of the Novarupta Volcano in 1912 and the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes created by the resulting lava and ash. It was expanded in 1931, 1942, and 1969 to protect: the wildlife habitats to the north, important to the Monument region; the island and shoreline environments and wildlife of the Shelikof Strait; and the remaining western portion of Naknek Lake. Containing 2,792,137 acres, the Monument today is a diverse and more complete ecological entity.

On June 6, 1912, Novarupta Volcano erupted, destroying villages and trade routes, and creating the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes. Complete human abandonment of the area occurred at that time, ending centuries of use by the Aleut and possibly Eskimo and Athabascan peoples. Scattered remnants of villages and evidence of trade use make Katmai National Monument interesting archeologically.

The area is traversed by the Aleutian Range which divides it into three distinct regions. T,e western slope of the range includes glacial foothills, the moraine-impounded Naknek Lake System, and the Bristol Bay coastal plain. The rugged Aleutian Range itself contains 15 active volcanoes. TI1e Shelikof Strait coastal region on the east rises abruptly to the mountains and takes in several offshore islands. Monument vegetation includes white spruce forests in the foothills and mountains, lowland tundra in the western coastal plains regions, and snow alder thickets throughout.

The local climate is characterized by almost continuously cloudy weather. The coastal and mountain area climates are influenced by Gulf of Alaska weather patterns which are stormy and severe in winter months, mild and cloudy in summer. Rainfall is

~ 0~~:~:_··:,

lJ•c1,r,,.o,

LEGEND ROAD >< PEAK

RANGER STATION

GLACIER PARK BOUNDARY

o ABANDONED SETTLEMENT

Crll..

\ '°

NUKSHAK ,._ '?

~ ~

A..

N

+ 10 IC

:SCALE IN NILES

Figure 5: Naknek lake Near Brooks River Area

about 80 inches annually and the temperature range is in the 60's in the summer and 20's in the winter. The interior area, an extension of the Bristol Bay coastal plain, is colder, drier, and windier. Here squalls develop on the larger lakes with waves reaching heights of 6 to 8 feet, creating very hazardous conditions.

The Katmai region has abundant wildlife and fishery resources. The Monument is a prime habitat for the Peninsula brown bear as WP]]

foxes, Canada lynx, and many others. The many diverse habitats house a wide variety of birds-ducks, whistling swans, loons, grebes, gulls, and shorebirds. Eagles, spruce grouse, and ptarmigan are also found. Finally, it is a high quality fishing area. Brooks River and Lake are spawning grounds for the red and king salmon, rainbow trout, northern pike, lake trout, Dolly Varden, and Arctic Grayling, while others occur in lakes and streams.

Access to the Monument includes a daily flight from Anchorage via King Salmon (Wien Consolidated) and a road extending from King Salmon to the western end of Naknek Lake from which a boat can be taken into the Monument. Katmai is remote and expensive to reach, and its limited access is a major deterrent to more general use.


Visitor facilities at Katmai include the main concessionaire-operated lodge at Brooks Camp and a smaller fishing camp at Grosvenor Lake. Brooks Camp consists of a store, the main

lodge building with a kitchen and dining area, and several cabins for individual or family occupancy. Present capacity is about 65 people. Ranger residential quarters, cabins and wall tents, and maintenance facilities are also found at Brooks Camp. Nearby is a small undeveloped campgrnund. Jeep tours run daily to the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes along the only road in the Monument.

Operations and maintenance expenditures, including payroll and procurement of the National Park Service, are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures Katmai National Monument

1960 FY 1965 FY 1970 FY

Management and

Maintenance and Rehabilitation 1,936 11,901 64,950

Mission '66 Construction Program 300,000

Fire Control 4,000

Total $9,573 $329,278 $131,550

SOURCE: National Park Service

Payrolls for fiscal year 1972 are presented as follows:

Permanent Seasonal

TOTAL

1972 FY

70,100

3,700

$128,800

$35,333 39,707

$75,040

Of the seasonal employees, ten were hired locally and four from out of state for the 1971 season.

In 1950, the concession at Katmai National Monument was granted to Northern Consolidated, Inc., o/>W Wien Consolidated, who at that time built fishing camps at Brooks Lake and Grosvenor Lake. The camps were simple-wall tents and tent cabins; visitors were almost exclusively sports fishermen. During the 1960's, the facilities were expended and upgraded in response to increasing demand. Present capacity at Brooks Camp is about 65 people. All investment and operation costs have been carried by the concessionaire. Table 9 presents operation expenditures, payroll and procurement for the 1971 season. No earlier figures were available. The concessionaire stated that almost all materials were purchased in Alaska with the excl'ption of some articles for the store such as fishing tackle and

flies. All fuel was procured from King Salmon. Of a total of 14 seasonal employees, 11 (or about 78.5 percent) were Alaska-hired.

Table 9

Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs Katmai National Monument

Maintenance

Operations: Supplies Employment

Total

Brooks Lodge and Grosvenor Camp, 1971

$ 4,081.33

26,387.81 32,051.21

$62,520.35

SOURCE: Wien Consolidated Airlines, Inc., Chuck Petersen, Director of Tours.

Use Patterns

Primary visitor use has been concentrated around Brooks Camp where the main activity is a 13-mile jeep tour to the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes. Other recreational activities in the Monument include fishing and scenic air tours. The wildness and vastness of Katmai further present excellent backcountiy hiking, canoeing, or climbing opportunities. However, such use is still relatively w1common because the high transportation costs discourage many who might otherwise be attracted by these possibilities and because there is little encouragement for getting into the backcountry by way of trails or guide boats.

The majority of visitors are members of tour groups and fishermen. Military personnel from the King Salmon Air Force Base, researchers, backcountry users, and local residents account for the

rest. Visitor numbers have been rapidly increasing despite the limits imposed by limited accessibility.

1960 ............................................. 600 visits 1965 ............................................. 800 visits

-1970 ........................................ 11,800 visits 1971 ........................................ 10 ,420 visits

The rapid increase beginning in 1970 is largely accounted for by the extension of the Mo.nument boundary to include the western portion of Naknek Lake. At that end, the lake is accessible by road from King Salmon, opening the Monument up to use by residents of King Salmon and Naknek, particularly on weekends. There is also a military camp in the monument located at the beginning of the Naknek River, which is used primarily by the men stationed in King Salmon.

The lands surrounding the Monument are presently undeveloped. Those to the north are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (Lake Iliamna classification, multiple use), those to the south, by the state of Alaska. Hunting and fishing are major uses of these areas. Three camps are operated by the concessionaire to the north of the Monument. Adjacent to the northwest boundary is the McNeil River Wildlife Sanctuary (brown bear) set aside by the state legislature, managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

There is otherwise presently little pressure from competing resource developments in the Katmai area. Some commercial fishing and clamming occurs on the state-owned beaches and offshore waters of Shelikof Strait. Clamming in the past, however, has involved preparation operations above mean high water on Monument lands.I The state can lease subsurface rights for mineral, oil and gas exploration in the 3-mile offshore area of the Shelikof Strait. However, no leases or permits have yet been issued.

The United States Geological Survey conducted investigations of the Katmai area in 1956 to ascertain its mineral potential. They concluded that although possibilities for oil production existed, it would not be very practical.2 No other mineral zones have yet been identified in the area.3


King Salmon is 38 air miles to the west of Brooks Camp, but only 7 .5 miles by road to the western boundary and the military camp from where a boat may be taken into Brooks Camp. Its population is about 300, plus 500 military. Naknek is about 14 miles from King Salmon, and has a population of about 200. Fishing provides the economic base of this region. Petroleum development is

rrgion rh effects on the whole region.4 Services to recreationists, primarily hunters, contribute to the economic base. King Salmon has the major Alaskan Peninsula airport, receiving daily jet traffic. It is a key jumping-off place for points further south on the Alaska Peninsula where there are several hunting/fishing camps.

Katmai National Monument exerts some impact on this region, though not a large one. It has been estimated that about $40,000 of fuel for the Monument is purchased each year in Naknek. 5 In addition, tourists (campers) coming through King Salmon may buy groceries or equipment, or eat at the local restaurant. However, the higher costs generally discourage visitor spending in the local area.

References

1. National Park Service, "Master Plan-Katmai National Monument, Alaska," August 1971, p. 33.

2. Keller, Samuel and Hilliard Reiser, "Geology of the Mount Katmai Area, Alaska," U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1058 G, 1959, p. 293.

3. Alaska State Division of Geological Survey, Annual Report 1970, map.

4. Hatten, Charles, "Petroleum Potential of Bristol Bay Basin, Alaska," in Future Petroleum Provinces of the United States-Their Geology and Potential, AAPG, 1971.

5. Conversation with Gilbert Blinn, Monument Superintendent, September 1971.

Mount McKinley National Park

Description

Mount McKinley National Park (see map, Figure 6) embraces a large wilderness, dominated by the massive Mount McKinley (20,300 feet), and balanced by the surrounding glaciers, rivers, rolling tundra and taiga (see Figure 7). The Park is located in Interior

m the central part of the Alaska Range, and contains a total of 1,939,492.8 acres.

In recognition of the area's magnificent setting and vaiiety of wildlife, it was set aside as a national park in 1917, with lands added to the eastern boundaries in 1922 and 1932. The dynamic quality of the landscape, particularly Mount McKinley, has high scenic value. The diversity creates habitats which support an abundant variety of wildlife which is relatively easy to observe. The quality and diversity of the landscape and the wildlife in Mount McKinley National Park are the prime resources protected by park status, and they are the major drawing cards ai·ound which public use revolves.

The eastern portion of the Park is dissected by foothills, lateral ridges and high rolling plains, rising in the western portion of the main Alaska Range and its impressive peaks. Broad glaciers, visible throughout the Park, begin in the Alaska Range and are the source of the Park's many streams and rivers.

McKinley Park lies lru:gely above timberline, which occurs at 2,500 to 3,000 feet; consequently less than half of the total area is vegetated. The limited forest growth in the lower areas is referred to as "taiga," meaning white spruce forests interspersed with birch and poplar. In the open lowland areas, shrubs are the major vegetation form, including dwarf birch, blueberry, alder, lowbush cranberry, crow berry, Labrador tea, and rhododendron. At timberline, the lowlru1ds give way to wet and dry tendra. Mountain avens, dwarf birch, Labrador tea, heaths, crowberry, dwarf willows, and lichen are characteristic plants of these uplands. All growth except lichens ceases at the 6,000-foot level.

\

L..~\:JL1'11LI

~ GRAVEL ROAD

RANGER STATION

RAILROAD

<"., .... :) GLACIER

N

;~~{ ····.fi;

)rt.

A CAMPGROUND

X PEAK

-·- PARK BOUNDARY

10 " 20

3CALE IN MILl!:S

•'-'

'" ,.,-rf;f;;,. \~ )(Mount Ma~,

'.'\;; I;~,~· ':;::fr/,sJ _ / - ' ?"'"' ···· ····· GL x Mount Silverthrone

North Peak ')l 1-\ARPER • 13,220 19,470 /

)( Mount McKinley 20,320/

Mount Crossoy -12,800 ,

<~t~_:;t<:~)

/ x Moun, Foraker

/,/0'

~\ cr{~~\i: \ \•;. 0LACl<R

... \,.,··:i

I\"'' ,,\ .. / ,,-5 ... r·,./• : /

v·'\ ,. .. . / M'T. RUSSELL

Figure 6: Mount McKinley National Park

~

< ~ Dc\~,•E Min.

\99

The diverse habitats in the Park support many species of characteristic Alaskan wildlife. The animal populations coexist in healthy abundance, with overpopulation of a given species checked by natural predator-prey relationships and/or the limits imposed by range capacity. No exact animal counts have been made, but National Park Service estimates of large mammal populations indicate approximately 600 moose, 1,500 Dall sheep, (see Figure 8) 80 to 120 grizzly bears (subject to dispute), and about 800

carihou founrl in the Park rluring the last year 1 Caribou populations in particular have been fluctuating over the last 3 years; it was estimated last summer that 4,000 to 6,500 caribou summered in the Park. Changes in migratory patterns are not uncommon, and the caribou this last summer most likely remained in the range to the west of the Park. Ongoing studies of the present wolf population indicate three healthy packs in the Park. Caribou and moose are the chief prey of the wolf, and the extent to which Dall sheep fall prey to the wolf is mainly a function of the size and location (availability) of the caribou herd. Smaller mammals m·e infrequently attacked. Snowshoe hares and lynx are found mostly in the eastern portion of the Park. Hares experienee cyelic population growth and crash periods, which influence the number of the hare's chief predator, the lynx. Both hares and lynx are presently increasing. Other mammals include the wolverine, porcupine, ground squirrel, red squirrel, pika, hoary marmot, and red fox. Birds of particular interest to the visitor are: Ptarmigan ( willow and rock), eagles (bald and golden), jaegers, peregrine falcons, and several species of hawks and waterfowl. One of the primary values of the Park is that the visitor will likely see one or more of these species from the road. His chances, however, will increase as he travels off the road and moves deeper into the Park.

The climate is typical to mountain environments. Temperatures have a wide daily swing, but generally average in the 60's on summer days with subzero temperatures in the winter. Temperatures drop, however, with a rise in altitude, so more severe conditions may be expected in the higher regions. Average annual precipitation is little over 15 inches, with 7 5. 7 inches of snowfall.

Of particular importance in discussing the climate of the Park is Mount McKinley itself. The mountain is frequently obscured by

clouds as its sheer size and immensity tend to generate its own cloud formation. It is estimated that during the three summer months, the peak, viewed from Eielson Visitor Center, is:

Totally invisible about 30 days Visible 4 hours or less about 30 days Visible more than 4 hours on the remaining 30 days

The mountain is generally more visible from the southeast, along 8tate High way 3.

There are a couple of historical and archeological sites worth mentioning, although they have not been extensively rehabilitated. These are: ( 1) the Toklat Ranger Station, with a food cache and dog shelters, which was built by Grant Pearson in 1927 (it has been scheduled for preservation), and (2) the Sheldon Cabin which unfortunately is too far gone to warrant treatment. Although the area seems to have been sparsely inhabited during early times, 18 archeological sites have been located and identified as surface campsites. Interpretative potential of these sites is fairly low as compared to other archeological sites in the Interior.

The main mineral deposit groups in the Park are lead, silver, zinc, antimony, gold, and limestone. The principal mineral zones are West Fork Windy Creek, Mt. Eielson, and Upper Slippery Creek.2 Prospecting and mining have been allowed in the Park since its establishment in 1917. Factors relating to quantity and quality of deposits, remote location, and high transportation costs have hitherto made development uneconomical. Since 1917, 310 mineral claims have been filed; none are patented, and no ore has been extracted in any quantity. Most of these are in the same location and have been merely filed on repeatedly by different prospectors. In 1970, 93 individual claims in three general locations were considered active. Of these, only Slippery Creek has recently been explored in attempts to develop an antimony mine.

Ve1y little is known from the earliest history of the region, except that the interior Indians apparently revered the mountain as home of the earth spirits. The Kuskokwim Indians called Mount McKinley, Denali-the great one. History of white men in that area is

marked by early exploring and scientific forays into the region and, a bit later, mountaineering expeditions. The opening of the Richardson Highway and preliminary work on the Alaska Railroad around 1910 coincided with the Kantishna mines boom in the area to the north of the Park. Subsequent population pressures on that area, and particularly on the wild animals by market hunters, convinced individuals like Charles Sheldon that the area needed the statutory protection of a national park. The Pal'k was finally established in 1917

Although Mount McKinley National Park is the most accessible of all the Alaskan units, until recently, difficulty of access proved to be a deterrent to use. Before October 1971, car travelers not only had to drive the 170-mile unpaved Denali Highway to reach the Park; but after getting there they had to drive an additional 80 miles to be able to experience the total diversity of the Park environment. As a result, only about 50 percent of all visitors to the Park drove to the Eielson Visitor Center at mile 80. Only 30 to 45 percent of tourists entering Alaska via the Alaska Highway even visited the Parle In the fall of 1971, however, the new Anchorage-Fairbanks highway was completed, placing the Park directly on a major travel artery in the state; only 3 hours drive from the state's two major population centers, on a convenient route through Alaska for tourists. The anticipated large increase in the number of visitors to the Park has occurred, with preliminary estimates of visitor use indicating a 200 percent increase over last year's visitor levels.


Although more developed in terms of visitor facilities than either Katmai or Glacier Bay National Monuments, Mount McKinley National Park still has few facilities.

The hotel at the entrance to the Park is managed by the concessionaire, Outdoor World, Ltd. It has 131 rooms, with an overnight capacity of 376 people. There is also a central lounge area, a cmio shop, and a dining room and kitchen area which have been remodeled and enlarged this past winter. Other buildings in the area include supporting facilities (powerhouse, dormitory, and storage

area).3 The concessionaire sponsors two daily wildlife tours (6 a.m. and 6 p.m. ), a round trip interpretative tour out to the Eielson Visitor Center, 66 miles from the hotel. The tour lasts about 8 hours.

There are seven campgrounds located at various intervals along the Park road. The total capacity is presently 176 campsites.

There are 44.3 miles of trail within the Park, two of which are t.e rPtativP trails There are no maintained trails in the

backcountry.

Maintenance and operation expenditures, including payroll and procurement, of the Park Service for Mount McKinley National Park are represented in Table 10.

Management and Protection

Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Mission '66

Table 10

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures Mount McKinley National Park

1960 FY 1965 FY 1970 FY

$112,568 $145,803 $119,700

208,927 236,409 307,700

443,514 Construction Program

Fire Control 5,650

Total $765,009 $382,212 $433,050


1972 FY

$246,900

379,116

5,500

$631,516

The following shows payroll expenditures for fiscal year 1972:

Permanent employees Seasonal employees

TOTAL

$138,249 193,694

$331,943

Of the seasonal employees, 31 were hired locally and 15 from

out-of-state. Table 11 presents the operation and maintenance costs of the Park concessionaire. About 20 percent of concession employees are Alaska-hired. Management has stated that attempts to hire more Alaskans have in the past been frustrated by the high turnover rates of Alaskans seeking higher wages available elsewhere in the state.

Table 11

Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs Mount McKinley National Park, 1971

Maintenance

Operations: Procurement Payroll

Total

$ 88,743.69

253,340.03 212,133.46

$554,217.18

SOURCE: Mount McKinley National Park Company (Outdoor World, Ltd. current concessionaire, beginning January 1972).

Use Patterns

Visitor use ranges from escorted wildlife tours through the Park to challenging mountaineering expeditions. The major use of the Park, however, is a fairly passive day-use, consisting of riding out to Eielson Visitor Center or Wonder Lake (about 35 miles from the mountain) on one of the shuttle buses, spending a short time there and riding back out again. Although essentially restricted to the roadway, this type of use is valuable because it exposes the visitors to the Park's wildlife and scenic grandeur and each year more and more people are getting off the road and into the backcountry for hiking, camping, climbing. Both the guided tours and individual backcountry

outings are equally valid public uses of the Park, but they exert different pressures on the Park, demanding different sorts of facilities.

Management of the Park seeks to accommodate this full range of appropriate public uses while maintaining the integrity of the natural environment for which the park land was initially established. An example of this is the policy enforced last summer (1972) of restricting car traffic into the Park is anticipated off the new Anchorage-Fairbanks highway. Without restrictions, this increased traffic would have created serious travel hazards on the narrow mountain roads and would also have frightened wildlife away from the road. 'Ibis road, the means by which most visitors experience the Park environment, would be clogged by traffic, and visitors' chances for observation would be obscured by dust. Further road development would seriously disturb both the wilderness and wildlife of the Park. Therefore, free shuttle buses and vans have been provided in place of private vehicles. 'Ibe latter are allowed in the Park only to reach previously reserved campsites. Any travel beyond the campground must be on a bus or van.

Car campers account for the majority of visitors to the Park, with the balance arriving by train and a few by plane. Approximately 35 to 40 percent of the total visitors are Alaskans.4 In 1971, there were approximately 44,500 visitors to the Park, with a total of 41,380 overnight stays (a measure of each night a visitor remains in the Park).

Duration of stay varies as follows: 20 percent day-use; 60 percent overnight; 18 percent up to 6 days; 2 percent over 6 days. TI1e average was 2 days (overnight); the majority of hotel visitors are in this category. An average summer day in 1971 saw 300 to 500 visitors, with considerable peaks on weekends when more Alaskans visited the Park. 5

A<; with all the National Park units, visitor use of Mount McKinley Park has been increasing over the long-run, despite declines

in some years. These occasional declines generally reflect economic recessions and the vulnerability of the tourism industry to national economic fluctuation.

Visitor increases are as follows:

1960 ..................................... 22 ,500 visitors 1966 ..................................... 31,300 visitors 1970 .................................... .46,000 visitors Hl71 ..................................... 45,000 visitors

In 1972, the large early influx of visitors indicated spectacular increases at least through July.


The current suspended status of lands in Alaska as described in the introduction makes it difficult to accurately describe the Park's relationship with the surrounding regions, as this is bound to change when state, federal, and Native land selections are settled. Suffice it to say that, at present, the Bureau of Land Management manages most of the lands surrounding the Park; the state has tentative approval for patent on some lands directly on the northeast Park boundary. These are essentially wild lands, presently receiving light use, primarily hunting. Increased use is anticipated as one of the secondary effects of opening the new highway. To the south is Denali State Park which does not yet have any approved development plan. The state lands to the northeast of the Park have been open for entry-5-acre parcels feasible as recreational lands. The state has further indicated interest in about 4 .2 million acres immediately to the north and south of the western end of the Park. Howewr, these latter two areas have also been included in the federal withdrawals of Mru·ch 1972. Either federal or state ownership will significantly affect management objectives in the Park as permanent or transient settlement of these lands will undoubtedly have impact on wildlife habitats and populations.

In the early 1900's, the areas just to the north of the Park experienced considerable mining activity. Camp remains are still

evident and some buildings are periodically occupied. The Stampede Road which led into this area, is still used today, primarily by hunters and snowmobilers. At the site of the old Stampede mine is an airstrip, large enough to accommodate C-46's, which receives considerable use in both summer and winter. In addition, there are some old mining buildings, a cabin, and a small open pit mine which was mined on a small scale in 1971. Along Crooked Creek and Moose Creek there are more cabins, some of which are lived in permanently hy trappPrs and minPrs. ThPrP is a small airstrip at CrookPd CrPPk.

A seasonally operated wilderness camp, Camp Denali, is based on private lands outside the Park north of Wonder Lake. Guests come to Camp Denali to hike throughout the Park, led by those who know and understand the McKinley wilderness. In addition, Camp Denali is an economically viable enterprise, which emphasizes nonconsumptive use of the Park's resources.

Unlike the areas of other Park Service units, the locale surrounding Mount McKinley National Park has considerable potential for local economic development and growth because of its immediate highway accessibility to Fairbanks and Anchorage. Mount McKinley Village, near the entrance of the Park, is a good example of the growth of a privately owned service industry in response to demand generated by visitors of the Park. In the village there are eight motel units, and a gas station, restaurant, and general store.

There are several small communities in the area, particularly Cantwell, Healy, and Talkeetna. Local residents are often hired on park jobs, such as hotel construction or park maintenance; others are employed in service-related industries such as gas stations (three in the immediate area), laundromats, and cafes. There are also bush pilots who fly over the Park on scientific or recreational (primarily mountaineering) trips. However, except for the landing area at the recreational center, no aircraft may land within Park boundaries. The main economic base in Talkeetna, for example, is tourism recreation, particularly hunting and fishing trips and mountain climbing expeditions.

Three private campgrounds have opened this summer. Park management seeks and encourages growth of such private facilities on the Park boundary as a means to accommodate increasing visitor use. Local residents anticipate considerable economic and population growth in the Tri-Valley region, extending from Healy to Cantwell as soon as lands open up with final settlement of the Native land claims act. They see both the Park and the highway (which is the major state transportation route between Fairbanks and Anchorage) as the main stimulators of growth

The whole region smTounding the Park, especially to the east, has excellent outdoor recreation values. It can be assumed that with easy access now from both Anchorage and Fairbanks, considerable recreational and service industry developments will begin in the region. Cooperative planning and management of the state and federal lands will be necessa1y to sustain the recreational, scenic, and natural values of the region.

References

1. Tom Ritter, National Park Service Biologist, April 1972.

2. USGS, "Metalliferous Lode Deposits of Alaska," p. 229.

3. The hotel burned to the ground on September 3, 1972. Future building plans have not yet been disclosed by NPS.

4. Unpublished background papers, National Park Service, "Mount McKinley National Park Master Plan," 1968, p. 31.

5. Total statistics for 1972 had not been compiled at the time of publication.

Sitka National Monument

Description

Sitka National Monument preserves the site of the Battle of Alaska in 1804. The battle had significant impact on Alaska, its Native people, and its relationship with the United States. The battle marked the last major battle of Native resistance to European domination in Alaska. Although the Tlingit Indians did not surrender to the Russians, their land was occupied from then on. Had the Russians been kept out of Sitka, it is probable that the whole Alaska region, like the Canadian North, would have eventually been taken by the British.

The Monument occupies 54 acres in the town of Sitka. In addition to the old fort and battlesite, there is the Cultural Center in the Monument, serving as an interpretative center for Tlingit culture and art. A special program offered by the Center is a craft instruction program designed to serve as a center for the continuing of Native arts and crafts in Southeast Alaska. Eighteen Tlingit Indian totem poles (see Figure 9) line a walking path through the Monument.

Sitka is a scheduled stop for one of the ferry routes of the Marine Highway System. It is also accessible by air from Juneau, Anchorage, and Seattle.

Investments and Operations

Sitka National Monument operates as an interpretative educational center. Expenditures involve the construction and maintenance costs of facilities necessary to fulfill this objective, for example, rehabilitation of totem poles and acquisition of examples of Tlingit culture. Table 12 describes Park Service expenditures.

Employment expenditures for fiscal year 1972 were as follows: Permanent employees $41,694 Seasonal employees 6,195

TOTAL $47,889 Of the four seasonal employees, two were hired locally from Sitka.

Figure 9; Totem Pole Along Trail Within Sitka National Monument

Table 12

Operation and Maintenance Expenditures Sitka National Monument

1960 FYa 1965 FY 1970 FY 1972 FY

Management and

Maintenance and Rehabilitation 60,256 54,698 24,300 44,400

Mission '66 Construction Program 53,429 97,000

Fire Control 3,600

Total $158,019 $233,467 $56,375 $139,500

a1960 FY and 1965 FY expenditures combine Glacier Bay National Monument and Sitka National Monument.


Use Patterns

The Monument is an historical monument, and the major use is educational, that is, sightseeing. The focus of the Monument is the history and culture of the surrounding region. It provides a specific asset to enhancing the visitor's experience of Southeast Alaska.

Sitka has a rich historical heritage, as capital of Russian America and site of the transfer of ownership from Russia to the United States. Other historical resources situated in Sitka ru."e Castle Hill, an ancestral home of the Tlingit people, the Sitka Lutheran Church, the Sitka Centennial Building, and the Sheldon Jackson Museum housing a rare and rich collection of early Alaskan artifacts. The Old Russian Orthodox Church was a key tourist attraction until it burned in 1967. Fortunately, most of the relics were saved, and have been temporarily housed in the museum while the church is being rebuilt.

Use of the Monument is also probably influenced by the large tourist recreational use of the entire region. Sitka is well situated in

the midst of the water-island world of Southeast Alaska, and is itself in a beautiful setting. The North Tongass National Forest, with the Sitka Ranger District of 2,686,000 acres, is a major recreational, timber, and watershed resource typical of most of Southeast Alaska. It provides opportunities for recreational and commercial use, and undoubtedly attracts people to the southeastern regions who then visit Sitka.

over the last decade. This will continue as ferry routes are expanded and airline service is improved. Visitation to the Monument reflects this upward trend, from 15,500 visitors in 1960, 25,800 in 1965 and 43,200 in 1971.


The population of Sitka in 1970 was 3,332. The region, including Sitka, Mt. Edgecumbe (Japonoski Island), Jamestown Bay and Halibut, plus several outlying villages, counted about 6,109 people in 1970.

Attracting 4,000 people a year, Sitka National Monument can have a significant impact on the local economy. The Monument attracts people to the city of Sitka, but since no visitor facilities are available at the Monument, visitor expenditures associated with a visit will feed directly into the local Sitka economy. In the following chapter, we will give estimated distribution of these expenditures, as well as an indication of their economic impact. The relative stability of service industries employment indicates that the impact is somewhat less seasonal than in other regions, although of course a tourist peak is reached during summer months.

CHAPTER IV

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Present Contribution to Local Economies and Alaska Regional Economy

The economic impact of the National Park System is a measure of visitor expenditures and operation and maintenance expenditures and their impact on a local or regional economy. These expenditures will enter the income stream directly, stimulating additional income through spending and employment. The impact is variable, depending on the level and type of use related to the particular park unit in any given locale. In Alaska, local economies are just beginning to develop; the major impact, therefore, is felt on the Alaska regional (state) economy.

Visitor expenditures have a direct impact on the locale surrounding the individual park unit. Visitors demand goods and services, the purchase of which generates personal income in the local m·ea. In Glacier Bay and Katmai National Monuments, the directness of this impact is low since most visitor spending remains in the Monuments. The majority of tourists stay at the concPssionaire-operated lodges which provide the tourists with what they 1wed. However, daily expenditures in these two areas are high

($35 to $50 per person). In Mount McKinley National Park and Sitka National Monument, on the other hand, local impact tends to be higher. Highway accessibility to the Park (only 3 hours from Fairbanks where almost all services are available) and lack of tourist facilities in the Monument encourage visitor spending outside both Park Service areas for tourist and recreation-related services-lodging, restaurants, and gasoline stations. In Table 13, we estimated that of a total expenditure of $29.8 million, $13.2 million was spent in 1971

by tourists visiting Katmai National Monument, $7 .0 million by tourists visiting Glacier Bay National Monument, and $9.3 million by tourists visiting Sitka National Monument. (This represents monies spent both inside and outside of park areas.) Expenditures associated with the use of Mount McKinley National Park are the highest. This is due primarily to the types of users-car campers-whose daily expenditures are high. Another cause is that people tend to remain in the region for a longer time. Sitka National Monument also shows a high total expenditure. It should be noted that with no facilities inside the Monument, this spending goes directly into the local economy: $1.7 million for lodging; $2.1 million for transportation services; $2.1 million for restaurants; and $3.2 million for other services such as amusements, laundromats, drug stores, etc.

National Park Service operating expenditures will also have an impact on personal income through purchasing of goods (procurement) and employment (payroll). The preceding chapters have indicated the level of these expenditures. In fiscal year 1972, total spending (which includes payroll, procurement, and fire protection) for the Alaska National Parks and Monuments, including the Alaska group office was $1,518,176.1 For the most part, these expenditures have an aggregate effect on the total Alaska regional economy, rather than on smaller town or local economies. Few materials necessary for operation are purchasable in the respective localities with the following exceptions: fuel purchases by Katmai National Monument in Naknek, the nearby port (approximately $40,000); payroll expenditures to locally hired seasonal employees. The payroll expenditures paid to Alaska seasonal employees and permanent employees represent income generated by Park Service employment directly felt in Alaska. The breakdown of total NPS employees payroll of $890,670 (income generated) in Alaska for 1971 is presented in Table 14.

Table 13

Tourist Expenditures Related to Use of the National Park System, 197 a ·~~~~~~~~~

Exgendituresd (~ millions)~ Percent Total

Park or Total Number of of Total Transpor- Restau- Expendi-Monument Visits Tourists (130,000)b LodgingC tation rants Othere tures

Mt. McKinley 45,000 44,200 34.0 2.510 3.060 3.060 4.590 13.220 Katmai 10,424 1,170 .9 .006 .081 .081 .121 .349 Glacier Bay 25,708 23,400 18.0 1.330 1.620 1.620 2.430 7.000 Sitka 43,246 31,200 24.0 1.770 2.160 2.160 3.240 9.330

Total 124,378 99.970 76.9 5.676 6.921 6.921 10.381 29.899

aThe expenditure figures presented in this table represent the amount spent in use of each Park Service unit, calculated on the basis of percentage of tourists which visited the area and the percentage distribution of total expenditures. The latter amounts to $7.4 million, $9.0 million, $9.0 million, and $18.5 million for lodging, restaurants, transportation within Alaska, and miscellaneous goods and services, respectively.

bPercentages have been calculated from Alaska Travel Division 1971 Visitor Survey. The above percentages of parties out of a total of 17.394 parties responded positively to having visited Mt. McKinley National Park, and Glacier Bay. Katmai. and Sitka National Monuments.

cLodging expenditure has been calculated on the assumption that 45 percent of tourists are camping, thus spending a marginal sum on lodging.

dBased on total tourist expenditure of $45 million in 1971; general expenditure distrik,tion of 30 percent for lodging, 20 percent restaurants, 20 percent transportation. 30 percent miscellaneous. It should be noted that these distributions will vary for each National Park unit; this table merely presents generalized spending patterns.

elncludes food stores. merchandise, personal services (laundry, drug store, etc.).

SOURCE: Alaska Travel Division 1971 Visitor Sur.-ey (unpublished); Cresap, McCormick. and Paget, op. cit., p. II-9: and authors' calculations.

Park or Monument

Mt. McKinley Glacier Bay Katmai Sitka Alaska Group

Office

Total

Table 14

Wages Paid in National Park Service Permanent and Seasonal Employment, FY 1972

Number of Employees Wages Paid

Seasonal Total hired in

Permanent Seasonal Alaska

13 46 31 10 13 6

2 14 10 4 4 2

17

46 77 49

Permanent

$138,249 128.368

35.333 41.694

259.848

$603,492

Total Seasonal

$193,694 47,582 39,707

6,195

$287 .178

Seasonal Total hired in Alaska

$108,935 17,287 28,191

3,097

S157,510

wages Paid

$331,943 175,950 75.040 47,883

259,848

$890,670

SOURCE: National Park Ser.ice.

Procurement expenditures totaled $135,248 in calendar year 1970 and $343,173 in 1971. The large increase for 1971 is account~d for by hotel construction in Mount McKinley National Park (a portion of $90,000), and roughly $8,000 spent in Sitka for totem pole rehabilitation. Of these expenditures, the National Park Service estimated that $116,496 (86 percent) and $320,790 (93 percent) was spent in Alaska for fuel and equipment parts in 1970 and 1971, respectively. Such materials as office supplies, tools, furniture, rugs, and heavy equipment state, totalling $22,383.2 Approximately $90,000 was spent jointly by the National Park Service and the concessionaire in renovating Mount McKinley Hotel. All this money was spent locally in Anchorage, all materials purchased within the state and all laborers hired locally, many from the region near Uw Parle

We cannot measure the indirect leakages of operation expenditures or leakages resulting from non-Alaskan employees spending wages outside of Alaska. The closest measurement of spending impact in Alaska may be arrived at by subtracting known direct leakages of $22,383 from total National Park Service operating expenditures, including payroll and procurement, of $1,518,176 and by adding the resulting figure to total visitor park-related expenditures of $29,899,000. This gives a total of $31,394,793 spent in operation and use of the four National Park Service areas in Alaska.

This total expenditure has a secondary impact through the multiplier effect which is generally believed to generate about 1.5 dollars additional income for each dollar of "outside money" spent in Alaska. 3 Spending associated with the Park creates a demand for local or regional services and commodities. To fulfill this increased demand more recreation-related services must be provided to create morP jobs and increase personal income. This situation is clearly reflected in the Mount McKinley Park region where increased visitor use is generating not only more spending in the local area, but is also creating a greater demand for services. With the added presence of a national park, the natural growth potential of a region dissected by a major state highway is substantially enhanced.

Future Contribution of National Park System in Alaska

Use Projections

Development of physcial facilities, accessibility, and socioeconomic characteristics of the user population influence use of any recreation/tourism area. Since future use is determined by the direction of trends of each of these variables, projections of use

the following assumptions:

1. Lodging and recreational facilities attract visitors to an area. We make' the assumption that development of more facilities will draw more people into the area. However, future development of facilities reflects regional economic characteristics and priorities. Since these define the limits of development, trend patterns can only be determined regionally.

2. A transportation network determines the accessibility of an area, and hence the level of use it will receive. Trend assumptions may be made again only on the basis of regional economic characteristics.

3. The principal socioeconomic factors-population, disposable income, and amount and timing of leisure (paid time-off)-will continue rising in the United States: national population has risen about 1.3 percent during the last decade and will continue at the same or a slightly lower rate (1.1 to 1.3 percent); per capita disposable income is rising 2.5 percent annually;4 paid time-off per member of the labor force having increased from .4 weeks in 1929 to about 2.0 weeks in 1970, will continue increasing by a total of 12 percent by the year 2000.5

4. Patterns of leisure time use and disposable income spending will continue to be oriented towards some form of outdoor recreation. For example, visits to the national parks in the country as a whole are increasing about 8 percent a year and can be expected to continue at at least this rate. As all the above variables trend upward, so will

demand and use pressures on existing outdoor recreation/tourism facilities increase.

The above national characteristics and trends will also affect tourism and outdoor recreation in Alaska. The projected rate of increase for tourism is 10 percent annually, 6 and for visits to each unit of the National Park System, 10 to 15 percent annually.? These figures represent the maximum rate at which the state and Park Service can provide the necessary They are relatively high compared to other states because use pressures in other states are creating a high demand for the comparatively "unspoiled, uncrowded" Alaska and because the present deterrents to use, primarily accessibility, are fast disappearing.

The projected rate of tourism increase was made in 1968 by Cresap, McCormick, and Paget. Since that time, however, tourism increases have in fact been slightly higher: in 1971, there were 130,000 tourists visitors to Alaska, 15,000 more than anticipated in 1968. This is an increase of about 11 percent annually. At this rate, about 190,000 tourists will visit Alaska in 1975 (compared to 186,000 projected for 1975 by Cresap, McCormick and Paget).

Although visits to the National Park System units are projected to increase at about the same rate as tourism, proportionate tourist visitor levels are much lower: in 1971, approximately 24 percent of tourists visited Sitka National Monument, 18 percent Glacier Bay National Monument, 34 percent Mount McKinley National Park, and 0.9 percent Katmai National Monument.8 Limited access to the units is the major cause of low visitation, and the following transportation development, if carried through, will significantly lessen these locational constraints.

1. Highway Construction

(a) Completion of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway in October 1971 should effectively increase visitor use of Mount McKinley National Park by approximately 70 percent. It is assumed that 90 percent of all visitors entering via the Alaska Highway will visit the

Park, now directly situated on a natural "loop route" through the state. Bus tours out of Anchorage and Fairbanks will increase the number of tour visitors able to visit the Park. The Park is likewise more accessible to residents of the state. This increase means a possible 96,000 visitors in 1972 compared to 58,300 in 1971.9 The Alaska Department of Highways estimates an average daily traffic of 1,890

1969, represents a sixfold increase in traffic over the 20-year period. Investigators believe this is a low estimate.

(b) The 20-Year Highway Plan prepared by the Department of High ways includes an Alaska Peninsula crossing making Katmai directly accessible by road and a Haines-Juneau highway which could have considerable impact on the accessibility of Glacier Bay National Monument.

2. Marine Highway and Cruise Ships

(a) Southeastern: Current expansion program of the Marine Highway System includes service either to Gustavus or Bartlett Cove, serving Glacier Bay National Monument directly from the Juneau-Sitka route. Three or four trips per week in each direction with a total weekly capacity of 500 passengers and 50 vehicles is the expected load. Division of Marine Transportation projects a potential of three to four vehicles and 10 to 15 people per day visiting the Monument initially from the addition of this route, with an annual increase of 15 to 20 percent if adequate facilities and transportation are provided. Currently, 3,900 visitors are transported to Sitka by the Marine Highway. Planned capacity expansion of the system will allow about a 10-percent annual increase for the next 5 years, with a long-term annual increase projected at 5 percent.10

(b) Alaska Peninsula: There is a possibility of a trans-Alaska Peninsula highway. A proposed marine link is the Anchorage-Kodiak ferry "Tustumena" available for service from the highway terminus on the eastern coast of the peninsula. Average daily traffic capacity would be 35 to 40 vehicles in addition to regular service capacity on the primary route. This is thought to be adequate for the first few years. An additional vessel, with an average daily traffic capacity of 175 to 200 vehicles, would be constructed to service the Homer-Alaska Peninsula route as traffic warrants.11

The combined effect of the above transportation developments and the described socioeconomic trends is to significantly increase use of the Alaska National Park Service areas over the next 20-year period. Least-squares exponential trend lines of visitor use for Alaska units of the Park System to 1981 are shown in Table 15. Although there is no reason to assume that recent historical growth rates will remain unchanged, these figures provide a useful referent. These figures and the estimated annual visitor increase of 10 to 15 percent provide useful guidelines in measuring the potential impact of visitor use on the areas to apply the necessary management guidelines.

Table 15

Projection of Visitor Use of National Park Areas, 1981

National Park or Monument

Glacier Bay Katmai Mt. McKinley Sitka

Total


Actual 1971

25,700 10,400 44,500 43,300

123,900

Projected 1981

63,100 24,300

433,600 89,900

610,900

As the above use levels are realized, however, it will be necessary to examine management strategies which will meet the demand and absorb use-impact. The alternatives are many: expanding facilities ad infinitum; limiting use; constructing facilities, trail, and shelters to better distribute use; establishing "use nodes," centralizing development in an area where the impact is easily controlled; and placing facilities outside National Park Service areas. The National Park Service prepares master plans for each area in an

the resource qualities which merited initial recognition of the area as a National Park or Monument.

In the two preliminary master plans most recently completed, Katmai and Glacier Bay, it is apparent that mere maximization of visitor numbers is not a fundamental objective of the National Park System. In the master plans, they have recognized the highest value of the Monuments to be their natural environments in an undisturbed state. Subsequently, developments suitable to wilderness-type parks are planned for Glacier Bay and Katmai for the purpose of "providing the maximum protection of the wild lands and life forms, coupled with ample visitor opportunities for enjoying a compatible wilderness experience." 12

The master plan for Katmai lays out a management framework which balances and distributes the impact of increasing visitor-use loads in order that Katmai may remain a "viable wild region" (Master Plan Introduction). It provides for three primary levels of development for visitor use and accommodation appropriate to particular regions within the Monument. Within the next 5 years, the overnight facilities at Brooks Camp will be expanded to 100 beds and maintained at that level. The primary use center will shift to the northwest arm of Naknek Lake, the nucleus of accommodation, service, recreational and transportation facilities. Two smaller and less developed visitor-use facilities will be set farther into the Monument area and several wilderness shelters in the most remote regions. In keeping with the wilderness qualities of the area, no new roads are planned within the Monument. Plans instead include the refinement of present boat and air travel patterns, and minimal improvements in the existing jeep road.

The master plan for Glacier Bay schedul.es even less development within the Monument, encouraging development of facilities in the adjacent town of Gustavus, outside the Monument boundaries. Within the Monument, lodging facilities will be expanded to double the present capacity, to a total of about 130. Transportation will continue to be restricted to boat and air, with some expansion of the current park-supervised routes. Wilderness shelters will be provided in the backcountry. The McKinley Hotel burned to the ground in September 197'.J, Future for tourist accommodations there have not yet been finalized.

Proposed Investment and Operation Expenditures

In Alaska, it is apparent from the master plans prepared for Katmai and Glacier Bay and from programs initiated in Mt. McKinley that the National Park Service is seeking methods to distribute visitor use appropriately through an area and is encouraging development of facilities beyond the park or monument boundary. All plans involve some expansion and reorganization of facilities within the areas beginning in the next 5 years. The funds appropriated for expansion will have an impact on the Alaska economy, particularly through employment of Alaska residents for the projects.

Table 16 presents their projections of the expenditure requirements necessary to meet their expansion and rehabilitation plans. The figures represent investment costs, including payroll and procurement. Table 17 indicates the operating costs of the expanded units upon completion.

Table 16

Levels of Investment Required by FY 1975,

Park Service Operationsa

Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Monument

Mt. McKinley Glacier Bay Katmai Sitka

and Utilities

$570,000 477,000 189,000

7,000

Expansion of Existing or New Facilitiesb

Concession Camp-Facilities - grounds Lodging/ Visitor Personnel Nature Utility Center Quarters Trails Docks

$293,000 $36,000 86,oooc $555,000 $596,000 65,000 $250,000 449,000 200,000 24,500 261,000 5,000 16,000 45,000 180

Total - All Units

a Figures are subject to change by National Park Service.

and Trails

$1,270,000 150,000 513,000

15,000

Total

$2,169,000 3,697,750 1,636,500

88,180

$7,591,430

bNo expenditures planned for expanding backcountry management.

cCarried by concessionaire.

SOURCE: National Park Service, "Development Package Proposal," November 19, 1970.

Facilities and services

Buildings and Utilities

Trails Visitor Center

Table 17

Operating Costs of Completed Facilities

Expansion, Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Mt. McKinley Glacier Bay Katmai

$13,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,500

6,500 5,000 14,500

Personnel Quarters 3,100 Campgrounds 1,000 3,500 Docks 5,000

Total $21,000 $18,600 $16,000

Grand Total -- $58,200

Sitka

$2,400

200

$2,600

SOURCE: National Park Service, "Development Package Proposal," November 19, 1970.

References

1. National Park Service, unpublished financial statements.

2. Interview with Mr. Mahurin, National Park Service, Accounting Office, Anchorage.

3. Tussing, Arlon R. George W. Rogers, Victor Fischer, et al. Alaska Pipeline Report, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska, 1971, pp. 115-116.

4. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates and Projections, Current Population Report, Series P-25, No. 476, February 1972.

5. Bureau of the Census, "Statistical Abstract of the United States," 1970, p, 312.

6. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970; Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L., Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, p. 17.

7. Cresap, McCormick, and Paget, op. cit., p. X-3.

8. Projection rates used by National Park Service, expressed in Master Plans for Katmai and Glacier Bay National Monuments, August 1971.

9. Preliminary 1972 visitor-use statistics indicated that this projection was far too law; use has increased approximately twofold.

10. Alaska Travel Division, Alaska Visitor Survey, 1971.

11. Letter from Division of Marine Transportation, July 28, 1971.

12. National Park Service, "Master Plan-Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska," August 1971.

CHAPTER V

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

Mount McKinley National Park and Glacier Bay and Katmai National Monuments were established in recognition of the areas' unique scientific, scenic, and natural qualities. At this time, the lands were set aside for public use with the understanding that their preservation would be of recreational, scientific, and aesthetic value both to present and future generations. For this reason, these areas are managed in ways to insure their continuing existence as natural environments and to exclude commercial or consumptive resource development (such as mining, logging, or hunting).

However, certain economic costs must be considered in closing these areas to resource development. The development potential of these areas must be analyzed before permanent wilderness plans for the areas are made final. For example, mining is presently allowed in Glacier Bay National Monument and McKinley National Park, but these uses are considered incompatible with preserving a wilderness area. There are particularly strong pressures from interested parties to develop mines in Glacier Bay, and these are in turn opposed by growing conservation pressures to preserve the wilderness areas and close both areas to mining and prospecting.

We have, therefore, attempted to weigh the development of natural resources in these areas against the value of the nonconsumptive uses which are compatible with the areas' continuing status as natural environments. The problem is one of a

choice between incompatible alternatives which could have irreversible consequences where the development of one could preclude the development of the other. However, an evaluation cannot be performed through simple benefit-cost analysis since the benefits accrued from recreation or education cannot be measured in economic terms.

Mineral Resources

Glacier Bay National Monument was opened to mineral location, entry, and patent under general mining laws by Congressional Act in 1936. Patent is limited to deposit only, excluding the land containing the minerals; surface use of mineral location lands may be regulated by the Secretary of the Interior. As of March 1970, there were 262 active mining claims on which annual assessment work was performed by eight companies or individuals. Only one group of 20 claims, the Brady Glacier copper and nickel claims, is patented. Although prospecting has been considerable, no actual mining has yet taken place.

No significant environmental damage has resulted from prospecting activity. Tangible negative effects include dumping of waste and abandonment of gear in the immediate areas of mineral location. The intangible disturbance has different effects which are unfortunately difficult to evaluate. Exploration or mining activities do, however, directly affect a visitor's experience of the Glacier Bay environment insofar as that experience is based upon an awareness of the glacial expanse in its integral, natural state.

The private and social costs of closing the Monument to mining are in principle easier estimated than the converse. The costs to the individual claim holder of losing his existing claims (and the right to locatl' future claims) would be the projected future returns expected from continued mining: this loss would amount to the expected value of future mineral production less the material, labor, and capital costs required to produce them. Evaluating a decision now to close the Monument to future mining requires reduction of these future expected receipts and cost to present value. In principle, the

present fair market value of the mineral property is this capitalized value of future net returns and is the amount of compensation legally due for condemnation of all valid claims. An estimate of social worth would subtract from the external cost (like pollution and degradation of scenery) of expected private benefit and external benefits (such as employment of workers who would otherwise be jobless). If the net cost or benefit were being estimated for the entire U.S. economy, these considerations would extend to such factors as: (1) the effects of mineral production on the Monument area, (2)

competing mines, ( 3) the primary metals industry, and ( 4) the balance of payments. However, the results of the foregoing exercise are so based on assumptions (made on the basis of either whim or faith) that they are useless for policy making.

The fundamental difficulty of evaluating undeveloped mineral property is the high uncertainty about the volume, unit value, and cost of producing the minerals that are infened to exist. For instance, the same information about a prospect will often lead different geologists or mining engineers to offer assessments of net mineral value which vary by many orders of magnitude. Because of this uncertainty, there is no unique market price for a claim; the "asking" price may be several times or hundreds of times the "bid" price. In fact, it often happens that no one offers the owner anything at all, despite his own faith that he has a bonanza. In the face of extreme uncertainty and extremely discontinuous markets, public authorities and the courts have seldom been willing or able to use capitalized future income as a standard for compensating owners of mining claims in condemnation procedures ( as is implied by the "fair market value" appraisal of other property). The usual basis of compensation, if any, appears to be the book value of exploration expenditures, which of course has little relationship to the prospective value of the property.

In the situation described above, which is fully applicable to the Glacier Bay situation, no agreement can be expected, even among the most reasonable people, on the value of undeveloped claims (let alone claims not yet located). We can say with confidence that there will not be a mutually satisfactory price at which the government can buy out the Brady Glacier claims. The same kind of disagreement will plague the question of what is the proper public policy toward

mmmg in the Monument unless it can be shown that the expected damage from mining to public values is almost zero or overwhelmingly great. Finally, mining engineers firmly believe they must be allowed to continue exploration to come to the point at which they will know whether or not it is worthwhile to actually start mining.1

Mineral extraction will involve camps, docks, machinery and sh i traffir through the Monument. Without appropriate controls, development of the Nunatak Claim or Muir lnlet, thought to have considerable molybdenite deposits, would have serious effects on the aesthetic values of this area which is visited daily by cruise ships, tour and private boats.

The uncertainty and speculative nature of the economic potential of the mineral deposits throws some uncertainty on the merit of development at the expense of an already existing productive use. Uncertainty lessens economic value over time since it is possible that alternative sources or new technologies will make industry less dependent on the particular mineral resources to be extracted from this particular site. ("Economic advance effectively forces industry from dependence on particular sites and resources, so that the relative value of any one resource deposit or site declines through time.")2 On the other hand, the value of present recreational, sightseeing, or scientific uses has been and will continue to increase over time. Areas in an unspoiled state are limited; increasing leisure, mobility, and urbanization have increased demand for wilderness-type recreation activities, as indicated by user statistics of outdoor recreation facilities over the last 10 years.3 It can be stated, however, that Glacier Bay National Monument contains a wilderness-glacial landscape which is unique to recreational and scientific/educational uses. It is unique both because it is accessible and because it so thoroughly represents all stages of post-glacial succession. lt now appears necessary to more precisely define the monument's uniqueness and the demand for wilderness recreation and education it generates, so that we can more fairly evaluate the total impact of mining upon the area's other resource values.

Mineral claims activity in Mount McKinley National Park has been slower than in Glacier Bay National Monument. We were

likewise unable to make an accurate description of the mineral potential and subsequently fair market value of the claims in the Park. Conversation with engineers and our own observations have indicated that both potential and interest are low. Small deposits of minerals for which there is neither a very good nor available market are given as the major causes discouraging development.4 Only one operation, Mt. McKinley Mercury Mining, Inc., has been actively exploring and extracting ore for analysis and mill processing. Other claims are worked by individual prospectors, often abandoned after a year or two. lt would take a large scale operation for which there may not be sufficient deposits to offset the high costs of transportation and the low market prices.

Consequently, there appears to be little to lose in mineral value by closing the Park to mining. The gains for the Park's scenic wild values on the other hand, would be significant. Cunent visible damage resulting from mining activity includes debris, stream pollution, and scars across the tundra from tractors and bulldozers, particularly in the Upper Slippery Creek area and the "Mineral Mountain" location, the latter having tractor cuts on the lower flank of Mount McKinley visible from Wonder Lake.

Increased activity at any one of the locations would require building of roads and development facilities, as well as increased alteration of the landscape. Further developments at Mt. Eielson would be directly visible from the Visitor Center, as well as from one of the most heavily used viewing sites along the road. A road would have to be built across Thorofare Bar from the Park road. Noise and dust from the ore trucks and buildings on this site would represent serious intrusions on the natural quality of this area. Limestone removal from the West Fort Windy Creek location will require several miles of road through an area expected to become a key hiking area as completion of the new highway has made this axea easily accessible for day and overnight trips. The same area is presently a spring-summer habitat for caribou, and any increased activity could have unknown effects on the wildlife population. Finally, the Upper Slippery Creek area is in the heart of the Park's most primitive area, a desirable selection as wilderness under the National Wilderness Act of 1964 unless vegetation scars in this area visible from Wonder Lake disqualify Slippery Creek as wilderness. Additional road building or

airstrip construction would have to accompany any mineral development. 5

Technologies which might lessen the impact of ore removal (for example, transportation by helicopter) are not at this time economically feasible. Even so, the sight and sound of aircraft would be obtrusive to the wilderness character of the ru."eas, disturbing to both visitors and wildlife. Finally, serious impact on the park road <'ould rPsult from incre:=tc;Pd traffic of hPaviJy loaded ore trucks. Such traffic also adversely affects the quality of the visitor's experience along the road, the major medium of experience of the park.

Timber Resources

The harvesting of timber resources has traditionally been excluded from national parks and monuments. Development would require the removal of a natural resource which is a necessary component of the park landscape. Although national parks and monuments have been established in recognition of the value to preserve particular environments in their natural state, pressure still exists to open up these areas to timber development.

There are essentially no commercially valuable timber stands in either Mount McKinley National Park or Katmai National Monument. Glacier Bay National Monument, on the other hand, contains some commercial forest land.6 No definite comparative value may be set on this timber stands relative to nonconsumptive uses of the Monument lands. It appears nonetheless valuable to estimate the stumpage price available to the federal government were it to sell the timber in Glacier Bay National Monument. If nothing else, such appraisal gives us an idea of the amount of money the government is willing to forego ( opportunity cost) in order to retain the integral quality of the Monument lands.

From aerial photo surveys, the United States Forest Service has estimated that commercial forest lands-producing usable crops of industrial wood and economically accessible-occupy 8.8 percent (180,261 acres) of total Monument land. Of this commercial forest, 132,072 acres is considered accessible and 48,189 inaccessible. The

Forest Service estimates an additional 180,856 acres of noncommercial forest land.7

The timber volume per acre in Glacier Bay National Monument was estimated to be similar to that of the USFS Juneau Working Circle which averaged 30,144 board feet per acre for old-growth saw timber. These averages yield an estimate of approximate total volume of 2.2 billion board feet for the accessible commercial forest lands and 1 ,1 billion lands.

Only a rough estimate of the economic value of the standing timber in the Monument may be given; no actual appraisal has been made to indicate the potential stumpage value particular to Monument forests (value of standing timber less harvesting and transportation costs). In addition, prices for standing timber are highly variable, both annually and during a year depending on conditions separate from the physical sites and condition of the timber itself. Even more important, these p1ices do not reflect the highest commercial value of stumpage, because of the Forest Service's requirement that logs undergo "primary processing" within Alaska. Sale for export would both increase the average stumpage price by several times and increase the amount of timber that was commercially accessible.

Table 18

Average Stumpage Price of Timber Sold on National Forest Lands, Alaska

(per thousand board feet)

Year

1968 1969 1970 1971

Price

$ 6.20 16.00 12.90

6.21

SOURCE: David Darr, "Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries," quarterly journal.

If we arbitrarily assign a stumpage value of $10.00 per thousand board feet (MBM) to saw timber in Glacier Bay National Monument, then the presently available commercial-sized timber in accessible stands has a value of $22 million. Sale for log export would probably result in a figure on the order of $100 million. However, it is unrealistic to assume that all the timber can, or would, be removed at once. More realistically, the timber would probably be managed under a sustained yield management plan with a rotation of 80 to 100 years. If timber removals were set at a level of 500 MBM per year, valued at $10 per MBM, the present value would vary according to the interest rate applied as shown below in Table 19.

Table 19

Present Value of Yearly Cut at Varying Interest Rates

Interest Rate (percent)

3 4 5 6 7

Present Value (thousands)

$166.7 125.0 100.0

83.3 71.4

SOURCE: Authors' calculations: present value - V0 5/6 =Value of Annual Cut

Interest Rate

The above presents a range of approximate values represented by the available timber resources in Glacier Bay National Monument. Pressure for development is in fact low; at present, there is adequate available timber in other regions of Southeast Alaska.

Hunting

In the absence of exact population studies of wildlife (composition, numbers) in any areas of the National Park System in Alaska, we have had to approach the problem of excluding hunting

on

from these areas not strictly as an opportunity cost but from a more qualitative perspective, defining the positive aspects of protecting wildlife populations in natural habitats.

First of all, wildlife populations not subject to hunting pressures or extensive changes in habitat are of scientific and general educational or recreational interest. These are purposes for which the National Park System was established.

Scientific studies of predator-prey relationships, of sex-age compositions, of migratory behavior, and of habitats reveal information about the flux of populations which is relevant to management programs conducted outside Park System areas in game management zones. National Park Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game have supported studies being conducted on the caribou and wolf populations of Mow1t McKinley National Park, and on the brown bear populations of Katmai National Monument. Glacier Bay National Monument is of scientific interest as an illustration of the movement of animal populations into recently deglaciated habitats.

Secondly, maintaining diverse animal populations accessible for nonconsumptive uses such as viewing, photography, and study serves an important social and education function reaching a broad section of the general public. One indicator of the economic value accrued from nonconsumptive observation use of wildlife in Mount McKinley National Park is reflected in the receipts of the Wildlife Tour Bus operated by the concessionaire, amounting to about $186,000 for the 1971 season.

It is evident that the wildlife, particularly in Katmai National Monument and Mount McKinley National Park, is a major resource value of these areas. Not only does the presence of abundant wildlife populations act as a selling point, drawing visitors to the parks and monuments, but also the experience of watching these populations interact in an undisturbed state is a large portion of the visitor's experience of the park/monument environment. The extent to which wildlife may be seen by any given party often influences his reaction to a park visit.

Furthermore, there is undoubtedly some truth in the "supply pot" theory that parks and monuments act as game preserves out of which protected species move, becoming fair game for hunters. However, the significance of this appeal'S to be low, though difficult to evaluate. Its value is related to the degree that a parkland encompasses an entire habitat or range for a population of a species, and the degree to which hunting or other losses outside the park create vacancies which attract or hold the dispersing wildlife.

totally undisturbed environment. The impact of people on the park is high. Park management recognizes the values to visitors, scientists, and to the wildlife populations themselves of protecting the integral, natural qualities of the landscape and therefore gives a high priority to minimizing impact of public use.

Recreational Use

The recreational use of parklands and the experience of the protected landscape and wildlife resources are essentially nonpriced. Any technique described to price the value of these experiences must rely upon assumptions and arbitrarily assign economic values which tend to underestimate their true social value. This is particularly true when evaluating unique or irreplaceable assets such as those represented in National Park Service areas, which may benefit people whether or not they visit the areas. Having the option to visit or to merely know that such places exist is as much a positive value to some people as an active experience of the same is to others. Social benefits, benefits over time, and the availability of substitutes for the services of natural environments must then also be considered.

These benefits cannot be adequately measured against the priceable benefits accrued from commercial or consumptive resource uses. Nonetheless, the willingness of visitors to incur the additional costs of travel to a park or monument gives us some measure of the value that a visitor (effectively excluding all those who do not visit) places on an anticipated visit.

We could not conduct visitor surveys which would have given us exact estimates of visitor expenditures and travel costs. However, the

OA

relative inaccessibility of each of the four units in Alaska essentially fixes travel costs. Visits to any one of the units usually begins in one of the major population centers which makes estimates of the "additional costs" possible. In measuring these costs, we have made the two following assumptions:

1. Tourists come to Alaska to visit the whole state; a visit to a National Park or Monument is seldom their sole objective.

2. Once at a major center-Juneau, Anchorage, or Fairbanks----both residents and tourists make a separate decision to spend additional money to visit one or more of the National Park System areas. This assumption will not hold true for McKinley National Park as of this summer: the new highway places the Park directly on a main travel route through the state. Thus, a visit to McKinley can be coincidental to a loop trip through Alaska, requiring no special decision or cost to visit.

The following table presents data for the relatively fixed costs of travel to each of the units and the costs of concessionaire on-site

Table 20

Travel Costs to National Park System Area, Alaska, from Nearest Major Urban Center, Round-Trip, 1971

National Park or Monument

Mt. McKinley (Anchorage/Fairbanks)

Katmai (Anchorage) Glacier Bay (Juneau) Sitkab (Juneau)

Air

$ 40

110 18 66

Travel Costs Highway a

(at $0.10/mile) Railroad

$107.60 (Anch) $21.00 (Anch) 69.80 (Fbks) $11.50 (Fbks)

aSmall cars, $0.10/mile; medium-sized cars, $0.12/mile; campers, $0.16/mile.

bFerry access visit considered coincidental to visit to Alaska.

facilities. We have no exact data as to numbers arriving by air, highway, or railroad. The figures can thus only give a range of values of the costs a visitor is willing to incur to visit one of the National Park System areas. This represents a minimum measurement of the value of experiencing a park or monument, which excludes the time spent to get to a unit, equipment purchases, and other costs of travel to Alaska. The actual on-site costs are more difficult to calculate since we do not know how long visitors stayed. In 1970, the following number of people stayed at concessionaire-operated facilities at costs as shown m Table 21.

National Park of Monument

Mt. McKinley Katmai Glacier Bay Sitka

Table 21

On-Site Costs of Concessionaire Facilities, National Park System, Alaska, 1970

Overnight Cost, Room

Only, Per Person

$17 to $26.50 $60 ( all inclusive) $30 (meals)

Tour

$15.00 $13.50 $25.00

No. of Visitors Using

Concessionaire Facilities

19,152 2,143 2,935

- No Concession -

SOURCE: National Park Service and respective concessionaires.

Conclusions

The value of a National Park or Monument is ultimately subjective, both to the visitor himself and to the general population who may never visit a park or monument. The value to the visitor is the quality of his individual perception of an area's particular environment and could take the form of recreational or educational use. To those who never visit, the value may be a sentimental one, the knowledge of the continuing existence of environments which have been preserved in as close to their natural states as possible. Although neither of these values is priceable, they can be augmented

or diminished by other noncompatible uses. Therefore, any use which infringes upon either of these qualities should be considered detrimental to the primary functions of the area. We have shown in this study that nonconsumptive uses of parklands in Alaskarecreational and scientific-have an economic value that is comparable to the opportunity costs of closing the areas to the development or harvest of their mineral, timber, and wildlife resources.

References

1. Interview with Lawrence Heiner and Jeoffrey Knoebel, 1971.

2. Pearse, Peter H. "Some Economic and Social Implications of the Proposed Arctic International Wildlife Range," University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 Supplement, June 1971.

3. As compiled by Marion Clawson and Jack Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1966.

4. Cleveland Canwell, U.S. Department of Geology and Mines, College, Alaska, 1971.

5. Above description of damages is further documented in "Prospecting and Mining at Mount McKinley National Park and Glacier Bay National Monument," National Park Service, 1971.

6. Letter from Keith Hutchinson, April 1972.

7. Ibid.

THE NATI01NAL PARK SYSTEM IN ALASKA · Mount McKinley National Park 50 11 Concessionaire Operation and Maintenance Costs, Mount McKinley National Park 51 12 Operation and Maintenance

Documents