Final Report December, 2002

Transcription

1 Final Report December, 22 Modeling Recreation Visitation in Misty Fjords National Monument, Tongass National Forest

2 Modeling Recreation Visitation in Misty Fjords National Monument, Tongass National Forest Dr. Randy Gimblett School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona BSE Bldg. Rm. 325 Tucson, Arizona (Photo by R. Gimblett) 2

3 Table of Contents Page No. Introduction 1 RBSim Multi-Agent simulation of outdoor recreation 7 The Simulation Model 9 Agent object model 1 Methods and Results 14 Monitoring Agents 14 Statistical Output 15 Study Results 16 Peak Months in Misty Fjords 16 Distribution of Trips in Misty 17 Simulation Results Total Visitor Use Patterns in Misty Fjords 18 Simulation Results Detailed Assessment of the Top Destinations 21 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Walker Cove 21 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Hyder 22 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Unuk River 22 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Alava Bay 23 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Pt. Alava 24 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Manzoni Lake 25 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Punchbowl Lake 26 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Punchbowl Cove 27 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Big Goat Lake 28 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Rudyerd Bay 29 Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Rudyerd Dock 3 Examining the Impact of Visitation on Wildlife in Misty Fjords National 32 Monument North Arm of Upper Walker Cove 32 North Arm of Rudyerd Bay 34 Manzanita Bay 35 Chickamin River Estuary 37 Discussion 4 General Observations 4 Recommendations 42 Validation Study of the Simulation 42 Long Term Monitoring in Misty Fjords National Monument 42 Scenario Development 43 Recreation Behavioral Oriented Response and Capacity Studies 43 RBSim References and Bibliography 44 Consultant Reports 45 Appendix I - Data Collection Procedures for Misty Fjords 46 National Monument Appendix II Categorization of Modes of Transportation in 51 Misty Fjords Appendix III- Groups Sampled 53 Appendix IV Destinations for Monitoring Agents 56 3

4 Tables and Figures Page No. Tables Table 1 - Sampling of Trips Visiting Misty Fjords National Monument 16 Table 2 Commercial and Non-Commercial Trips Aggregated by 17 Transportation Mode for the 2 Season Table 3 Destinations Aggregated by Number of Encounters 19 Figures Figure 1 View into Misty Fjords National Monument 6 Figure 2 Peak Months of Visitor Use 16 Figure 3 Summary of Total Visitor Use Patterns for Seventy-Two 18 Destinations in Misty Fjords National Monument Figure 4 Destinations Aggregated by Number of Encounters 19 Figure 5 Visitor Use Patterns in Walker Cove 21 Figure 6 Visitor Use Patterns in Hyder 22 Figure 7 Visitor Use Patterns at Unuk River 23 Figure 8 Visitor Patterns in Alava Bay 24 Figure 9 Visitor Use Patterns in Pt. Alava 25 Figure 1 Visitor Use Patterns in Manzoni Lakes 26 Figure 11 Visitor Use Patterns in Punchbowl Lake 27 Figure 12 Visitor Use Patterns in Punchbowl Cove 28 Figure 13 Visitor Use Patterns in Big Goat Lake 29 Figure 14 Visitor Use Patterns in Rudyerd Bay 3 Figure 15 Visitor Use Patterns at Rudyerd Dock 31 Figure 16 Daily Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker 33 Cove North Arm for August 2 Figure 17 - Hourly Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker 33 Cove North Arm for August 2 Figure 18 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of 34 Rudyerd Bay for August 2 Figure 19 - Hourly Asessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of 35 Rudyerd Bay for August 2 Figure 2 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay 36 for August 2 Figure 21 - Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay 36 for August 2 Figure 22 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River 37 for August 2 Figure 23 - Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River 38 for August 2 Figure 24 - Hourly Total # of Encounters Along Cruise Route to Chickamin 39 River for August 2 4

5 Acknowledgments There are numerous people that need to be thanked that contributed to this pilot project during the time it took to develop, test and implement the simulation for Misty Fjords National Monument. I would like to thank Suzanne Cable, who was the Recreation Planner at the Ketchikan- Misty Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest and now on the North Fork Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho. Without her excitement, guidance, and incredible knowledge and love for wilderness this project would not have been possible. Joanie Reese, GIS Technician and Christal Burton were some of the staff who made it easier to transform both spatial data and data collected in the field about commercial and non-commercial trips. Without their ability to extract and correlate information our job would have been impossible. Staff that has the ability to work with spatial data, databases and still be in the field collecting data are invaluable.. Gene Degayner (Regional Wildlife Ecologist) and Kim Hastings (Wildlife Biologist - USF&WS) both provide inside into wildlife in the region and trusted that a simulation like the one produced could be done. I hope they can use this work now and in the future to examine more wildlife and their associated interactions with humans in settings like this one. This study would not have been possible without the inspiration, guidance and assistance from Bill Tremblay (Tongass Recreation/Wilderness Program Manager). He saw the possibilities and made the connections to begin this prototype. To him I am thankful and I hope this has fulfilled the vision that he had at the onset of this project from our earlier meeting in Juneau. There are many thanks that go his way to making this all happen and I hope to continue in other areas on the Tongass. The implementation of this study would not been possible without the assistance of Scott Bonar, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit in the School of Renewable Natural Resources at The University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. His cooperative research unit worked hard to ensure that our research team had sufficient funding to get the project complete. He cut through the paperwork to make this project happen. For this I am thankful. To my colleague and friend, Bob Itami from GeoDimensions in Melbourne, Australia. Your programming expertise, never ending energy, intelligence and friendship during those long days of working together have come to fruition in the expansion of an amazing tool to examine the dynamics of recreation behavior in complex settings. Without your expertise and friendship this project, RBSim would still be a concept. Finally, I would like to thank all those groups that assisted the study team in providing data about how they use Misty Fjords National Monument. This data was invaluable in developing and testing this prototype. Much more work needs to be done to validate this study, but this initial data was a fantastic beginning that enabled us to develop the prototype that can be built upon. 5

6 Introduction This document is a final report the documents the development of a pilot project to examine the impacts of recreation visitation on potential wildlife locations in Misty Fjords National Monument. This is a cooperative project between the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Tongass National Forest and the School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona. This study was initiated in response to a need to inventory and monitor the impacts of increased recreation use in the Tongass National Forest and in particular the Misty Fjords National Monument wilderness. Misty Fjords National Monument was established by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 to preserve and protect the outstanding wilderness, scenic and wildlife resources of this remote and wild portion of Alaska. Misty Fjords is comprised of mountainous country characterized by deep saltwater Fjords. This remote wilderness is home to mountain goats, brown and black bears, wolves, deer, marten, seals, orcas, porpoises, salmon, halibut, trout, eagles, gulls, and a host of other fish and wildlife. It is a coastal rainforest of unique scientific, social and cultural value. Figure 1 View into Misty Fjords National Monument (photo by R. Gimblett) 6

7 Aside from annual outfitter/guide performance reports submitted to the Forest Service (FS) as required by the special use permit, there is no other reliable baseline inventory on existing social conditions documented for Misty Fjords. While cruise ships, floatplane tours, commercial and recreation hunting/fishing and kayak trips all converge in well known places, such as the Rudyerd Bay, little is known as to the volume of each use, possible conflicts between and within activities and their potential impacts on wildlife and wilderness values. Being accessible only by air or water, Misty Fjords National Monument makes it difficult to assess current visitor use patterns using conventional social inventory methodologies, let alone develop a monitoring program to examine impacts of increased use on the monument and associated impacts on resident wildlife. What is required is a methodology for examining the spatial/temporal patterns of commercial and non-commercial use, revealing where they go, how long they spend and to what degree they impact each other and in particular the seasonal patterns of wildlife occupancy. The purpose of this study is to utilize existing data from commercial hunting/fishing permits, cruise ship schedules, known and predicted wildlife locations and other sources to simulate recreation use in the monument. FWS and Tongass NF worked with University of Arizona to explore the use of this secondary data source in conjunction with computer simulation to mimic the patterns of visitor use and speculate on the impacts of this increasing use on fish and wildlife populations in Southeast Alaska. This research methodology was constructed to address the following questions: 1. Where and to what degree are visitors currently using Misty Fjords National Monument? 2. What are the peak visitation periods? 3. What seasonal time periods are sensitive in terms of human interactions on wildlife populations in Misty Fjords National Monument? 4. Where and to what degree visitors are encroaching/impacting wildlife in Misty Fjords National Monument? RBSim Multi-Agent simulation of outdoor recreation Outdoor recreation is on the increase world wide as people have more leisure time, greater mobility, and more disposable income. In addition there is a proliferation of new types of recreation such as mountain bike riding, snow boarding, canyoning and other emerging activities that have different environmental requirements and are often in conflict with more traditional outdoor activities. As visitor numbers increase, there is a simultaneous increase in environmental impacts, crowding, and conflicts between different recreational types and users. These circumstances make recreation management a complex problem. Managers of natural areas must accommodate increasing visitor use while at the same time, maintaining environmental quality and assuring visitors have the high quality experience they anticipate. 7

8 Conventional methods used in the design and planning of park management facilities have depended on user surveys and traffic counts to estimate the requirements. However these methods fall far short of the real needs of managers who need to comprehensively evaluate the cascading effects of the flow of visitors through a sequence of sites and estimating the effects of increasing visitor flows through time. Managers require information on the spatial nature of the visitor to adequately manage for both the experience and to protect the recreation setting. This information includes the destination, arrival and departure times, number of visitors in a party, type of activity, nights camping etc. These spatial dynamic parameters likewise are imperative for constructing models to represent current conditions and testing out future management scenarios to reduce social and ecological impacts in a setting. In addition, managers need to know if designed capacities for parking, visitor centers, roads, camping areas, and day use facilities can accommodate projected visitor numbers. Crowding, conflicts between different recreation modes, impacts on environments and seasonal effects such as day length and weather are all factors park planners must consider in the design and location of new facilities. There are many options available to park managers to deal with heavy visitor use. New sites can be opened up, a system of reservations can be implemented; areas can be closed so sites can recover from over use; facilities can be expanded or sites can be hardened to accommodate larger numbers of visitors. Each of these strategies will have different impacts on the overall system. The complex inter-relationships between these decisions are almost impossible for a manager to predict. It is in this context where simulation of recreation behavior is of real value. This report describes a computer simulation methodology that uses intelligent agents to simulate recreation behavior, coupled with Geographic Information Systems to represent the environment. Even though simulations are built on assumptions to represent reality, they provide an excellent and rich source of data to answer management questions relating to facility capacities and visitor flows. Simulations are particularly valuable where real world data is difficult or expensive to collect or because of inherent constraints in traditional survey research methods. RBSim 2 (Recreation Behaviour Simulation) (Gimblett & Itami, 1997; Gimblett, 1998; 1998a; Gimblett et al. 1999; Itami et al., 1999; Itami et al., 2, Itami and Gimblett, 2; Itami, in Press) is a computer simulation tool, integrated with a Geographic Information System (GIS) that is designed as a general management evaluation tool for any landscape. This capability is achieved by providing a simple user interface that will import landscape information required for the simulation from a geographic information system. Once the geographic data is imported into RBSim 2, the land manager can change a number of variables. In Misty Fjords for example, variables included the size of vessels, hull designs, and various speeds at which they traveled. Also considered were flight patterns for airplanes or helicopters that were largely dependant on daily weather conditions. In other settings variables could include number and kind of vehicles, the 8

9 number of visitors, and facilities such as the number of parking spaces, road and trail widths and many other features. RBSim 2 allows a land management to explore the consequences of change to one or more variables so that the quality of visitor experience is maintained or improved. The simulation model generates statistical measures of visitor experience to document the performance of any given management scenario. Management scenarios are saved in a database so they can be reviewed and revised. In addition, the results of a simulation are stored in a database for further statistical analysis. The software provides tables from the simulation data so land managers can identify points of over crowding, bottlenecks in circulation systems, and conflicts between different user groups. Specifically RBSim 2 uses concepts from recreation research and artificial intelligence (AI) and combines them in a GIS to produce an integrated system for exploring the complex interactions between humans and the environment (Gimblett et al. 1996a; Gimblett et al. 1996b, Gimblett 1998, Gimblett and Itami, 1997, Itami et al., 1999; Itami et al., 2; Itami and Gimblett, 2). RBSim 2 joins two computer technologies: Geographic Information Systems to represent the environment Autonomous intelligent software agents to simulate human behavior within geographic space. RBSim 2 uses autonomous agents to simulate recreation behavior. An autonomous agent is a computer simulation that is based on concepts from Artificial Life research. Agent simulations are built using object oriented programming technology. The agents are autonomous because once they are programmed they can move about their environment, gathering information and using it to make decisions and alter their behavior according to specific environmental circumstances generated by the simulation. Each individual agent has it's own physical mobility, sensory, and cognitive capabilities. This results in actions that echo the behavior of real animals (in this case, human) in the environment. The process of building an agent is iterative and combines knowledge derived from empirical data with the intuition of the programmer. By continuing to program knowledge and rules into the agent, watching the behavior resulting from these rules and comparing it to what is known about actual behavior, a rich and complex set of behaviors emerge. What is compelling about this type of simulation is that, although it is impossible to predict the behavior of any single agent in the simulation, it is possible to observe the interactions between agents and draw conclusions that are impossible using any other analytical process or field research. The Simulation Model RBSim 2 uses object oriented software technology to model components of the overall simulation system. These software objects include: Network Object Model - contains network topology for roads, trails and other linear features organised as a forward star network with associated attributes and methods for calculating travel time and distances across the network. 9

10 Terrain Model - contains elevation data represented as a regular grid of elevations. Graphics Engine - provides visualisation of the landscape as a map showing current location of recreation agents. Simulation Engine - controls the scheduling of agents, controls simulation events such as weather, road opening and closure, seasonal events and other user defined events. Output Object - stores run-time states for agents and the network. Agent object - represents a recreation personality type, mobility characteristics, and reasoning system. Agent object model The agents are cast as intentional agents, they are capable of higher cognitive processes such as goal-directed behavior using planning, and adaptive reasoning. Very broadly, the agents can be thought of as being assembled from a number of components: Physiology that governs the basic physical functioning of the agent. Reasoning system for processing information about the environment, internal states and the impact of other agents. Actions that the agent performs within the world. The nature of each of the components governs the type of agent that is specified. Agent Physiology Physiology refers to the physical aspects of an agent that allow it to function in the world. Physiology enables the agent to: Maintain a homeostatic internal state necessary for the continued existence of the agent (physiological state) Move in the environment (locomotion) Sense the environment (perception) Energetics The energetics of an agent are those aspects that govern the consumption and production of energy by the agent and, consequently, the mobility. For animals, some of the variables that govern energetics include their mass, height and stored energy. For (combustion-driven) vehicles the stored energy corresponds to the amount of fuel present. RBSim 2 models the energetics of pedestrian agents by assigning each agent a nominal fitness level. The fitness level determines the length of time an agent can continue moving along a given slope without resting. 1

11 Locomotion Agents are mobile. The basic constraint that will be maintained during agent movement will be the maximum speed. Agent locomotion in RBSim 2 is defined by: Travel mode. Including car, bus, helicopter, floatplane, foot and other means of locomotion Travel speed. The speed associated with each travel mode is bounded between a minimum and maximum speed. This speed may be altered by congestion on the network or travel impedance defined in the network for turning, stop signs, or road condition. Location on a network. Agents may be restricted to specific segments of the network for a given travel mode (eg. helicopters) or agents may share a network with agents in alternative travel modes (cars and buses). Travel direction. Travel direction is relative to the agent s trip plan. The node list in the trip plan determines the direction of travel. If the trip plan is altered, the travel direction may change. Travel direction is constrained by network topology (eg. where there is one-way travel between nodes). Perception of the World Agents are able to determine the number and type of agents that are visible within a given radius. Intervisibility between agents is constrained by topographic relief and screening effects of vegetation or other surface obstructions defined by a GIS grid overlay. In addition, agents are able to detect network attributes such as road width, design speed, facilities such as parking areas and picnic grounds, and environmental states such as the time of day, weather and the presence of other agents Agent Reasoning Agents are goal oriented. Goals are achieved by a Travel plan. A Travel Plan is a list of primary destinations defined as a locale in a network. A locale is a collection of one or more attraction nodes with associated facilities that have a shared identity and can be grouped based on proximity to each other or common access. An attraction node is a node along a network where the agent may stop. Examples are: a toilet block, a viewing platform, an information sign, or a visitor s center. Trip plans are generated from a Trip Matrix. A trip matrix is a table of locales showing the number of trips from locale to locale. The trip matrix is derived either from traffic count data, or programmatically from user specified inputs in the scenario designer. The simulation engine to schedule and initialize agents uses the trip matrix. When an agent arrives at a locale, the agent uses its internal reasoning system to decide which nodes to visit and in what order. The mode of travel, the personality profile, time constraints and proximity of different attraction nodes to the point of arrival determine these decisions. 11

12 Agent personality People have different reasons for participating in outdoor recreation. These include nature appreciation, physical fitness, cultural awareness, aesthetics, social interaction and education. The relevant personality characteristics that are modelled in this version of RBSim 2 are divided into two classes: Constraints and Motivations. Constraints: Constraints are factors related to the agent itself that constrain participation in an environmental recreation opportunity. Energetics as defined under physiological state. Locomotion as defined under physiological state. Time available. Each agent has time constraints. If time is highly constrained, stops may be abbreviated or skipped completely. Other factors influencing time available can be based on length of daylight or time of day in relationship to hours of daylight left. All agents follow and stay on defined roads and trails. No attempt is made in this version of RBSim 2 to simulate travel across open country with undefined trails. Motivations or Intentions Motivations are interests people have in different physical aspects of the environment that represent a set of values. Any person engaging in a recreational activity will have a set of motivations or intentions that he or she wishes to satisfy. Motivations include: Human needs such as physiological needs are satisfied by facilities such as toilets and picnic grounds. Likewise safety needs are provided for by facilities such as access ramps or paved trails. Viewing platforms and scenic walks satisfy Scenic/aesthetic interests. Ecological Interests are provided to agents by locating trails near areas of diverse vegetation communities, bird viewing areas, interesting geological formations and/or other environmental features. Historic, archaeological or other sites where important historical events have occurred satisfy Historical/Cultural Interests. Social motivations: Many people are primarily interested in interaction with other people. For these people the landscape merely provides a backdrop for these social interactions to take place. RBSim 2 allows the user to define other personality characteristics. The key requirement is that each personality characteristic has a corresponding attribute in the network database so motivations or intentions and constraints can be measured against environmental characteristics as described in the next section. 12

13 Reasoning during the execution of a plan All agents follow a plan as described earlier, however these plans may change during the execution depending on events that occur during the journey. For instance, if there is a bottleneck in the system where agents lose time and hence, the available time for the journey is shortened, then the plan may need to be altered. Any alterations to the original plan need to be recorded because this is a measure of satisfaction in terms of meeting the agent s expectations. In order to be able to adjust the plan during the journey, agents must have a reasoning system. Agents reason to achieve a plan according to motivations, and constraints. Reasoning results in a decision. Decisions are based on selecting the highest priority options. Options are alternative attraction nodes that are ranked according to weighted criteria. Criteria are of three classes: Environmental including trail characteristics, length of day, ranking of the site according to motivations and intentions (see above) Internal state includes energy levels, personality profile, anything memorized by the agent (past experience). Number of other agents at each node. Fuzzy Decision Making An example of the application of environmental reasoning might be at a fork in the trail where a decision should be made as to which route to take. Such a decision might be based on the following criteria: Destination if two trails ultimately lead to the same destination, then the following factors may come into play. Distance the visitor who is hiking in the landscape may wish to take the shortest distance, or on the other hand, if a longer walk is intended the longer distance may be preferable. Steepness if one fork of the trail is steeper than the other, the agent may opt for the easier trail. Views if one trail looks like it leads to better views, this trail may be selected over the other. Environmental diversity the most interesting or diverse route may be more desirable. 13

14 Methods and Results This study combines computer simulation with an indirect data collection technique for capturing information about recreation trips entering the Misty Fjords National Monument. Indirect data collection use alternative sources of data that are currently available. Data was captured from interviews with various commercial and noncommercial operators as well as public land managers utilizing the area over a two-month period. The interview process consisted of some standard questions to acquire a better understanding of the nature of the trips these groups took into Misty. Information required focused on the spatial/temporal nature of their visit. Data was collected on the date and time of departure, the origin of departure and the destination(s) the trip would take throughout the day. Arrival times at destinations, duration of stay, type of trip, number of passengers that were serviced was also collected to provide background information in understand the typical trips into the monument area. In the interview process maps were used to capture the travel routes or flight plans that each of the trips took. Along with this spatial representation of the travel routes, qualitative information was acquired on some of the rules that defined the typical trip. Such as, under certain whether conditions such as heavy cloud cover, the scheduled trip may take a different route that they would under clear sunny conditions. A floatplane might take visitors over Goat lake, drop down to the Rudyerd Dock to exchange passenger who would be picked up by a recreational fishing vessel etc. All these decisions that are make by the operator are critical to our understanding of the typical trip. The route data was all assimilated in a automated mapping system and all trip detail data was entered into a database for further analysis. Trips currently captured to be included in the analysis are: administrative boats, floatplanes, helicopter, human powered or kayak trips, commercial floatplane, cruise ships, recreation trips, charter/guide boats. Commercial fishing records were not readily available, nor complete and were subsequently eliminated from this study. For a detailed description of the specifications on mode of transportation, equipment type, boat size and use type used to define the trips that visit Misty Fjords, see Appendix II. Data for each of the trips was used to create a trip schedule. The trip schedule contains information essential for simulation an individual trip. When the simulation begins, each trip is scheduled throughout a specified period of time and performs in a similar fashion to how a real trip would traverse and navigate through a landscape. The landscape in this simulation contains popular destinations, topography for undertaking visibility analysis to capture information on encounters and visits to a destination and the routes that trips traverse. Monitoring Agents The measure being used in the simulation of Misty is visitor use levels. To characterize the visitor use levels at a variety of locations in Misty and surrounding areas monitoring agents have been placed in the landscape. Monitoring agents are fixed agents that are placed in the simulation to monitor activities at designated locations. These agents keep track of all the visits to a site over time. They not only count the number of other agents 14

15 that visit the site, but keep track of who they are, when they visited the site, number of visitors per mode of transportation, the mode of travel. It is then possible to statistically analyze each destination and determine the volume of visitations, who and in particular when (seasonality) of the visit. It is also possible to speculate on encounter levels and possible conflicts between use levels. Most importantly, the results of the simulation run can be used to determine in the future which sites should be more intensely monitored based on current and project visitor use levels. See Appendix IV for list of destinations that monitoring agents were placed at in this study. Statistical Output Based on the data being collected above related to visitor numbers at destinations, an assessment will be undertaken to determine the top ten or fifteen sites and then a more detailed assessment will be made of each site to study not only the overall visitation numbers but a categorization of the type of trips that are visiting these locations and when. 15

16 Study Results The data gathering procedure used in this study is outlined in Table 1. Administrative Cruise ship trips capturing in this study, account for about 9% of all trips that utilize the region. Less representative were those trips such as outfitter/boat charter and floatplane tours as well as kayak trips. There were by far the most difficult to capture but in all probability have the least impact of other visitors to Misty Fjords. Trips % Sampled Administrative trips 9% Cruise Ships 9% Outfitter/boat charter 5% Floatplane tours/trips 5% Kayak trips 5% Recreational boaters 5% or less Table 1 - Sampling of Trips Visiting Misty Fjords National Monument Commercial fishing trips were not included in this study. The data initially gathered was incomplete and unrepresentative of the commercial fishing patterns in Misty Fjords area. This data once complete, could be included in the trips simulated in this model. Peak Months in Misty Fjords The data collected from all those recreation groups who visit Misty Fjords National Number of Encounters Date Figure 2 Peak Months of Visitor Use 16

17 Monument illustrates that the season of use begins in May but really peak use occurs between the months of July thru September. Before June there is a steady increase in use that is comprised mostly of administrative trips as is true after the middle of September through the end of the year. Use levels taper off in the beginning of September. While this is not a significant finding it does illustrate that there is a very short season of two to three months when a significant number of commercial and non-commercial trips converge in a select number of destinations in Misty. Distribution of Trips in Misty While the visitor use season is short in Misty, one of the objectives of this study was to determine where and to what degree visitor use was occurring at a variety of destinations. This study was not designed to provide answers on what the convergence of visitors into Misty will have on both social and ecological conditions, but will speculate based on the current intensity of use and what the impacts could be, given increase use levels. Trips Modeled Number Floatplane Trips - Charter/Guide N=671 Commercial N=878 Administrative N=98 Cruise Ship Trips N=275 Human Power Boats - Kayaks N=26 Boats (planning hull)- Recreation N=5 Administrative N=56 Charter/Guide N=76 Helicopters Trips N=11 Boats (Displ.. Hull) - Administrative N=8 Monitoring Agents N=89 Total Trips Modeled N=2149* This number does not include the monitoring agents Table 2 Commercial and Non-Commercial Trips Aggregated by Transportation Mode for the 2 Season. Aggregating commercial and non-commercial trips that were entered into the database for the 2 season can be reviewed in Table 2. A total of n=2149 trips were entered into the database and were modeled in the simulation environment. Each travel mode was represented as an agent and their entire trip modeled. The number of floatplane trips that entered Misty account for approximately 75% of the total use patterns. While only a small percentage can be accounted for by administrative trips, commercial trips (those typically take larger groups of visitors) and charter/guide trip that tend to take small groups of visitors to a variety of locations in Misty can account for most of the visitor use levels. Floatplane trips for commercial and non-commercial purposes, clearly are a dominant fixture in the Alaskan landscape and will continue to be the primary vehicle for penetrating the wilderness and serve the growing populations of visitors to the area. 17

18 Only 12% of recreation use can be accounted for by cruise ship tours. While there is only a small percentage, compared to the total number of trips that enter Misty, these ships contain on the average n=2 passengers and have the potential to have a much greater impact on sensitive ecosystems and conflict with other travel modes. What is not known is the impact of these trips on wildlife behavior. The remainder of the trips that were used to build the model range from recreation fishing trips, sea kayaks to charter/guide fishing and hunting trips using motorboats. Figure 3 Summary of Total Visitor Use Patterns for Seventy-Two Destinations in Misty Fjords National Monument Simulation Results Total Visitor Use Patterns in Misty Fjords A total of n =2149 trips were entered into the simulation for the 2 visitor use season for Misty Fjords National Monument. A trip schedule was created for each trip and the entire season was run through the simulator to examine interactions and encounter levels at all destinations in the database. Visitor encounters were calculated for each of the destinations using a set of stationary monitoring agents. Each monitoring agent was placed at a destination and kept track of all encounters that occurred through the entire simulation. Data, time, number of encounters and mode of transportation were documented. Figure 3 illustrates the results of the analysis. As can be seen, there are a 18

19 number of destinations that received very little use and others that are high use destinations. Figure 4 Destinations Aggregated by Number of Encounters ID Destinations No. of Encounters 1 Walker Cove 7 2 Hyder 74 3 Unuk River Alava Bay 94 5 Pt. Alava 97 6 Manzoni Lake 18 7 Punchbowl Big Goat Lake Punchbowl 26 1 Rudyerd Bay Rudyerd Dock 817 Table 3 Destinations Aggregated by Number of Encounters 19

20 To more thoroughly investigate the visitation levels at high use destinations and the type of trips that contribute the most to the overall number of encounters, trips were aggregated into groups. Groups were aggregated by number of encounters. An analysis of encounter data revealed a logical cut off point at about seventy encounters. Many sites fell well below this level and only thirteen destinations were considered for further analysis. The remainder of this report will focus on those eleven destinations that currently receive a high level of encounters. As can be seen from Figure 4 and Table 3, destinations are ranked according to number of encounters that exceed seventy. Walker Cove was the lowest ranked among the destinations chosen for further analysis and Rudyerd Bay, Dock and Punchbowl Cove received the highest number of encounters from those visiting these areas. For those familiar with the destinations shown in Table 3 and the resulting number of encounters from simulating trips into these areas, these results may not be surprising. After visiting Rudyerd Bay and associated docking facilities (combined encounters of N=131), it is apparent that these destinations are not only heavily promoted in the tourism marketing literature but equally being used by commercial and non-commercial trips. While Walker Cove for example is not currently as heavily used as Rudyerd Bay area, it still ranking highly for the amount of visitor use it sustains, of all destinations modeled. It appears from Table 3 that Rudyerd Dock is the most highly visited attraction in Misty Fjords. Knowing there is much discussion about the legality, appropriateness etc. of the docking facility, it does provide a place or has provided a destination for which floatplane trips can drop off, pickup and transfer visitors for day and multiple day outings. Research has shown that group size relative to each group, guided or not guided, the relative experience of each group, demographic make up (age, sex, home) of each group all are important in defining the effect of an encounter than simply having an encounter. Investigating the effects of these variables is beyond the scope of this study and such effects can only be speculated on at best. While encounters are certainly an important measure, what is for certain, is of much greater interest and more relevant to resource managers is the type of encounter. While two cruise ships passing each other may have little effect on the passengers on the vessels, the same two ships may have extremely negative effects on a party of visitor in sea kayaks. Constant bombardment of floatplanes traveling by or to a destination may have negative effects on those sitting in a fishing boat in some secluded cove. The total number of encounters provides a mechanism for identifying the most heavily used destinations in Misty Fjords. However a detailed investigation of each of these destinations to determine the type and rate of encounters provides a more effective way to determine what are appropriate use levels. This measure will led to a more effective management of commercial and non-commercial trips to service the tourist industry and ensure social and resource values are protected. 2

21 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode Simulation Results Detailed Assessment of the Top Destinations The following section is a detailed breakdown of the type of encounters that occur throughout the season in Misty Fjords for each of the eleven destinations. These destinations are presented in the same ranked order as shown in Table 3. Each of the presented series of graphs reveals the number of encounters by month to illustrate the months for which peak encounters and visitor use occurs. Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Walker Cove Figure 5 reveals the patterns of use in Walker Cove. Walker Cove contains some of the most extraordinary scenery in the region, close in comparison to that of Rudyerd Bay. Walker Cove is an undiscovered gem. It is surprising that more use is not occurring in this area. Not to advocate high use levels, but results show relatively minimal use but a site well worth monitoring to ensure it does not receive as much use as other sites in Misty Fjords. Minimal cruise ships and floatplane activities dominate the visitor use in Walker Cove. boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 5 Visitor Use Patterns in Walker Cove 21

22 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Hyder Figure 6 reveals the encounter rates at Hyder. Like other sites, this one is of less concern than others receiving low use levels. Cruise ships frequent this area but not at significant levels and distribute themselves well through the season. Floatplanes use seems to peak in May and slowly dissipates after June. A majority of these trips are administrative trips that enter into the region. boat - human powered boat - planing hull Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month month Figure 6 Visitor Use Patterns in Hyder Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Unuk River Figure 7 provides some insight into the number of encounters that are occurring at the Unuk River mouth. While this is not one of the highest ranked destinations in terms of encounter rates, it does suggest, when compared to other destinations evaluated in this 22

23 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode study that this might be one area to keep an eye on as a potential area for future increased visitation. Only small numbers of trips enter the area and they are mostly administrative trips with a few cruise ships that pass through the area on route north. Floatplane trips are almost negligible in this area. boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft Helicopter month month Figure 7 Visitor Use Patterns at Unuk River Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Alava Bay Alava bay is not one of the most heavily used destinations in Misty Fjords. Administrative boat trips frequent the area as do cruise ships that pass by the area. An examination of Figure 8 illustrates that only a few encounters with cruise ships occur over the season with an equal number of either administrative boat trips or recreation fishing vessels. Alava bay appears not to be threatened at this particular point given the data that was collected for this study. Alava bay is not a major destination but refuge for those caught in severe weather changes and for those passing by. 23

24 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode boat - human powered boat - planing hull Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month month Figure 8 Visitor Patterns in Alava Bay Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Pt. Alava The results of the analysis of encounter rates for Pt. Alava can be seen in Figure 9. Pt. Alava has a similar pattern of visitation to that of Alava Bay where some cruise ships are seen to pass by the area while the majority of the trips entering the area do so as administrative motor trips. With the cabin(s) located at point Alava, this would explain the administrative motor trips servicing the area. Since the monitoring agents were placed right at Pt. Alava, they are picking up the cruise ships that are passing by, but not stopping between the peak months of July and August. Floatplanes that are traveling over Pt. Alava are recorded by the monitoring agent. But this use is so minimal that it is almost none existent. 24

25 boat - displacement hull boat - human powered boat - planing hull 12 CountOfTravelMode 8 4 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft 12 CountOfTravelMode month month Figure 9 Visitor Use Patterns in Pt. Alava Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Manzoni Lake Manzoni Lake is dominated with floatplane charter/guide trips. Like other sites that have been evaluated, this lake receives a minimal amount of visits from cruise ships but is a frequent flyover spot for charter trips. While it is not clear form the data whether these flights actually land and depart from the lake, it is a destination for tours and a must see in Misty Fjords. 25

26 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 1 Visitor Use Patterns in Manzoni Lakes Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Punchbowl Lake Punchbowl Lake is a growing concern as a popular destination for commercial and noncommercial trips in this region. Figure 11 reveals the encounter rates throughout the visitor season. Floatplanes are the popular mode of transportation to access Punchbowl Lake. Floatplane tours and trips in general begin in May and continue through to September/October. As seen in other monitoring sites, Punchbowl Lake, while not promoted as heavily as Rudyerd Bay, is second to it in terms of numbers of visits and encounter rates between modes of travel. Unlike Rudyerd, there is a significant increase in numbers of trips that enter view floatplane, some landing and most just flying through to provide tourists with an incredible scenic experience. This amount of floatplane use could have some adverse effects on the quality of the visitor experience entering Rudyerd 26

27 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode or Punchbowl Cove for recreational fishing, a charter/guide trip on the water or via kayak. The intensity of floatplane use throughout the season could lead to a decline in a solitude experience. A decline in the amount of solitude, highly valued by local residents and in particular a subset of clientele, could lead to a decline in satisfaction levels which could have adverse effects on the local tourist economy. While these measures about beyond the scope of the first phase of this study, other studies have shown similar trends between solitude and satisfaction. boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 11 Visitor Use Patterns in Punchbowl Lake Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Punchbowl Cove As with Punchbowl Lake, monitoring was undertaken in the simulation at the entrance to Punchbowl Cove. Figure 12 illustrates like Punchbowl Lake the cove is sustaining even higher levels of floatplane use. Reported cruise ships and associated encounters are extremely low in the cove, possibly having something to do with accessibility and 27

28 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode mobility of large vessels in more confined settings. However, floatplane use far exceeds what was seen in Punchbowl Lake. It is much easier to see the cove and a more unique experience by air then by water especially if a tourist only has limited time to visit the area. There are geographic constraints to destinations such as Punchbowl for those seeking an off water experience due to the steep terrain and relative inaccessibility of most of the shoreline. These natural barriers to off water travel perhaps are a saving grace for the local ecosystem and protection of the wildlife that frequents the coastline. boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 12 Visitor Use Patterns in Punchbowl Cove Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Big Goat Lake Figure 13 illustrates a moderate amount of use of trips into Big Goat Lake. These trips are dominated by site seeing trips via charter/guide floatplanes. Most of these trips occur during a very short season as well between June and August. This is significant since most of the cruise ships entering Big Goat Lake peak between July and August. This suggests that both types of trips encounter each other during short seasons that could be 28

29 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode problematic. However, since the number of encounters is so minimal, it suggests there are probably no adverse effects on either one. If the intensity and number of encounters between the two types of activities were to increase, it could become a management concern. boat - human powered Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 13 Visitor Use Patterns in Big Goat Lake Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Rudyerd Bay Figure 14 provides a view of the intensity and duration of visits to Rudyerd Bay. It is quite evident that it is one of the most frequently visited destinations in Misty Fjords. The strikingly beautiful landscape, opportunity to view the unique fjord setting, transfer to a charter boat for a day of fishing, are all attractive reasons for visiting Misty Fjords. For those visitors that arrive in Ketchikan, on route to other major destinations that are not scheduled to visit Misty and have a few spare hours, a charter/guide or commercial floatplane trip to Misty is a favorite. A popular and promoted activity for passengers arriving to Ketchikan by cruise ship is to book a flight via helicopter or floatplane into 29

30 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode Misty Fjords. This relatively unregulated activity is a mainstay of the local economy. The time to capitalize on this type of economic activity is short and tied directly to cruise ship activity entering and exiting Ketchikan. While some visitors book these trips prior to arriving in Ketchikan, others simply scramble when arriving to take a trip in this unique setting. With the increase in this sporadic, self-regulating activity, there is potential for it to have adverse impacts on those other commercial and non-commercial activities that utilize the same areas. This type of adaptive response as cruise ships dock in Ketchikan has potential to have sociological impacts on visitors who book trips in advance, choose charter trips to experience the solitude of the area or potential on wildlife that is viewed on route and in major destinations such as Misty. Cruise ships entering Misty, turning around in the narrows in conjunctions with recreational boaters, charter/guide fishing trips, kayak and floatplanes all have potential to conflict with each other and subsequently creating safety, social and ecological concerns. In addition with little to no management or regulation of the airspace, there is little constraining how much of this type of commercial use can occur. The potential for a decline of solitude for visitors using Rudyerd Bay with the convergence of all the noted activities in a short and defined visitor season is of concern. 6 boat - displacement hull boat - human powered boat - planing hull Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft month month Figure 14 Visitor Use Patterns in Rudyerd Bay Results from Monitoring Agent Stationed at Rudyerd Dock Rudyerd Dock has clearly become the focus of much attention in Misty Fjords. The dock itself has been strategically placed off shore so that it is in compliance with wilderness policy that restricts the placement of any permanent structures of any kind. This dock 3

31 CountOfTravelMode CountOfTravelMode while presumably in compliance with waterway policy is a major focal point for floatplane trips and transitions to other modes of transportation than any other analyzed in this study. Many of these trips are one way, drop off and pick up for charter/guide or recreation fishing vessels. Some visitors spend a day in the area after being dropped off, returning to Ketchikan that evening, while others are on multiple day trips. Of all the destinations monitored in the simulation, the dock receives the most floatplane encounters of any site. Is this a concern? Yes. Does it function well to provide the visitor with a unique, Alaskan experience? Presumably Yes. Does it function to enhance safety during severe weather events, transportation breakdowns etc. Yes. The data that was used in this study cannot answer the policy questions related to it being there or removed but does illustrate it is an important feature and attractor in Rudyerd. The results of this assessment do show the intensity of floatplane use that the dock does receive both those landing at it or flying over it. Whether in the air or on the water, landing, taking off and flying over most likely has a effect on visitor experience. boat - human powered Cruise Ship 2 1 fixed-wing aircraft month Figure 15 Visitor Use Patterns at Rudyerd Dock 31

32 Examining the Impact of Visitation on Wildlife in Misty Fjords National Monument One component of this research project was to provide some insight into the potential impacts of increased visitation to Misty Fjords National Monument on wildlife that inhabit the region. Without a thorough understanding of the behavior of wildlife, the areas they frequent, where and how long they spend in various settings and some physiological responses to humans, this assessment would be impossible. However, it is possible with some expert knowledge to infer locations where you should expect to find certain species of wildlife at certain periods of the year and illustrate through simulation the numbers of visitors and type of recreation activity that occur during particular periods of time during the year. Wildlife biologists understand that rich estuaries provide needed forage and protection during particular times of the year. These same areas seem to be associated with increased visitation by inquisitive wildlife. What we do know however is that commercial hunting guides, local experts, cruise ship and floatplane operators have local knowledge of the region and intuitively know exactly when to take tourists into the areas when there is a high probability of viewing wildlife. There are many recreation and ecotourism studies that have been done around the world that clearly show that wildlife viewing is the most prominent reason visitors come to places like Alaska. A visit to Misty Fyords National Monument is no different. Brown bear, mountain goat and other wildlife species are commonly hunted and sought out by tourists who visit Alaska. To provide some insight as to how many visitors or types of trips visit areas and at what times of the year, month and day that are known to have wildlife frequent their shores, there were a four areas selected to prototype the simulation software. The Upper Arm of Walker Cove and the North Arm of Rudyerd Bay (a popular destination for many trips to SouthEast Alaska), Chickamin river all have known concentrations of waterfoul, shorebirds as does Manzanita Bay but there are also harbour seals that frequent the area. Monitoring agents were placed at each of these areas and the simulations rerun for the month of August (peak period of visitation) to examine the number of potential encounters or visits that would occur during the month. An assessment was made to examine both the number of visits by mode of transportation (ie. Floatplane, Cruise Ship or other boats and helicopters) by day throughout the month and the hours of the day that visitation occurred. This analysis provides insight into what are the peak days throughout the peak month that visitation occurs and also the hours during those days that are typically when visitors are within sight of wildlife. North Arm of Upper Walker Cove Figures 16 and 17 provide the analysis done to illustrate the level of visitation that is occurring in the North Arm of Upper Walker Cove during the month of August 2. The analysis shows a trimodal pattern of visitation. While the numbers of cruise ships do not exceed six during any day throughout the month, they seem to be prevalent during the initial and middle parts of the month. There are a small number of floatplane visits 32

33 throughout the month of August at the upper arm and these do not seem to correlate with the peak periods when cruise ships are in the cove Daily Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker Cove North Arm for August 2 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft /1/2 8/2/2 8/3/2 8/4/2 8/5/2 8/6/2 8/7/2 8/8/2 8/9/2 8/1/2 8/11/2 8/12/2 8/13/2 8/14/2 8/15/2 8/16/2 8/17/2 8/18/2 8/19/2 8/2/2 8/21/2 8/22/2 8/23/2 8/24/2 8/25/2 8/26/2 8/27/2 8/28/2 8/29/2 8/3/2 8/31/2 Figure 16 Daily Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker Cove North Arm for August Hourly Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker Cove North Arm for August 2 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft Figure 17 - Hourly Assessment of Unique Encounters at Upper Walker Cove North Arm for August 2 33

34 An evaluation of Figure 17 shows the average visitation patterns that occur on a hourly basis through the day. The trend in Figure 17 clearly shows duration of visitation and number of visits to be typically higher throughout the night during the early hours of the morning, tapering off by midday and than gradually increasing through the afternoon hours and leveling off throughout the evening. While this pattern may seem a bit strange it can be explained by the fact that cruise ships typically arrive in the late afternoon and evening to locations such as Walkers Cove and Rudyerd Bay, anchor, stay the night and then leave in the morning. This arrival and departure patterns are consistent in other areas such as Rudyerd Bay. As far as the impact on shorebirds and harbor seals, one would anticipate that the birds and the seals would be in the same areas during the evening hours and become very active in the early morning hours. The cruise ships could take advantage of this situation for those on board seeking to observe wildlife. To properly make this assessment one could construct and graph activity matrix of waterfowl and shorebird species and overlay this with our travel time data of cruise and floatplanes into the area and begin to examine the correlation and the interaction of both. North Arm of Rudyerd Bay Figures 18 and 19 provide an assessment of daily and hourly visitation patterns that are occurring in the North Arm of Rudyerd Bay during the month of August 2. Unlike Walker Cove, not only is there an increased level of visits during the month, but they increase and peak towards the end of August. There are on the average nine cruise ships that visit the bay area on a typical day throughout peak season. Like Walker Cove, the /1/2 8/2/2 Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of Rudyerd Bay for August 2 8/3/2 8/4/2 8/5/2 8/6/2 8/7/2 8/8/2 8/9/2 8/1/2 8/11/2 8/12/2 8/13/2 8/14/2 8/15/2 8/16/2 8/17/2 8/18/2 8/19/2 8/2/2 8/21/2 8/22/2 8/23/2 8/24/2 8/25/2 8/26/2 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft 8/27/2 8/28/2 8/29/2 8/3/2 8/31/2 Figure 18 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of Rudyerd Bay for August 2 34

35 number of fixed wing aircraft that frequent the area is low and inconsistent. The hourly assessment reveals a similar cyclical pattern of visitation on the average over the period of a day. There is an apparent increase in numbers of ships during the evening hours that are probably anchored in the cove, some of which leave very early in the morning such as 5: to 6:AM, gradually moving out by noon and then a gradual increase throughout the afternoon hours to a peak again at 9:pm. 25 Hourly Asessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of Rudyerd Bay for August boat - planing hull Cruise Ship fixed-wing i ft Figure 19 - Hourly Asessment of Total # of Visitors at North Arm of Rudyerd Bay for August 2 Again there are known concentrations of waterfowl, shorebirds and some harbor seal in the North Arm of Rudyerd Bay. An assessment of both the daily and hourly patterns of visitation reveals that there is very little time during the month of August when there is not a cruise ship in the area. If concentration of shorebirds, waterfowl and harbor seals are in the area then there would most likely be some interaction with passengers on the cruise ships. What effects this ultimately has on a species is still unknown but this assessment does provide some data on when the cruise ships are in the areas on a daily and hourly basis that could be compared to data on identified species to speculate as to the potential contact that could occur as a result of current visitor use patterns. Manzanita Bay Figures 2 and 21 provide an assessment of daily and hourly visitation patterns that are occurring in Manzanita Bay during the month of August 2. Unlike Walkers Cove and the North Arm of Rudyerd Bay, is it clear that there are not a significant number of visitors that frequent the area throughout the month. The average number of vessels that visit Manzanita bay per day in August is limited to five. An examination of Figure 2 shows an inconsistent, cyclical pattern of visitation by cruise ships. On occasion, such as August 7 and 14 th there are as few as one cruise ship that can be found in the area. Again 35

36 6 5 4 Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay for August 2 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft /1/2 8/2/2 8/3/2 8/4/2 8/5/2 8/6/2 8/7/2 8/8/2 8/9/2 8/1/2 8/11/2 8/12/2 8/13/2 8/14/2 8/15/2 8/16/2 8/17/2 8/18/2 8/19/2 8/2/2 8/21/2 8/22/2 8/23/2 8/24/2 8/25/2 8/26/2 8/27/2 8/28/2 8/29/2 8/3/2 8/31/2 Figure 2 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay for August 2 there is minimal visitation into the bay by floatplanes. There is only one time around the 17 th thru 2 th of August when there are 1 to 2 floatplanes that traverse the area and at the same time as when there are at least five cruise ships, in and out of the cove during the day. Rather than being directly linked to the bay area, the reported cruise ship encounters may actually be counted by the monitoring agent as they pass by and not actually while they are anchored in the bay Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay for August 2 Cruise Ship fixed-wing aircraft Figure 21 - Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Manzanita Bay for August 2 36

37 Hourly averages of visits to Manzanita bay are illustrated in Figure 21. This figure clearly shows the same type of patterns prevalent in other areas by cruise ships. The higher number of visitors again, is a function of the fact that the same cruise ship may be anchored in the cove and being viewed and recorded every 3 minutes. But it also illustrates the same type of pattern that we have been seeing in the other three areas selected to do a comprehensive assessment of. But Figure 21 does also show a dramatic increase in the morning and a decline afternoon with an increase happening in the early evening hours. This is interpreted to mean that few ships are staying in the cove at night but then some of arriving and then leaving several hours later only to have another new set of visitors arriving in the early evening hoursl From this analysis one could conclude that there are minimal number of visits to Manzanita bay in the peak month of August. Additionally, it is apparent that if there is wildlife in the by such as waterfowl, shorebirds or harbor seal, that the likelihood of them being impacted is probably pretty slim. Chickamin River Estuary Figures 22 thru 24 provide an assessment of average daily and hourly visits that are occurring in the Chickamin River estuary area during the month of August 2. All visits to this area are by those arriving on a cruise ship. 6 5 Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River for August 2 Cruise Ship /1/2 8/2/2 8/3/2 8/4/2 8/5/2 8/6/2 8/7/2 8/8/2 8/9/2 8/1/2 8/11/2 8/12/2 8/13/2 8/14/2 8/15/2 8/16/2 8/17/2 8/18/2 8/19/2 8/2/2 8/21/2 8/22/2 8/23/2 8/24/2 8/25/2 8/26/2 8/27/2 8/28/2 8/29/2 8/3/2 8/31/2 Figure 22 - Daily Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River for August 2 The number of visits seen in Figure 22, by cruise ships to this area is low, peaking at about five on a busy day, with several days where there is only one. This pattern is inconsistent through the month with total numbers falling until the middle of August where visitation increases and peaks again. 37

38 18 16 Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River for August 2 Cruise Ship Figure 23 - Hourly Assessment of Total # of Visitors at Chickamin River for August 2 Figure 23 presents the hourly visitation patterns for Chickamin River. As has been seen in the previous areas, the same pattern exists where ships are seen in the early morning hours only to decline by mid to late morning, slightly rise then decline until about 7:pm 8 Hourly Total # of Encounters Along Cruise Route to Chickamin River for August Cruise Ship Figure 24 - Hourly Total # of Encounters Along Cruise Route to Chickamin River for August 2 38

39 where there is dramatic increase throughout the evening. This pattern is indicative of one where ships are arriving in the evening hours, anchoring and departing in the early morning. This is a destination where there are significant waterfowl and shorebirds concentrations. As is seen in other areas, the patterns of stay by cruise ships are typified as those that might coincide with late evening and early morning waterfowl and shorebird activity and leaving shortly thereafter. Again impacts are hard to predict but there is some evidence that might suggest that these ships are in these areas during peak activity time of these wildlife species. To illustrate this pattern further, an analysis was carried out to show the encounter rates along the major travel route to and from Chickamin River. Figure 24 clearly illustrates the movement patterns of ships along the travel route starting around 5:am and peaking around 9:am. This would represent the groups of ships that depart the area early in the morning on route to another destination. The activity of cruise ships picks up again in the early afternoon, peaking about 7:3pm probably revealing those trips trying to get to their destination for the evening. The activity along the routes tapers off after 8::pm when most of the ships have found a location near Chickamin River area for the night. This type of analysis could be done for any of the areas visited to confirm the travel patterns that a cruise ships, floatplanes or helicopters take as they move from origin to destination. In summary, it is hard to specifically identify the direct impacts of visitation on wildlife in any of the areas examined in the previous section. But what is known at this point are the preferred travel routes, the visitation patterns of commercial cruise ships and floatplane by specific days and in particular the typical hourly patterns that they occupy the coves and bays that were studied. This information, combined with daily counts, activity profiles and some ideal of how long the shorebirds, waterfowl or harbor seal populations inhabit these areas, much more can be said about the potential of their disturbance by increased visitation. The information provided in this report on travel patterns in the Misty Fjords National Monument and surrounding areas can be used to target and establish effective monitoring programs to collect such data to provide long term protection to the wildlife who inhabit this region. 39

40 Discussion The simulation results aid in understanding the current patterns of use in Misty Fjords National Monument. It is without doubt that some of these results could have been intuitively derived. This is true. But with the results from this baseline simulation, the USDA Forest Service as part of the Interagency Planning Team and local stakeholders can now begin to see those areas that are more heavily used and what are the type of commercial and non-commercial activities that are using these areas and to what degree. Floatplanes are a way of life in Alaska. Whether the local residents like it or not, cruise ships docking at Ketchikan and other major town are a growing, profitable, economic activity in Southeast Alaska. While cruise ships bring tourists, that from which a high portion of the local economy is dependant, they also can have negative effects on social and ecological values, so critical to this region. With minimal regulation of air or water, it will be difficult to control the volume of activity that could occur. More is not necessarily better. There is potential as use increases to have adverse impacts on local wildlife, tourist experiences and expenditures and threaten the natural resource. This is important when considering revising the management plan and balancing commercial and non-commercial use with resource protection. The dilemma that will be faced by all those either planning, deriving their income from tourist activities or using the area for recreation purposed, is how much use is too much and what are the adverse effects of sustained high levels of commercial and non-commercial use. This initial study cannot address those questions but at least focus where more information could be collected to aid those types of decisions. Based on the indirect data collection method, it is clear that there are hotspots in Misty Fjords that should be viewed with caution as the management planning process unfolds. The simulation provides a first view of visitor use patterns and associated encounters over time. Encounters are not the only measure that can be used, but an important one when considering social and ecological impacts of recreation. Encounters describe the condition of a destination at any point in time. When aggregated by mode of transportation or recreation activity, encounters can focus management s attention on refined studies to investigate any of the questions brought up earlier. The social impacts of constant floatplane activity in the air, the effects of large waves on small water craft, perceived and acceptable levels of crowding all still need to be determined. General Observations Some general observations from all the data analyzed in this study and in particular the detailed analysis of the top eleven destinations in Misty Fjords: A majority of the encounters in all areas can be accounted for by floatplane and cruise ship travel. This is certainly not news to some but is to others. Cruise ships and Floatplanes are an icon of the Alaskan landscape. Floatplane travel, for a variety of tourist activities, account for approximately 75% of the tourist industry. A detailed view of this information shows that most of this activity is commercial/charter guide or trips that provide service to visitors seeking a scenic view and to do some 4

41 form of recreation activity ie. Fishing, hunting etc. Flyovers, stopovers and transition trips dominate the landscape. Administrative trips, while necessary, are not a significant contributor to the overall encounter rates in Misty Fjords. The peak periods of visitors capitalizing on the Alaskan landscape and entrepreneurs serving these tourists is from June thru September. A very short, and intense period of time both to the destinations surrounding Misty as well as major commercial centers such as Ketchikan. Rudyerd Bay and associated docking facilities in particular, have become major attractions in this area by floatplane and cruise ship travel. It is hard to tell at this point since very little, if any data has been collected in the past as to what the rate of change has been over the last decade. But Rudyerd dock is a beacon for recreation activity. It has become a drop off, pickup and transition focal point for boats, floatplanes and other modes of transportation. Without this docking facility present, is can only be speculated that use levels would certainly not be as high as they currently are. The dock is a significant contributor to the level of visitation patterns that are occurring in Rudyerd. While the dock serves this role of a focal point for visitation, it is a safety feature for those seeking refuge. Visitor use levels at Rudyerd Bay are high. A value judgment on what is too high cannot be determined in this study. How much use is acceptable to both visitors and the associated impacts of those visits on the landscape can be measured. This could provide some thresholds that management guidelines could be derived to balance commercial and non-commercial use levels with protection of this magnificent resource. This is not to say that commercial and non-commercial trips should be reduced or removed from the area, but to more carefully study the associated impacts and take measures to ensure social and ecological values are being conserved. Walker Cove is receiving some use at the moment but has potential to grow into a similar situation that is being seen in Rudyerd Bay. The results from this study show that it is an important destination and visitation is on the rise. Walker Cove is a spillover site for those visiting Rudyerd Bay. While the distance is longer to travel from Ketchikan, it does provide magnificent scenery that rivals that of Rudyerd. Walker Cove will continue to serve as a destination for those being displaced from Rudyerd Bay as visitor contacts and associated crowding increases. This is one destination that should be placed on a priority list for both long-term monitoring as well as special management. 41

42 Recommendations There are a number of recommendations that can be made regarding future. The simulation work for Misty Fjords was undertaken using travel logs, interviews with commercial companies and data extracted from a variety of sources. This was used to obtain a view of current visitor use conditions in the area of the monument. While this was an excellent data source to build and test the model, there are several steps that need to be taken to extend the work to validate the model and improve upon it s predictive capability in examining visitor use trends. They are as follows: Validation Study of the Simulation The validity of the simulation outputs can only be determined by how accurately they replicate the current use patterns. In other words, a measure of how good the simulation outputs are is directly related to how well it replicates the pattern of the data that are used to develop the simulations. Further field studies will have to be undertaken to calibrate and validate the model. This could be accomplished in the Summer 23 with additional funding and in conjunction with the forest s monitoring plan. Along with this model validation would be to include other recreation groups not currently involved in the study, more local or public input on the their knowledge of the area and more refinement on the trips already in the database. Commercial and recreation fishing information are among some of the data that would be desirable. Long Term Monitoring in Misty Fjords National Monument A long-term monitoring program needs to be develop to collect data that can be used for model calibration and verification. Figure 25 View into Rudyerd Bay in Misty Fjords National Monument (Photo by R.Gimblett) 42

43 Since this model will be built on data acquired for the 2 season, this is by no means enough data to adequately simulate visitor use patterns. One year s worth of data is a beginning point, enough for building and testing the model, but many years worth of data should be considered essential for having a more accurate, reliable and defensible model and view of what is occurring in Misty Fjords National Monument. While the data for the 2 could be considered a benchmark in terms of organizing visitation data, a long term monitoring program needs to be established to systematically collect data on visitor use patterns. One outcome of this project will be to identify where long-term monitoring sampling could be established and protocols for organizing data that could feed directly into the simulation environment. Change detection is an important component of any monitoring program and RBSim could identify where and how much change is occurring in various locations. It is apparent that Rudyerd Bay, Dock and Walker Cove and the other eight sites where monitoring during the simulation occurred would be included in a field based monitoring program. The monitoring program would consist of a combination of strategically placed observers, mobile kayak monitoring rangers, aerial observation and a good sample methodology for capturing consistent and reliable data. Scenario Development A number of realistic scenarios need to be careful crafted and tested with the aid of the stakeholders using Misty Fjords. These scenarios should examine and outline appropriate visitor use levels, commercial and non-commercial use levels for all the destinations in Misty. How much use is too much visitor use, is a question that needs to be examined. What are alternative destinations of similar quality to those currently receiving significant levels of us, but where use could be dispersed. Adversely what would be the consequences of increasing use levels in existing high use areas. Then management objectives or guidelines can be constructed for these areas centered on these types of recreation and volume of use over typical seasons. Recreation Behavioral Oriented Response and Capacity Studies Clearly defined management objectives for Misty could be based on current and projected levels of use and the interagency team could work with commercial and noncommercial groups to achieve these objectives. This is achievable in a short period of time. What is necessary and will take longer to achieve is to understand the contextural issues related to acceptable levels of encounters, acceptable levels of noise resulting from over flights, crowding norms and many other behavioral oriented studies. One recreation group s acceptance of an encounter may be totally different than another group. There are ways through a well-designed research study to acquire such information that could be used to assess the various scenarios developed above and guide the preservation and protection of Misty. 43

44 RBSim References and Bibliography Daniel, T. & H. R. Gimblett. 2. Autonomous Agent Model to Support River Trip Management Decisions in Grand Canyon National Park. International Journal of Wilderness -Special Issue on Wild Rivers. December 2. Volume 6, Number 3. Pgs Gimblett, H.R. (22), Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Modeling Techniques for Simulating Social and Ecological Processes. Oxford University Press, London. Itami, R.M. (22), Mobile Agents with Spatial Intelligence, Chapter 9 in Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Agent-Based Modeling Techniques for Simulating Social and Ecological Processes, H.R. Gimblett, editor. Oxford University Press, London. Gimblett, H.R., R.M. Itami & M. Richards. (22). Simulating Wildland Recreation Use and Conflicting Spatial Interactions using Rule-Driven Intelligent Agents. In H.R Gimblett, editor. Integrating GIS and Agent based modeling techniques for Understanding Social and Ecological Processes. Oxford University Press. Gimblett, H.R., T. Daniel & M. Meitner. (21). The Simulation and Visualization of Complex Human-Environment Interactions. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 54, Issue 1-4, May 25, 21. pgs Gimblett, H.R., T. Daniel & M. J. Meitner. 2. An Individual-based Modeling Approach Simulating Recreation Use in Wilderness Settings. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F. 2. Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. Proc. RMRS-P-. Ogden. UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Science, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Itami, R., R. Raulings, G. MacLaren, K. Hirst, R. Gimblett, D. Zanon, P. Chladek (22) RBSim 2: Simulating the complex interactions between human movement and the outdoor recreation environment. In Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas Conference Proceedings, A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, A. Muhar, editors. Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape Management University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 3 Jan 2 Feb 22 pp Gimblett, R., J. Lynch, T. Daniel, G. Oye & L. Ribes. Deriving Artificial Models of Visitors From Dispersed Patterns of Use in Sierra Nevada Wilderness. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape Management University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 3 Jan 2 Feb 22. Lynch, J. & R. Gimblett. A Spatial Model of Overnight Visitor Behavior in a Wilderness Area in Eastern Sierra Nevada. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape Management University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 3 Jan 2 Feb 22. Itami, R. M. & Gimblett, H. R. (21), Intelligent recreation agents in a virtual GIS world Complexity International, Volume 8, 21. Gimblett, H. R., M. T. Richards, R. M. Itami. 21. RBSim: Geographic Simulation of Wilderness Recreation Behavior. Journal of Forestry 99(4):

45 Itami, R. M., G. S. MacLaren, K. M. Hirst, R. J. Raulings & H. R. Gimblett. (2), RBSIM 2: Simulating human behavior in National Parks in Australia: Integrating GIS and Intelligent Agents to predict recreation conflicts in high use natural environments. 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling (GIS/EM4):Problems, Prospects and Research Needs, Banff, Alberta, Canada, September 2-8, 2. Gimblett H.R. M. Richards & R.M. Itami (1998), A Complex Systems Approach to Simulating Human Behaviour Using Synthetic Landscapes. Complexity International Vol Gimblett, H. R., B. Durnota & R.M. Itami. (1996) Spatially-Explicit Autonomous Agents for Modelling Recreation Use in Complex Wilderness Landscapes. Complexity International Journal. Vol Gimblett, H. R., R. M. Itami & D. Durnota. (1996), Some Practical Issues in Designing and Calibrating Artificial Human-Recreator Agents in GIS-based Simulated Worlds. Workshop on Comparing Reactive (ALife-ish) and Intentional Agents. Complexity International Vol Deadman, P., & Gimblett, H.R. (1994) The Role of Goal-Oriented Autonomous Agents in Modeling People-Environment Interactions in Forest Recreation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. Volume 2, Number 8, October, Consultant Reports Parks Victoria Port Campbell and Bay of Islands Recreation Simulation Itami, R.M., D. Zanon and P. Chladek (21). Visitor Management Model for Port Campbell National Park and Bay of Islands Coastal Park. Final Report, August 21. efirst in association with Digital Land Systems Research, Environmental Systems Solutions, and GIS Applications Pty Ltd. Available for download from 45

46 Appendix I - Data Collection Procedures for Misty Fjords National Monument Map all the trip routes, destinations and various other types of attraction sites. Since everything we are doing is spatial, it would be helpful, as we have talked about to try to map the trips that we will be gathering data on. These trips (ie. Floatplane, cruise ships or whatever) should be thought of in terms of their spatial representation ie. Lines, which represent travel routes and nodes as places where they start, places they might stop along the way or change plans to visit and destinations. These nodes could also be where wildlife have been located and documented. I have included examples of the travel route network used in the Port Campbell National Project in Australia. Nodes along these networks are important because they encapsulate the information that the agents in the simulation environment use to make decisions about where to go. Figure 1 -View of the Landscape with the Travel Routes and associated nodes If you were to click on the nodes in Figure 1, you would see these tables. The data associated with Nodes 166 and 158 that can be seen in the map on the previous page. Note the difference in that 158 is an entry node and 168 a viewing platform or lookout as we would call them. Nodes in Misty could represent the dock where visitors are transferred, scenic locations where floatplane flyover or cruise ships pull up to, cabins 46

47 that might be used, known campsites that are affected by floatplanes flying over, locations where wildlife species are known and become destinations etc.). Figure 2 - View of the Landscape with the Helicopter Routes over Ocean Data associated with Figure 2 provides information travel routes, but in particular the helicopter commercial tours. Note that Node ID 268 on the travel route is a helicopter locale where you could place an elevation that represents the height above the ground. This is not the case in Port Campbell, but if you do so, it would be possible to create use frequency of trips and come up with some measurement of noise impact. 47

48 I would suggest that as you are gathering data on the pattern that each of the trips take, that you have map on hand and draw in the travel patterns as lines and then any nodes along these travel pattern lines that are key features, stops, scenic attractions or anything in particular that lends itself to the trip making decisions about what they do, document. These nodes can then be attributed in table with information as shown above. We can determine the specific categories once we have a better feel for what information is available and important. Detailed Data encoded in Microsoft s Database ACCESS The basic unit of measure in this simulation will be based on the trip. A trip is a cruise ship moving into Misty or a floatplane flying over the area. Information needs to be acquired on the trips leaving Ketchikan to Misty and back. Those trips that come into Ketchikan from Anchorage or other locales are important to document but from the perspective of when they leave Ketchikan on route to Misty. I would like to know where the trips originated from such as Anchorage, Seattle or wherever. The travel patterns obtained above in the mapping exercise will provide us with the spatial movement patterns in the form of lines and nodes, but for summarizing and providing statistical output from the simulation other information is required on the trip. Below I have begun to assimilate what information I think would be helpful to document in an MICROSOFT ACCESS data base. We are using Office 2 and in particular Database ACCESS 2. If you do not have it I can get a copy for you to use. 48