Data Survey and Sampling 

Procedures to Quantify 

Recreation Use of National 

Forests in Alaska

Ginny Fay, Steve Colt, and Eric M. White

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-808

January 2010

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

Ginny Fay is assistant professor, and Steve Colt is associate professor and 

interim director, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska 

Anchorage, 4500 Diplomacy Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508; Eric M. White was 

research economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, 

Corvallis, OR, and is now research associate, Department of Forest Engineering, 

Resources and Management, Oregon State University, 204 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, 

OR 97331.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
Abstract

Fay, Ginny; Colt, Steve; White, Eric M. 2010. Data survey and sampling 

procedures to quantify recreation use of national forests in Alaska. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-808. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 59 p. 

Estimating visitor numbers and collecting information on visitor attitudes in 

Alaska national forests is especially challenging because of the dispersed access 

to the forests by a relatively small number of visitors. The Tongass and Chugach 

National Forests are each millions of acres with miles of saltwater coastline and 

numerous lakes that allow almost infinite boat and float plane access points. 

This study identified a number of methods used by land managers in Alaska and 

other states to address dispersed recreational access as well as other ongoing data 

collection processes in Alaska, such as sport fish angler surveys, traveler surveys, 

and other systematic efforts that generate visitor data. These data may be useful 

for USDA Forest Service efforts to improve their visitor use monitoring processes. 

Keywords: Visitor use monitoring, national forest visitation, Alaska public 

lands, Alaska visitation, Alaska visitor surveys, Alaska wilderness use.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Data Currently Available

2 Surveys

10 Alaska Department of Transportation Measures

10 Alaska Department of Natural Resources Cabin and Guide Permit Data

12 Alaska Visitor Data Collection Processes Used by Other Agencies

12 National Park Service

20 Bureau of Land Management

24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

26 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor

 Recreation

26 Visitor Use Estimation Techniques From Areas Outside Alaska

26 General Perceptions

28 Specific Recommendations

29 Potentially Available Data and Combinations of Data

29 Intercept Surveys

30 Diary Data

30 Business Interviews

30 Multiagency Regional Recreation Surveys

31 Conclusions

31 Acknowledgments

31 Metric Equivalents

31 Literature Cited

34 Appendix 1: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program Visitor Survey

35 Appendix 2: Sources of Information and Documentation

42 Appendix 3: Diagrams of National Park Service, Southwest Alaska

 Network Park Visitation

45 Appendix 4: Bibliography of Visitor Use Estimation Literature
1

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to document findings regarding available data and 

sampling procedures that may be used to better quantify recreation use on Alaska’s 

Chugach and Tongass National Forests, which together make up the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) Region 10–the Alaska Region (fig. 

1). Recreation resources and activities in the region are dispersed over large areas 

with low average use per acre with almost infinite entry points via saltwater boat 

and airplane access. In addition, resident and nonresident and local and nonlocal 

use patterns are quite different. Nonresidents often access the forests with guides 

or permit holders. In contrasts, residents, especially local residents, make frequent 

visits to the forests for recreation, hunting, fishing, and subsistence activities. This 

is especially true in the 17-million-acre Tongass National Forest that surrounds 

most communities in southeast Alaska. This combination of characteristics makes 

quantifying recreation use challenging. 

Figure 1—Locations of Chugach and Tongass National Forests in USDA Forest Service Alaska Region (Region 10).

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Chugach 

National Forest

ngass

t

To

National Fores

Nome

Barrow

Juneau

Bethel

Anchorage

Fairbanks

Dillingham

150

Miles ±
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

The USDA FS implemented the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) 

Program across the entire National Forest System (NFS) in calendar year 2000. 

The primary objective of the NVUM program is to develop reliable estimates of 

recreation use on NFS lands via a nationally consistent, statistically valid sampling 

approach. Secondary objectives of NVUM are to characterize recreation visits, collect data in support of regional economic analyses, and gauge national forest visitor 

satisfaction (White and Wilson 2008). The information presented here is intended 

to assist in the development of adjustments to the NVUM system or development 

of additional data collection procedures. These adjustments and new procedures 

may improve the ability of managers to measure recreational visitor use on national 

forests in Region 10.

The first section of this study identifies data currently available from other 

ongoing Alaska visitor data collection processes. Specific efforts are included based 

on their potential for improving the USDA FS visitor use monitoring processes in 

Alaska. This is followed by information on visitor use estimation processes currently being used by land management agencies in Alaska and recent innovative 

techniques outside Alaska. The final sections discuss potentially available data and 

recommend future research efforts. 

Data Currently Available 

This section presents information on applicability of data currently being collected 

for Region 10 national forest visitor use estimation. It also includes information on 

the potential for adjusting the data or collection methods to improve applicability to 

USDA FS use. Information provided in this report is intended to complement rather 

than duplicate the sources documented in a previous report (Colt et al. 2002).

Surveys

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program—

The Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP) is a comprehensive series of statewide, full-year, surveys of Alaska nonresident visitors. The first four rounds of 

research were completed in 1984, 1987, 1993, and 2001. Each round consisted of a 

random arrival survey, a visitor expenditure survey, and a visitor opinion survey. 

Data from the arrival surveys were used to model total visitation and to estimate 

the number of visitors arriving by various transportation modes in the intervening 

years between studies (table 1 and fig. 2). 

The most recent research—AVSP V, the fifth cycle of the program—was 

conducted in 2006/2007. Primarily because of changes in travel security measures 

after September 11, 2001, the field survey procedures were changed in 2006. Hence, 
3

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Table 1—Nonresident visitor counts from the Alaska Visitors Statistics Program

Year Total Cruise Cruise

Alaska Domestic International ship ship

visitors air aira arrivalsb passengersb Ferry Highway

1985 671,673 416,422 15,100 148,349 29,136 62,666

1986 752,775 443,302 19,335 161,300 33,348 79,190

1987 742,100 433,000 20,800 171,600 36,500 63,600

1988 752,400 428,500 24,400 168,700 37,600 76,300

1989 807,121 474,441 27,333 155,514 33,673 93,212

1990 886,891 512,728 26,453 194,728 35,278 93,827

1991 898,190 548,643 27,232 198,100 34,754 66,519

1992 977,173 578,600 20,200 212,800 265,000 32,100 107,849

1993 1,052,785 610,700 18,100 246,967 306,000 33,200 116,715

1994 1,134,800 660,100 18,700 285,100 379,000 31,800 118,700

1995 1,175,200 685,900 19,200 283,500 383,000 30,600 119,400

1996 1,294,800 750,800 27,700 338,000 464,484 27,200 113,500

1997 1,330,200 742,300 25,400 392,200 524,842 21,400 112,700

1998 1,380,000 741,200 25,300 431,400 569,707 24,700 123,000

1999 1,434,200 777,400 26,700 457,300 595,959 23,200 121,100

2000 1,455,400 803,300 23,500 483,750 640,477 20,600 107,550

2001 1,453,475 805,300 19,100 510,000 690,600 18,800 100,500

2002 1,528,800 810,900 20,500 581,000 739,800 18,400 96,800

2003 1,567,200 803,700 28,200 620,900 777,000 17,600 94,300

2004 1,693,900 869,700 712,400 884,400 17,800 94,000

2005 1,875,200 1,018,500 761,100 953,400 13,600 82,000

2006 1,881,000 1,012,600 20,900 758,100 958,900 13,300 76,100

2007 1,961,500 1,047,200 827,800 1,029,800 12,100 74,400

a International air is combined with domestic air for 2004 and 2005. 

b Cruise ship arrivals are people who arrive in Alaska via cruise ship. Cruise ship passengers are visitors who are cruise passengers but enter or exit 

Alaska by another mode, usually air. The passenger numbers are not additive but provide more details on visitor markets. 

AVSP V consists of two main components: the visitor volume estimates and the 

visitor survey.

The visitor volume component includes estimates of the number of out-of-state 

visitors exiting Alaska, by transportation mode, during the study period. The 

estimates are made in two steps. In step 1, the total number of people exiting the 

state is determined from airline and U.S. Department of Transportation sources. In 

step 2, the ratio of nonresidents to residents is estimated from a sample and applied 

to this total.1

 If one assumes that travel patterns are not changing, the AVSP visitor 

volume estimates can be used to estimate trends over time in nonresident visitor 

activity, including activity on national forest lands. The volume estimates also 

provide a useful “reality check” against which other modeling results and estimates 

can be compared.

1 For more detail on visitor volume methodology, see http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/

oed/toubus/pub/7Methodology.pdf.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

The AVSP visitor survey is administered to a sample of out-of-state visitors 

departing Alaska at all major exit points. The survey includes questions on trip 

purpose, transportation modes used, length of stay, destinations, lodging, activities, expenditures, satisfaction, trip planning, and demographics. The AVSP visitor 

survey provides reliable information on Alaska tourism activity both statewide and 

for more highly visited urban areas. It is less useful for estimating visitor numbers 

to remote or rural areas because of both the sampling methodology and the focus of 

the survey questions. The current sampling methodology results in a small sample 

size for visitors to rural and remote areas because the total number of visitors to 

those areas is small relative to the total number of visitors to Alaska (approximately 

2 million people during summer 2007). For an adequate sample of nonresident 

visitors to rural and remote areas, an over sample is required. This was done for the 

2001 AVSP IV but has not been done before or since.

The 2006 visitor survey asked for the number of nights spent and the type of 

lodging used for visits to 27 specific communities (see app. 1 for questions 9 and 

9a on the AVSP survey instrument). The survey also provided spaces for writein locations (see Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development 2007 for AVSP survey regions). The AVSP Technical Appendix 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Visitors

Figure 2— Alaska Visitor Statistics Program summer visitor volume estimates, 2001-2006. Adapted 

from Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 2007.
5

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

provides information on other locations noted by visitors; none of these locations 

were national forests (McDowell Group 2008).

The survey also asked visitors to indicate the type of lodging in which they 

stayed each night of their visit. Lodging types included “state/national campgrounds” and “wilderness camping.” However, the data as currently collected are 

not specific enough to tie visitation to specific conservation units, including national 

forests. During summer 2006, 3 percent of visitors reported spending at least one 

night in a state or national campground. Based on the summer market size of 1.6 

million, there were nearly 49,000 state/federal campground users. In addition, the 

manner in which the day use visitation question is structured virtually eliminates 

the ability of respondents to indicate a day visit to a national forest. 

It may be possible for the land management agencies to work with the Alaska 

Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to refine questions for future rounds of the AVSP. However, the survey instrument was shortened 

considerably for AVSP V to address declining response rates. Indeed, extra public 

lands and rural community questions had been added to the AVSP IV survey, but 

these were thought by some to have exacerbated the problem of declining response 

rates. 

Despite the limitations at the local level for visitor numbers, tracking Alaska 

visitor numbers via the AVSP data provides a background on overall trends in the 

Alaska tourism industry and the potential “pool” of available visitors to the Tongass 

and Chugach National Forests. The AVSP could theoretically provide additional 

information but this will only occur with significant cooperative efforts by state of 

Alaska, federal agency, and industry partners.

Alaska Resident Statistics Program— 

The Alaska Resident Statistics Program (ARSP) is a collaboration among several 

federal and Alaska state agencies and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Federal 

agencies participating in ARSP are the USDA FS, National Park Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State agencies participating are the Alaska Department of Transportation and the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game. The ARSP is intended to identify recreation data that address 

management information needs among federal and state agencies in Alaska and 

to develop and administer a survey to gather these data. The program is relatively 

new, with the first survey administered in fall 2006 through spring 2007 after a 

5-year planning effort. The ARSP is intended to be an ongoing effort, with a core 

set of questions remaining constant over time and additional questions regarding 

specific issues asked on a rotating basis. The goals are to decrease redundancy in 

data-gathering efforts and develop a shared database that can be used to monitor 

future recreation trends in Alaska. 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

The 2006/2007 survey gathered data on travel patterns, participation in outdoor 

recreation activities, and broad measures of benefits received from recreation on 

public lands in Alaska. For this phase, a mail survey was developed that divided 

the state into five regions and, within each region, four smaller subregions. Respondents were asked about travel to those regions, frequency of participation in outdoor 

recreation in the subregions, and “displaced sites.” Displaced sites are visits to 

recreation areas that the respondent wanted to make but did not owing to perceived 

crowding or other perceived negative factors, or personal reasons that may not be 

associated with the site (e.g., a move, illness, etc.). Displaced visits include both 

those that are shifted from one time to another and those that are avoided altogether. 

A goal of survey design was to increase the specificity of information and obtain 

information that is difficult to gather onsite.

As of December 2008, the initial analysis and final project report was being 

completed, and thus these resulting data from the first survey have not been made 

available to researchers outside of the project. Hence, it is not currently possible 

to determine their applicability for estimating resident use of national forests in 

Alaska. 

Alaska Travelers Survey—

The Alaska Travelers Survey is a proprietary research program and database 

created by the McDowell Group, a private consulting firm.2

 The survey sample 

includes visitors exiting the state via all major travel modes: air, ferry, highway, and 

cruise ship. The program is repeated every other year. The Alaska Travelers Survey 

was created specifically for tourism marketing and planning. The sample selection 

and field execution is designed to capture large samples of visitors to individual 

communities and regions. Additionally, data can also be collected for a wide array 

of subsamples and niche markets such as sport fishermen, wildlife watchers, highway travelers, adventure travelers, rental vehicle users, and independent visitors. 

Because fieldwork and data processing costs are shared among multiple subscribers, 

the Alaska Travelers Survey allows clients to obtain market research in a more 

efficient and affordable manner.

Since the program was developed in 2001, an estimated 18,000 personal 

intercept surveys have been conducted with Alaska visitors. This extensive database provides an opportunity to detect trends in visitor volume, satisfaction ratings, 

destinations visited, visitors’ activities and spending, demographics, and other 

market characteristics.

2 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
7

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

McDowell Group surveyed visitors using all major transportation modes in 

2001, 2003, and 2005. In 2008, the firm conducted a limited survey effort, allowing 

subscribers an opportunity to detect market changes since the last statewide Alaska 

Travelers Survey and the publicly funded AVSP V project in 2006.

There are several ways in which the USDA FS could participate:

• Become a subscriber and negotiate a contract with McDowell Group for 

prior year data and analysis. Each contract is negotiated separately.

• Become a subscriber and contract directly with McDowell Group to conduct a stand-alone intercept survey. 

• Subscribers can contract for specialized analysis as part of a statewide field 

survey. There may be cost savings from shared survey costs and the ability 

to insert questions into the statewide survey (or targeted samples).

• The cost of any of these options is contingent on sample size, data acquisition costs, and level of detail in the analysis. The sampling can also be 

modified to fit the needs of specific clients. One aspect that would need to 

be modified is the current focus exclusively on nonresident visitors.3

Specific data on resident and nonresident travel to the Prince William Sound 

region are lacking. It may be that the communities of Chenega, Cordova, Tatitlek, 

Valdez, Whittier, or their convention and visitor bureaus would be interested in 

a cooperative traveler survey project to develop better information. The National 

Wildlife Federation Alaska Office also has an ongoing tourism economic indicator 

project in Prince William Sound and is interested in improved visitor information. 

See appendix 2 for respective contacts. 

Sport Fish Division angler survey—

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division tracks sportfishing 

participation and harvests throughout Alaska. Data identify resident and nonresident anglers based on the fishing license of the participant. The data are collected 

via an annual mail survey of sportfishing license holders. The information includes 

the number of anglers, trips, and days fished, as well as harvests, in saltwater and 

freshwater areas in regions and subregions throughout Alaska. These data are 

believed by some to be useful for subregional trend analysis, but the sample size is 

likely too small for estimating visitor numbers for individual watersheds. The Tongass National Forest is located within the Division of Sport Fish Region I: Southeast 

Alaska, which is further divided into eight subregions. The Chugach National 

Forest is located in Region II: South-Cental Alaska, which contains 10 subregions.

3 Bell, Susan, 2008. Personal communication. Principal, McDowell Group, 1400 West 

Benson Blvd., Suite 350, Anchorage, AK 99503.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Sport Fish Division economic survey—

The purpose of this project, initiated in 2007, is to provide reasonably precise and 

up-to-date information on the economic importance of angler spending by both 

residents and nonresidents to the Alaska economy at the statewide, regional, and 

key subregion levels. It is an economic significance study that will estimate the total 

expenditures associated with sportfishing in Alaska in 2007, as well as the total 

direct, indirect, and induced economic effects of angler spending in terms of total 

jobs, total wages and salaries, and tax receipts.

One of the key objectives of the project is to establish a consistent and repeatable methodology for collecting and reporting estimates of the economic significance of sportfishing in Alaska periodically (3 to 5 years) at the statewide, regional, 

and subregional levels. When the same methodology is used for multiple data 

collection cycles, the resulting estimates can be used for tracking and comparing 

activity over time, as well as making reasonably current estimates available to planning and regulatory decisionmakers (Alaska Sport Fish Division, n.d.). The initial 

round of data collection occurred from July 2007 to February 2008. Information 

from this study could potentially be used in combination with sport fish survey data 

to estimate the economic significance of sport fishing on freshwater streams on the 

Chugach and Tongass National Forests. See appendix 2 for contact information. 

Division of Wildlife Conservation hunter reports—

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation 

annually collects data on hunter characteristics and hunting effort. There are three 

primary methods, but the objectives and data collected from each effort are similar. 

The three methods are hunter report cards, deer hunter surveys, and furbearer seal 

reports.4

 The fields collected by all methods that may be of use to USDA FS visitor 

estimates include:

• Hunter residence

• Targeted species

• Specific hunts and their dates

• Days in the field

• Transportation mode used to access hunt areas

• Location of hunts

• Whether the hunt was successful.

4 Kamletz, Kurt, 2008. Personal communication. Information Management Team Leader, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 110020, 

Douglas, AK 99811-0020.
9

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

The most widespread method is the hunter report card, which all hunters are 

required to return to the Division of Wildlife Conservation regardless of whether 

they hunted. All of the hunter information is stored in a database.

For Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) in southeast Alaska, 

an annual deer hunter harvest mail survey is conducted to estimate the harvest 

and hunter effort. The survey is mailed to a sample of hunters who obtained deer 

harvest tickets in Region I (southeast Alaska) during the deer hunting season. By 

definition, anyone who obtained a harvest ticket was successful in their hunt—they 

went hunting and harvested at least one deer.

In recent years, the survey asked hunters to be specific in describing the locations (islands, bays, shore, or drainages) where they hunted deer. Approximately 33 

percent of the deer hunters hunting in southeast Alaska who obtained deer harvest 

tickets are sent surveys. Hunters are randomly selected to be surveyed using a 

sample frame stratified by hunter community of residence. The overall response 

rate of those who received surveys is usually around 60 percent. Because response 

rates differ by community, the responses received from each community are 

multiplied by different expansion factors to arrive at estimates for each community. 

The higher a community’s response rate, the more likely the data represent actual 

hunting effort and harvests of all deer hunters within that community (Straugh et al. 

2003).

Research surveys—

Research surveys can be used to verify and refine visitor monitoring information for specific areas or for specific visitor monitoring purposes. An example of 

this is research conducted by the Aldo Leopold Institute on the Tongass National 

Forest, Yakutat Ranger District (Christensen and Watson 2006; Christensen et al. 

2004, 2007). The research was adapted to work effectively for local conditions 

by developing different methodologies to assess nonlocal and local visitors to the 

Situk River—the major recreation use area on the district. Because of the Situk’s 

remoteness and the dispersed use, both groups were sampled offsite. The nonlocal 

visitors were intercepted at the Yakutat airport (which represents the major portal 

for nonlocal visitation) and asked to complete a survey about their current trip to the 

river. Local use was assessed by conducting surveys with local residents about their 

yearly activity patterns on the river, which better captured the spectrum of use by 

Yakutat community members. The community surveys were conducted in person 

to address known problems with response rates for mail-based surveys in the local 

community. This study provided detailed information about visitor behaviors that 

would be useful in calibrating visitor use monitoring models for the Yakutat Ranger 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

District. The detailed surveys could be redone as resources permit to recalibrate the 

monitoring.

Alaska Department of Transportation Measures

A number of transportation measures are available that show the movement of 

visitors and residents in, out of, and around Prince William Sound and southeast 

Alaska. A number of changes have recently occurred to transportation access to 

Prince William Sound, including the Whittier Tunnel road access and a new highspeed ferry providing faster and more frequent ferry service. These have reduced 

both the dollar cost and the time cost of travel in the region. In addition, some large 

cruise ships are docking in Whittier rather than Seward to reduce travel time to 

Anchorage and Denali National Park and Preserve. It is likely that travel patterns 

will continue to evolve and shift during the next few years as a result of these 

changes in access and costs. 

For Prince William Sound, traffic data show that an increasing number of both 

vehicles and visitors are using the Whittier Tunnel. Richardson Highway traffic 

counts seem fairly stable. Regular fast ferry service resulted in a significant jump 

in ferry ridership and a corresponding reduction in air passengers as a result of the 

more frequent, lower cost option (tables 2 and 3). For more information on obtaining transportation data including the Whittier Tunnel vehicles and visitors, road 

counts, ferry embarkments, and airport and railroad passenger counts, see 

appendix 2.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Cabin and Guide 

Permit Data

There are 14 Alaska state marine parks in the Prince William Sound region. None 

have rangers or staff assigned to the area and thus no counts of visitors are made in 

the field. The Prince William Sound marine state parks include the following:

• Near Cordova: Kayak Island, Canoe Passage, Boswell Bay.

• Near Whittier: Decision Point, Ziegler Cove, Entry Cove, Surprise Cove, 

Granite Bay, South Esther Island, Bettles Bay, Horseshoe Bay.

• Near Valdez: Shoup Bay, Sawmill Bay, Jack Bay.

The only Prince William Sound state marine parks with visitation data are 

South Esther Island and Shoup Bay (table 4). Park estimates for southeast Alaska 

range from fairly consistent for Sitka and Haines parks to almost no visitor counts 

in other areas.5

5 Information on individual park units and their locations can be found at http://www.dnr.

state.ak.us/parks/units/index.htm.
11

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Table 2—Whittier Tunnel visitor 

estimate and vehicle countsa

Year Visitors Vehicles

2000 274,577 176,106

2001 253,161 172,986

2002 262,827 188,470

2003 268,149 199,604

2004 509,439 232,136

2005 478,651 240,514

2006 488,684 235,326

2007 463,871 238,059

a Includes residents and nonresidents. Years 2002 

and 2003 are higher because of winter ferry traffic, 

and years 2004 and 2005 are higher because 

of tank farm remediation. Year 2007 value for 

vehicles is based on 8 months measured and 

extrapolated to the year. 

Source: Burton (2007). 

Table 3—Prince William Sound ferry embarkments

Year Whittier Cordova Valdez Chenega Tatitilek

1997 9,393 5,414 4,089 7 24

1998 8,669 5,077 4,030 11 18

1999 8,097 5,088 3,874 12 14

2000 8,285 5,075 4,058 22 24

2001 7,891 5,438 3,974 21 25

2002 8,244 5,769 3,840 15 26

2003 8,141 6,293 3,913 5 23

2004 8,240 5,132 4,098 10 22

2005 9,712 8,136 3,292 49 19

2006 18,189 11,532 4,223 20 24

Source: Alaska Marine Highway System (1998-2007).

Table 4—Visitor estimates for South Esther Island and Shoup Bay state marine parks

 South Esther Island Shoup Bay

Other Commercial Other Commercial

Year Hikers commercial vessel Total Cabin Hikers commercial vessel Total

1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 174

2001 0 0 0 0 578 0 0 0 578

2002 0 0 0 0 744 0 0 0 744

2003 0 0 0 0 624 0 0 0 624

2004 0 0 0 0 721 0 0 0 721

2005 0 0 9,300 9,300 687 0 0 0 687

2006 0 0 0 0 892 0 0 0 892

2007 2,131 9,031 0 11,162 819 819 1,483 0 3,121
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

There are also 17 state parks on the Kenai Peninsula, many of which are adjacent to the Chugach National Forest. There are approximately 20 additional park 

units in southeast Alaska with different proximity to the Tongass National Forest. 

Unfortunately, most Alaska state marine parks have few if any rangers present. As 

a result, visitor counts are not reliable, especially for noncommercial and noncabin 

activities. For information on receiving Alaska state park visitor information, see 

appendix 2.

Alaska Visitor Data Collection Processes Used by Other 

Agencies

When contacted, a number of recreation planners in Alaska mentioned that they 

thought the USDA FS has better visitor estimation systems and that they have been 

implementing techniques learned from USDA FS workshops and publications.

National Park Service

Katmai and Lake Clark National Park and Preserves, Aniakchak National 

Monument and Preserve, Alagnak Wild River—

These parks in southwest Alaska share a concessions program and reporting system 

recently developed by the National Park Service (NPS), Southwest Alaska Network 

(SWAN), Inventory and Monitoring program (fig. 3). The first step in developing 

the new system was extensive interviews with park staff and commercial operators. 

This helped to identify management practices of park field staff and commercial 

holders as well as identify visitor travel patterns and visitor estimation system 

strengths and weaknesses. This information was used to develop diagrams (app. 3) 

to facilitate system analysis. 

The goal was an improved system that also dovetailed well with the daily 

practices of park staff and commercial permit holders so it would be readily implemented, supported, and maintained. The resulting new reporting system attempts to 

track visitor use primarily through annual reporting by companies that hold concession licenses and commercial use authorization (CUA) permits. The reporting is 

done when commercial operators file their annual reports and make fee payments 

for each year. These visitor estimates form the basis of the official visitor counts 

reported to the NPS Denver Service Center. 

The visitor tracking forms and instructions are emailed to permit holders 

each year and are also available to be downloaded from the NPS Web site. Permit 

holders are encouraged to complete the forms electronically and submit them via 

e-mail. Alternatively, they can print out the forms and submit the completed forms 

by regular mail. The data are loaded into a Microsoft Access database that has 

been programmed with a number of automatic reporting options. There is a Web-
13

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

accessible database search mechanism for a subset of reports on the NPS, SWAN 

Inventory and Monitoring Web site. Annual reports are sent to permit holders along 

with electronic forms each year.6

In addition to the CUA annual activity forms, field data forms and protocols 

were also developed for use by staff in the field to collect visitor use observations. 

They contain data fields similar to those in the CUA form. Both forms and databases contain similar location codes and abbreviations and units of measurement. 

The field reports data are entered either directly into a field data Access database or 

entered into Excel spreadsheets and later transferred to the database. The CUA and 

field data databases can be cross referenced by relating similar fields such as dates, 

locations, and CUA identification numbers. However, these remote parks do not 

have sufficient backcountry ranger presence to use ranger observations as a basis 

Figure 3— Southwest Alaska Network of Inventory and Monitoring National Parks. 

6 The visitor use activity forms for Lake Clark National Park and Preserve can be found at 

http://www.nps.gov/akso/concessions/index.cfm?theme=cua_lacl.

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Lake Clark

National Park

& Preserve

Katmai

National Park

& Preserve

Kenai Fjords

National Park

Aniakchak

National Monument

& Preserve

Alagnak

Wild River

Homer

Kenai

Seward

Anchorage

Port

Heiden

King

Salmon

Port

Alsworth

Miles

± 50
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

for estimating visitor numbers. The exceptions to this general rule are three locations in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve—Silver Salmon Creek, Telaquana 

Lake, and Twin Lakes—where seasonal rangers are located for most of the peak 

visitor season—June through August. At these three locations, the ranger data are 

being considered for use as the official location visitor count rather than the numbers obtained from CUA permit holder reports. 

Kenai Fjords National Park—

Kenai Fjords National Park is also part of the NPS Southwest Alaska Network and 

participates in the SWAN Inventory and Monitoring program. However, Kenai 

Fjords collects its visitor information differently than the other network park units 

because of different visitor use patterns. First, there is no fee for CUAs bringing visitors to Kenai Fjords National Park. As a result, park staff do not think 

the annual CUA reporting is sufficiently accurate or detailed to use for visitor 

estimates. In addition, Kenai Fjords National Park was created under the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). All Alaska ANILCA park 

coastal boundaries are the mean high tide line. Therefore, any commercial operator that drops park visitors below the mean high tide line is not required to obtain 

park permits or report visitors carried to the parks. The majority of Kenai Fjords 

National Park backcountry visitation occurs via boats and water taxis.

Second, a significant portion of park visitation occurs at the Exit Glacier 

visitor center and via marine tour vessels. At Exit Glacier, vehicle traffic counters 

are used to estimate the number of visitors. Every 3 to 5 years, observations of 

vehicles and counts of passengers within vehicles are made in order to calibrate the 

road count mechanism with an estimate of the average number of passengers per 

vehicle. Marine tour vessels are not required to report visitor numbers because the 

vessels are not technically in the park, but all of the tour companies have entered 

into voluntary agreements with the park to provide monthly passenger counts. Park 

naturalists provide interpretive information on many of the vessels. The marine 

vessel tour passengers are also included in the park’s official visitor numbers even if 

they do not go on shore, because the primary motivation for the trips is to view the 

park. Exit Glacier counts and the marine tour vessel counts are similar to “proxy” 

locations used under the USDA FS NVUM protocol.

To address remotely accessed backcountry park use, Kenai Fjords uses two 

approaches. The first is ranger backcountry patrol visitor observations. Since 1994, 

park staff have recorded ranger visitor observations in a field form and stored the 

data in an Access database. Under the NPS SWAN visitor use monitoring project, 

units of measurement and location abbreviations for Kenai Fjords were also stan-
15

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

dardized and made consistent with those used in Katmai, Lake Clark, Aniakchak, 

and the Alagnak Wild River. 

The most substantial change to the Kenai Fjords National Park ranger observation protocol under the revisions introduced by the SWAN monitoring project was 

to initiate the recording of ranger days in the field. This same protocol was implemented for all the SWAN park units. This enables the number of visitor-days per 

ranger observation day to be calculated for each park as well as applicable locations 

within each park. Without any record of ranger observation days or measure of 

sampling effort, it is not discernable whether the number of observed visitor-days 

reflects a change in the actual number of visitor-days or a change in measurement 

effort. In discussions with park staff, it became apparent that rangers in the field 

have too many other responsibilities to establish routine, systematic sampling 

frequencies—similar to wildlife observation transects—as a mechanism for estimating visitor numbers.

As its second approach to backcountry use data collection, Kenai Fjords 

National Park also implemented a voluntary backcountry registration (VBR) 

program in 2000.7 In 2004, it became mandatory for CUA permit holders to return 

VBR forms for all their guided trips within the park. Park staff are also working 

with water taxis, kayak rental companies, and other locations with visitor contacts, 

including their Seward visitor center, to distribute the VBR form to unguided visitors.

As part of the SWAN monitoring project revisions, a data field was added to the 

backcountry observation form for rangers to record whether a visitor encountered in 

the field had a VBR form when contacted by rangers. If so, the unique VBR identification number is included with the ranger observation data for the visitor group. If 

not, the ranger provides the visitor group with a VBR and records its identification 

number on the field observation data form. Collectively, by tracking unique VBR 

numbers, noting whether visitor groups had a VBR form when encountered in the 

field, calculating the ratio of guided to unguided visitors encountered in the field, 

and recording ranger days in the field, it is possible to mathematically improve 

visitor estimates and relate the ranger and VBR data sets. This sampling strategy is 

similar to having radio-collared wildlife or tagged fished in a population sampling 

protocol. By estimating visitor VBR return rates and relating data from each data 

set, estimates of visitor numbers can be more accurately estimated than possible 

from each sampling method in isolation. Data from the VBR program are stored 

7 The program is voluntary because provisions of ANILCA have been interpreted to disallow mandatory visitor registration with or without fees.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

and retrievable from an Access database. By using the VBR identification number, 

the two databases (VBR and ranger field data) can be related to each other.

Kenai Fjords National Park backcountry rangers primarily patrol in Aialik 

Bay, the most visited backcountry use area. However, there is a large portion of the 

park that is not routinely patrolled. Park management is considering doing periodic, 

systematic overflights to gather some information on use in these more remote parts 

of the park. Although funding availability is unlikely to support sampling intervals 

that would enable accurate estimates of visitor use given the relative low level of 

current use, it would be a mechanism to track trends and alert park management 

to when visitation reaches a level that warrants expansion of backcountry ranger 

patrols.

Another action Kenai Fjords National Park uses to help track visitors is the 

installation of counters on public-use cabin doors and bear-proof food lockers 

located throughout the park backcountry. Although they have not calibrated the 

opener counts to estimate visitor numbers, it does help determine frequency of use 

of particular locations, especially as some cabins are used without reservations. 

With the data the park already has on cabin use, backcountry party sizes and average lengths of stay, the counters could be calibrated to provide additional estimates 

of visitation for unguided visitors. Similarly, the park has had a trail counter at the 

Harding Icefield trail. 

Collectively, these methods provide reasonable estimates of the number of 

park visitors. See appendix 3 for system diagrams of the SWAN park units’ visitor 

estimation methods. 

Denali National Park and Preserve—

Approximately 400,000 people visit Denali National Park and Preserve each year, 

arriving by a variety of modes and engaging in a number of activities (table 5). 

Private vehicle use is quite limited and the park operates its own bus system (via 

concessionaires). These factors make the task of estimating visitor use simpler 

in some ways and more complicated in others. Because private vehicle use is so 

limited, most visitors take a bus into the park. These visitors—including many who 

arrive by train—are counted with great accuracy. However, because there is no 

traditional ranger kiosk at the main park entrance, visitors arriving by vehicle (or 

by train) who remain in the entrance area or who drive their private vehicle on the 

first 17 miles (27.2 km) of the park road are not easily counted. Based on a survey 

of vehicles entering the park in 1995, the park staff estimates that approximately 

25 percent of visitors to the Nenana Canyon front country do not take a shuttle bus 

or bus tour. Unfortunately, this ratio has not been updated with new empirical data 

since 1995.
17

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

The procedure for developing annual visitor estimates can be summarized as 

the following:

Annual bus passenger counts

plus estimated summer visitors not taking buses (25 percent of bus

 passenger count)

plus bicyclists counted at the mile 17 Savage River ranger kiosk

plus passengers in private vehicles traveling the park road to private

 inholdings

plus visitors to the Talkeetna Ranger Station (located 120 miles away 

 and outside the park boundary)

plus passengers on scenic air tours who landed in the park

plus winter visitor estimates

equals total number of estimated recreation visits.

Table 5—Annual recreation visit estimates for Denali National Park and Preserve

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total recreation 341,385 354,278 372,519 386,867 363,983 360,191 311,335 360,189 404,236 403,520 415,935

visits (MPUR)a

Total recreation 354,639 372,548 386,866 364,019 360,271 353,560 359,838 404,234 403,520 415,935

visits (formula):

Winter useb 1,395 1,355 974 981 901 5,782 6,910 9,270 15,803 10,534

Visitors on buses 274,150 292,876 304,485 287,357 274,401 261,685 255,739 288,121 291,258 297,889

25% of visitors 68,539 73,219 76,121 71,839 68,600 65,421 63,935 72,030 72,815 74,472

 on busesc

Bicyclists at 99 132 203 249 139 111 112 235 262 226

 Savage Box

Visitors in private 4,184 3,309 3,822 3,362 1,439 1,356 1,325 4,105 1,626 2,053

 vehiclesd

Registered 1,229 1,309 1,759 1,715 1,989 1,753 1,823 1,997 2,104 1,700

 mountain

 climbers

Scenic air toure 4,688 0 -678 -1,709 0 8,092 8,872 9,520 2,288 10,749

Talkeetna Ranger 356 348 480 225 12,802 9,360 21,122 18,956 17,364 18,312

 Stationf

a The annual visit total reported by the Monthly Public Use Report (MPUR). These figures differ from the total indicated by the results of the formula 

because of both explicable and inexplicable reasons. In 2002 and 2003, adjustments to components were made after the conclusion of the calendar year 

when “total recreation visits” was already set.

b All visits between October and April, except climbers.

c Intended to estimate the number of visitors who spend time in the park entrance area but do not travel past Savage River. The figure is based on a visitor 

survey done in 1995. 

d Includes Kantishna calendar permits, road lottery visitors, and visitors traveling on handicap permits.

e Inaccurate reports retained here for expository purposes.

f Prior to 2001, these figures appear to have captured voluntary backcountry registrations at Talkeetna, although in some years there may have been 

double counting with “registered mountain climbers.” Post-2001, this category contains visitor counts from the Talkeetna Ranger Station. 

Data source: National Park Service Monthly Public Use Report.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Denali does have a backcountry registration program, but most backcountry 

users ride buses to reach trailheads or leave from the front country and are included 

in the 25 percent non-bus-tour visitor estimate (Brigham et al. 2006).

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve—

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (GAAR) uses a variety of methods 

to estimate the number of visitors to the park (fig. 4). These include visitor contacts 

at ranger stations, backcountry safety orientations, a voluntary visitor registration 

form, and a loaner program for bear-resistant food canisters (BRFC). Park regulations require backcountry visitors to use BRFCs for food storage. Together, the 

backcountry orientation and BRFC checkout are the mainstays of the GAAR visitor 

tracking program. Backcountry visitor safety orientations are given at: 

• Fairbanks Alaska Public Lands Information Center. 

• Arctic Interagency Visitor Center (Coldfoot). 

• GAAR Ranger Station (Bettles).

• GAAR Ranger Station (Anaktuvuk Pass). 

Figure 4—Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and other National Park Service units in northern Alaska.

Gates of the Artic

National Park & Preserve

Notak National Preserve

Bering Land Bridge

National Preserve

Kobuk Valley

National Park

Cape

Krusenstern

National 

Monument

Miles ± 50
19

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Although GAAR does not have a mandatory permitting process, there are a 

number of ways that they encourage visitors to attend a backcountry safety orientation and complete a visitor registration: 

• Independent travelers are not required to have a backcountry orientation, 

but they are required to take precautions in bear country, and the park 

has a free BRFC loaner program. The form visitors fill out asks for their 

trip information (dates in/out, place in/out, route, number in party, etc.) 

and advises visitors that the information will not be used to track them 

but would facilitate the search and rescue process should they be reported 

overdue. In addition, the form for checking out BRFC includes the visitor 

registration form.

• Commercial operators (guides, air taxies) must be permitted, and a condition of that permit is that their clients receive a backcountry safety orientation. So if the operator is compliant, information on guided visitors is 

captured.

So, although GAAR does not require visitor permits or registration, the backcountry safety orientation and BRFC loaner program allows GAAR to collect good 

information on most parties with whom they have contact. 

The park’s prior superintendent discouraged rangers making contact in the 

backcountry. This was counter to research done by the Aldo Leopold Research 

Institute, which indicated that ranger contacts contributed to a positive wilderness 

experience rather than detracted from that experience. However, since 2000, the 

chief ranger has encouraged the rangers to make contact with visitors and to try 

to ascertain if the groups had received a backcountry safety orientation or loaner 

BRFC, or had registered. This information is used to estimate the number of visitors not receiving orientations or checking out BRFCs. Air taxi reports submitted at 

the end of the fiscal year by commercial operators permitted to drop visitors in the 

park are also used to refine visitor estimates.8

Depending on aircraft and pilot availability, airborne counts of visitors are also 

made at some locations during the busiest visitation periods. The aircraft is owned 

and operated by GAAR, which makes aircraft use less cost prohibitive. The cost to 

conduct visitor aerial surveys is only the marginal cost of additional flight hours of 

operation, as the aircraft and ranger pilot are already sunk costs. The surveys are 

used to ground truth the other estimates.9

8 Christian, Peter, 2008. Personal communication. Dalton Corridor District Ranger, Gates 

of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709. 

9

 Pendergrast, Don, 2008. Personal communication. Chief of Interpretation and Education, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and Yukon-Charley Rivers National 

Preserve and manager, Alaska Public Lands Information Center, 250 Cushman Street, 

Fairbanks, AK 99701.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

A visitor research project completed in 2003 by the Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute used a visitor access portal survey method, which sampled 

visitors traveling to Gates of the Arctic via air taxi operators based in Fairbanks 

(Kneeshaw et al. 2003). The Fairbanks airport was determined to be the access 

portal for approximately 80 percent of GAAR backcountry visitors. Another 10 percent of visitors each entered from the Dalton Highway and Kotzebue, respectively. 

Based on the survey results, a protocol was developed to use air taxi manifests and 

Dalton Highway road counts in subsequent years to estimate visitor use. However, 

the use of this protocol was never implemented because of insufficient funding and 

staff (see footnote 9).

Don Pendergrast, now with GAAR, was previously responsible for visitor 

estimates for the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Under his leadership, 

visitor estimates for Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve were based on counts 

of recreational boaters stopping at the Frank Slaven’s Roadhouse. This roadhouse 

was used until the 1950s and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

in 1987. It has been restored for use as a visitor contact area and public use facility. 

A stratified sampling schedule was used to estimate the number of recreational 

boaters. Because almost all stop at the Roadhouse, this process provided a reliable 

recreational boater visitor estimate. The only major group missed with this technique was hunters. This sampling process was discontinued with personnel changes 

(see footnote 9).

Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 70 million acres 

in Alaska once all remaining land transfers to the state and to Alaska Native 

corporations are accounted for (fig. 5). Visitor estimates are conducted and reported 

by area outdoor recreation planners based on locally implemented methods tailored 

to the characteristics of the lands within a specific region. The accuracy of the 

estimates most likely varies depending on land access characteristics, commitment 

by the area planner, and longevity of the area planner in the position. Area recreation planners enter visitor use estimates directly into the Recreation Management 

Information System database used by BLM.10

Most of the BLM Alaska Region outdoor recreation planners attended a USDA 

FS visitor estimation workshop offered about 6 years ago by the Aldo Leopold 

10 Overbaugh, Bill, 2008. Personal communication. Outdoor Recreation Planner, Branch of 

Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Region, 222 W 7th Avenue, 

No. 13, Anchorage, AK 99513.
21

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Wilderness Research Center. The methods taught in that workshop form the basis of 

most of the Alaska region BLM visitor estimation efforts.

White Mountain National Recreation Area—

As a result of limited field personnel spread across millions of acres of land, the 

BLM approach is to first focus on visitor estimates at key access points and areas 

of concentrated use. These visitor counts are supplemented by an estimate of 

“dispersed use,” which is primarily a professional estimate based on local knowledge and experience. The dispersed use estimate is “whittled down” over time as 

estimates are improved for specific trails, campgrounds, and road access points. 

In this area, as well as on most BLM land across Alaska, outdoor recreation use 

planners rely extensively on technologies such as infrared trail counters, road traffic 

Figure 5— Bureau of Land Management lands in Alaska (shaded in pink).

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Nome

Barrow

Juneau

Bethel

Anchorage

Fairbanks

Dillingham

150

Miles ±
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

counters, and cabin and campground registrations.11 Trail and road counters are 

primarily TRAFX and Cuesta counters.12

In addition to trail, road, cabin, and campground counts, the White Mountain 

planner conducts visitor census overflights on two wild and scenic rivers that BLM 

manages—Beaver Creek and Birch Creek. Prior to the overflight surveys, BLM 

staff had no reliable numbers on use—in part because the river is primarily used 

by unguided parties. These parties usually float over a 100-mile (161 km) stretch 

of Beaver Creek in 6 to 7 days. There is road access to the usual put-in point, and 

most parties take out at a location with air taxi access. Birch Creek can be surveyed 

during the return flight after surveying Beaver Creek.

To develop a baseline estimate of use, overflights were conducted during the 

summer season for 3 years. During the first season, overflights were conducted 

every 4 days. During the second and third years, flights were conducted once a 

week based on pilot availability and costs. Given the length of time most parties 

spend on the river, weekly flights allow for most parties to be surveyed yet avoid 

double-counting. This schedule also reduces intrusion. The counts include visual 

observations of group sizes as well as boat type and color to distinguish parties in 

case they are still on the river during the subsequent survey. During the first year, 

the survey process also uncovered two guides using Beaver Creek without the 

required commercial permits.

South-central Alaska—

In south-central Alaska, eight trail locations have trail counters. These are at trailheads or on trails where users enter BLM land—either from roads or from other 

public lands. In addition to trail counters, buried loops are installed in the road to 

count vehicles at road access points to BLM land. Access points are surveyed to 

estimate the average number of occupants in vehicles to develop a factor to apply to 

estimate the number of visitors.13

Planners also note that it is fairly easy to identify when a trail counter has a 

distorted day count and to adjust the data accordingly. Distorted counts are most 

often due to heavy snow precipitation interfering with the infrared counter. The 

technique used by the south-central planner is to extrapolate from data for the same 

day the previous year to assign a count for the missing or bad data. 

11 Cogley, Colin, 2008. Personal communication. Outdoor Recreation Planner, Fairbanks 

Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Region, 1150 University Avenue 

Fairbanks, AK 99709.

12 For more information see www.trafx.net/index.htm and www.cuestasystems.com. 

13 Ballou, Douglas, 2008. Personal communication via email to Ginny Fay. Outdoor 

Recreation Planner, Anchorage Field Office Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Region, 

4700 BLM Road, Anchorage, AK 99507.
23

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

The south-central planner believes that the trail counters provide a very reliable minimum number of users on BLM trails. All the BLM recreation planners 

contacted think the counters are providing reliable data for determining visitation 

trends. The estimates have been ground truthed using volunteers doing spot hand 

counts at the counter locations. The BLM planners consider this critical to build 

confidence in the units and to ensure they are placed in the best locations.

Steese National Conservation Area—

The BLM Steese National Conservation Area recreation planner uses a variation on 

the techniques mentioned above, selecting those best suited for dispersed recreation 

uses, as there are no campgrounds or developed infrastructure in the Steese area.14

The primary methods used for estimating visitor numbers in the Steese Area 

are infrared trail and traffic counters, trailhead registration kiosks, and counts of 

vehicles in parking lots. To initiate the process, a 3-year field observation survey 

was conducted from 2002 through 2004 using seasonal employees to count the 

number of visitors, passengers in cars, and people on trails at river and trail waysides and parking areas. This was done simultaneously with installing infrared 

counters and trail registers. The fieldwork was used to help locate the infrared 

counters in locations that provide the most accurate visitor counts. In addition, the 

field observations were used to:

• Estimate from all passing vehicles the proportion with passengers who visit 

BLM lands. 

• Determine visitor activities and trip characteristics—day versus overnight 

visitors, activities pursued, and party size.

• Develop counts of passengers per vehicle to apply as factors to future infrared vehicle counts.

The area planner would like to repeat the field observation process every 5 

years to recalibrate the factors applied to trail and road counters. When additional 

field observations are done, the plan is also to correct the sampling strategy. The 

first time the sample was not stratified to account for weekday vs. weekend observations. When the next surveying occurs, this issue will be remedied.

In general, most of the BLM outdoor recreation planners believe that their visitor estimates provide reasonably accurate minimum estimates. The areas receive 

relatively few visitors so they believe that the cost and efficiencies of their procedures are in balance with the need for precision.

14 McClain, Holli. 2008. Personal communication. Outdoor recreation planner, Eastern 

Interior Field Office, Steese national conservation Area, Bureau of Land Management, 

Alaska Region, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has a workbook with procedures for 

estimating visitors to refuges and programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). 

The Visitation Estimation Workbook is intended for USFWS employees responsible 

for estimating and reporting visitor numbers on refuges and wetland management 

districts. The workbook provides guidance that helps staff to design an appropriate 

plan for estimating and reporting visitor numbers and to identify the best methods 

currently available to implement that plan. The recommendations are targeted 

separately toward road-accessible and non-road-accessible (“remote”) refuges.

The USFWS definitions of “visitors” and “visits” are different from those used 

by most other federal and state land management agencies in Alaska. Most land 

management agencies track the number of visitors and visitor-days. Under these 

definitions, the visitor can do multiple activities or leave and reenter in the same day 

but still only count as one visitor making one visit to the site. Generally, a visitor 

is someone who enters public land above mean high tide and is not a government 

employee or contractor; a visit is an entrance; and a visitor-day is one person visiting for 4 hours or more. 

In contrast, according to the USFWS workbook, the total number of visitors 

to a station on a given day is not based on the duration of the visit. A visitor who 

stays for 15 minutes is counted the same as a visitor who stays the entire day. The 

USFWS defines a visit as the entry of one person onto refuge land to engage in one 

recreational or educational activity; a visit is not the same as a visitor. One visitor 

could account for several visits to the station in a single day simply by participating 

in several activities. The counts of the numbers of visitors who participated in each 

of the activities during the year compose the “visits” associated with those activities. Activity ratios are developed based on the proportion of visitors who participated in a particular activity. Using these ratios, the total numbers of visitors can be 

estimated based on specific activity counts. Conversely, activity counts can also be 

estimated based on counts of total visitors. The USFWS visitor estimation efforts 

are oriented toward interpretive and education program delivery, rather than toward 

estimates of visitor-days and visitor and trip characteristics.

According to Brian Glaspell, Visitor Services Manager for Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge (fig. 6), there is no single consistent protocol for Alaska refuge 

visitor estimation. Having previously worked for the USDA FS and taught visitor estimation techniques, he believes that among the federal land management 

agencies in Alaska, the USDA FS generates the most rigorous visitor estimates. 

Whereas, nationally, the USFWS visitor estimation protocol focuses on whether 
25

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

a refuge is road-accessible or remote, according to Glaspell, the more relevant 

distinction in Alaska is between gateway access and dispersed access. In a refuge 

with gateways access, most trips originate or are funneled through a small number 

of entry points. With dispersed access, visitors begin and end trips at numerous 

remote access points.

Kodiak Wildlife Refuge is an example of a refuge with dispersed access. As a 

result, Kodiak Refuge visitor estimation efforts are focused on reports from permitted guides, cabin reservations, and river use permits. These sources provide reliable 

estimates, especially as the potential for limiting future use gives guides an incentive to accurately report use to preserve their rights to grandfathered use.15 Kodiak 

Refuge has a standardized guide and air taxi reporting form that asks for reporting 

of saltwater visitor dropoffs below mean high tide, even though no fee is paid for 

these visitors. Refuge managers believe that these sources provide a reasonable 

Figure 6— Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.

15 We presume that permit fees serve as an incentive to not overreport commercial use.

%

%

%

%

Akhiok

Kodiak

Karluk

Old Harbor

Miles ± 25
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

minimum estimate of visitors. The minimum estimate is adjusted using professional 

experience, judgment, and a review of trends to derive an estimate of the total 

number of refuge visitors. 

Glaspell reports that although he used to be skeptical of this approach, he has 

respect for these seasoned professional judgments after working with a specific refuge with long-term professionals and a small number of commercial outfitters and 

air taxi operators. The remaining dispersed use accessed from saltwater, especially 

use by the commercial fishing fleet, is nearly impossible to survey accurately given 

the refuge’s level of staffing and funding. According to Glaspell, visitor counts for 

the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge are based on Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ (DOT) traffic counters on the Sterling Highway, campground and cabin reservation, voluntary trailhead registration, and guide reports. 

Similarly the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge relies on DOT traffic counters. All of the 

refuges keep counts of visitors to refuge programs and visitor centers, as applicable. 

According to Glaspell, the Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board, 

which regulates big game guides and transporters, may decide to require more 

extensive reporting by transporters who drop hunters off along saltwater coastlines. 

If this occurs, considerably more information will be available to upland land 

managers regarding the number of visitors accessing remote locations via saltwater 

dropoffs.16

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and 

Outdoor Recreation

The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation makes visitor estimates using 

onsite ranger counts, cabin reservations, and outfitter/guide reports. Unfortunately, 

most Alaska state parks are understaffed, and marine parks have few if any rangers 

present owing to insufficient funding. As a result, visitor counts are not reliable, 

especially for noncommercial and noncabin activities.17

Visitor Use Estimation Techniques From Areas Outside 

Alaska

General Perceptions

We reviewed the literature and contacted other researchers (see app. 2) for examples 

of visitor use estimation techniques in areas outside of Alaska. The results of the 

literature search are included in appendix 4. The literature review includes visitor 

16 For followup on these regulations see http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui.htm.

17 King, James, 2008. Personal communication. Director, Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 550 W 7th Ave., Suite 1260, Anchorage, AK 99501-3557.
27

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

use impact studies and economic impact analyses, both of which require estimates 

of visitor use. These impact studies complement the comparatively sparse published 

and agency literature on visitor use estimation techniques.

For the majority of visitor use impact monitoring and economic impact analyses, researchers conducted surveys or employed one-time techniques to estimate the 

number and types of visitors to the location(s) under investigation. This step was 

necessary because a reliable, ongoing process for estimating the number of visitors 

was not available. In addition, expenditure information was often collected as part 

of the visitor use estimate. These studies contain descriptions of visitor survey 

methods used by the investigators.

The researchers we contacted shared the following perceptions regarding visitor 

use estimation:

• All agencies are struggling with developing reliable visitor use estimates 

and maintaining a consistent system for collecting and storing data over 

time.

• Proven techniques are available for estimating visitor numbers if appropriate resources are committed to the task.

• The fundamental problem with developing visitor estimates is insufficient 

budget and staff.

• It is cost-prohibitive to survey use at locations in dispersed backcountry settings that receive little use. Any data collected from these locations are not 

worth the costs. Concentrating surveys and visitor estimation equipment 

and techniques at the more highly visited areas provides adequate data for 

visitor estimates at costs that allow for sustained data collection.

• Techniques that combine data from more than one type of sample can 

significantly improve the accuracy of visitor counts without dramatically 

increasing costs. Two examples of these techniques are (1) trail counters 

combined with periodic visitor surveys and observations at trail heads and 

(2) visitor permit registrations combined with ranger observations noting 

the number of visitors with permits. These techniques are especially effective if any of the sampling methods are tied to ongoing activities such as 

orientations, bear canister loans, or ranger patrols.

• There is a lack of clear management objectives and communication of those 

objectives to field staff regarding the collection of visitor use data. Both 

this lack of clear objectives and insufficient knowledge among field staff of 

statistical techniques mean that staff cannot easily develop robust sampling 

plans that generate data appropriate for the objectives. Without robust sampling plans or prespecified objectives, visitor counts are generally unreliable for whatever purpose they are eventually used.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

• Many land management agencies are overly focused on biological surveys 

of fish and wildlife resources and not focused enough on visitor estimation 

despite the fact that humans are the only species that can actually be managed.

• No land management agency has developed any innovative “blockbuster” 

technique or technology to overcome the funding shortfall.

• The USDA FS is the leader in developing equipment, such as trail counters 

and sampling techniques used for NVUM. Most agencies look to USDA FS 

recreation researchers for best practices and innovations in visitor use estimation.

• The USFS Region 10 forests add another dimension of complexity to visitation estimation given the dispersed open access available along hundreds of 

miles of saltwater shorelines. 

Specific Recommendations

Jeffery Marion, USGS, (see app. 2 for interviewee information) recommends two 

potential lower-cost methods—visitor permits and commercial guide and outfitter 

permits. He suggests a required—as opposed to voluntary—visitor backcountry 

use permit. Owing to the remote locations of the forests and their multiple access 

points, managers could dispense permits to visitors via the Web, e-mail, or phone. 

Because a large proportion of visitors pay someone for some type of transport to 

the Region 10 national forests, businesses that transport visitors and outfitter/guides 

could be required to report visitation to the USDA FS. This reporting could be part 

of the annual special use permit reporting requirements. Jeffery Marion doubts 

that any ground-based techniques would work on Region 10 forests because the use 

levels are too low and the use is too dispersed except at major attraction sites.

David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute (ALWRI), suggested 

conducting overflights to count marine vessels along the shoreline. During the first 

season of these flights, an extensive one-time field survey could be conducted to 

identify what portion of boat passengers visit USDA FS uplands as well as visitation information such as locations visited, party size, activities, and length of stay. 

This information could be used to estimate dispersed saltwater-accessed use from 

overflight surveys conducted in subsequent years. The overflight information could 

supplement visitation data from proxy sites, cabins, trail counters, and road counters. 

Alan Watson, ALWRI, stated that the only places with reliable visitor counts 

have backcountry permits coupled with survey techniques to estimate the proportion of visitors who do not complete permits. He also noted that the debate over 
29

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

the pros and cons (invasiveness) of permit systems that started in the 1970s still 

continues. The general trend is a decline in visitor permit and registration systems 

in the West.

John Loomis, Colorado State University, suggested using automated technologies to the maximum extent possible to collect data in the field at dispersed areas 

such as trails, trailhead parking lots, cabins, and campgrounds. This automated 

information could be calibrated with field surveys. He also recommended that all 

visitors be surveyed rather than the NVUM protocol of only interviewing visitors 

departing on the last day of their trips. Because one of the problems with gathering 

information on dispersed visitation on Alaska forests is the low number of visitors across millions of acres, the practice of not sampling all visitors exacerbates 

this problem and foregoes potential data. If the issue is potential double-counting, 

visitors can be asked if they were contacted previously, or surveying could happen simultaneously on the same day in a given region. He also recommended that 

NVUM protocols be reviewed for these types of relatively simple changes that 

would make the survey method more applicable to Alaska conditions. He also stated 

that using undergraduate college students for field survey work has been a successful way to reduce costs while maintaining data quality. Students from the various 

University of Alaska campuses could be hired for visitor surveys.18

Potentially Available Data and Combinations of Data

In this section, we combine insights gained from the discussion above to suggest 

several potential approaches to data gathering and visitor use estimation.

Intercept Surveys

Intercept surveys have been shown to work for both highway travelers and backcountry users. The Chugach National Forest conducted a major intercept survey in 

1995 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1995) by taking advantage of 

construction projects that brought highway traffic to a halt. It is possible that similar 

projects may be undertaken in the future. As discussed above, the NPS has been 

the primary agency doing intercept survey work at gateway airports (e.g., Fairbanks 

or Bettles). Although we are not aware of the details, it appears that some intercept 

surveying may have been conducted at one or more gateway entry points (Whittier 

or Valdez) to the Prince William Sound region of the Chugach National Forest. The 

18 Dr. Loomis recommended contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding their 

protocols for estimating visitor numbers. However, when contacted, recreation researchers 

Scott Jackson and Jim Henderson referred us to Alan Watson as the expert on visitor use 

estimation. They believed that if he had already been contacted, there was no additional 

information they could provide. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

overall conclusion is that intercept survey methods do work in Alaska, and may in 

fact work better here than elsewhere owing to lack of dispersed access over road 

networks.

Diary Data

The AVSP demonstrates that expenditure and itinerary diaries can be deployed 

for large numbers of people. However, AVSP expenditure diaries have not been 

designed to track detailed geographic movements or activity patterns such as might 

occur within the Chugach or Tongass National Forests. Thus, we can only speculate 

that diary-type survey instruments could be distributed to known forest visitors as 

part of an intercept process.

Business Interviews

Recent research (Dugan et al. 2009) has demonstrated that business interviews can 

provide low-cost and fairly comprehensive estimates of total revenue from naturebased tourism activities occurring on or near the Tongass National Forest. In theory, 

all commercial activity that takes place on the Tongass or Chugach National Forest 

is associated with a special use permit. However, the compilation and analysis of 

permit data is difficult and some activity may be occurring without the required 

permits. We suggest that business interviews can be used as a reliable way to track 

overall recreation and tourism activity over time in communities close to Alaska 

national forests, and could be benchmarked against periodic survey data on forest users. The business interview approach takes advantage of the fact that in the 

Tongass region, essentially all recreation activities of certain types (e.g., bear viewing) take place on national forest land. For the Chugach National Forest, business 

interviews would have to be conducted as part of a multiagency estimation exercise, 

as visitors may be headed to Kenai Fjords National Park or Chugach State Park, or 

the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, all of which essentially abut the national forest.

Multiagency Regional Recreation Surveys

The Alaska Resident Statistics Program is the first effort of which we are aware 

to estimate joint visitation to public lands irrespective of jurisdiction. The ARSP, 

however, attempts to cover the entire state and asks people to recall past activity 

up to 1 year ago. A much more focused and real-time approach might be applied to 

the Chugach National Forest region. This would require the joint participation of 

the USDA FS, the NPS, the USFWS, and the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor 

Recreation. A multiagency approach using a common diary or questionnaire would 

be the best way to take advantage of future road construction projects and the 

opportunities for intercept surveys that they might present.
31

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Conclusions

Estimating visitor numbers and collecting information on visitor attitudes in 

Alaska national forests is especially challenging because of the dispersed access to 

the forests by a relatively small number of visitors. Both the Tongass and Chugach 

National Forests are millions of acres with miles of saltwater coastline and numerous lakes that allow almost infinite boat and float plane access points. At the same 

time, few road access points and trailheads exist to concentrate visitors. This 

dispersed access makes conducting visitor intercept surveys either high cost owing 

to the large number of intercept sites needed to provide an adequate sample, or less 

reliable, owing to a smaller number of intercept sites resulting in an inadequate 

sample. This study identified a number of methods used by land managers in 

Alaska and other states to address this issue. It also identified other ongoing data 

collection processes in Alaska such as sport fish angler surveys, traveler surveys, 

and other systematic efforts that generate data that may be useful for USDA FS 

efforts to improve their visitor use monitoring processes. The next steps recommended to improve visitor use monitoring are to develop a new visitor monitoring 

program based on this review of potential methods and then field test the new 

strategy to see if it can deliver a sustainable program that provides more reliable 

visitor use estimates at lower costs.

Aknowledgments

We thank the numerous managers and scientists who responded to our request for 

information regarding visitor sampling programs. We also appreciate the helpful 

review comments of Susan Alexander, Neal Christensen, and Spencer Phillips. 

Student intern Joel Ainsworth carefully formatted the bibliography of visitor use 

estimation literature, helping make this resource available to others.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get: 

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Literature Cited

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. 

2007. Alaska Visitor Statistics program: Alaska visitor volume and profile. http://

www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/FW_whole_doc.pdf. (16 June 2009).
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Alaska Marine Highway System. 1998-2007. Annual traffic volume report. 

Ketchikan, AK. Annual.

Alaska Sport Fish Division. [N.d.]. Economic significance of sportfishing 

in Alaska Project–2007. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Statewide/

economics/2007Study.cfm. (18 June 2009). 

Brigham, T.; Fay, G.; Sharfarz, D. 2006. Needs assessment and 

feasibility study for a community transportation system, Denali 

National Park and Preserve. http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/upload/

DenaliCommunityTransportationStudy.pdf/. (19 June 2009). 

Burton, G.S. 2007. Unpublished data. On file with: Ginny Fay, Institute of Social 

and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 4500 Diplomacy Dr., 

Anchorage, AK 99508.

Christensen, N.; Watson, A. 2006. The Sitkuk River, Yakutat resident study: a 

report on local relationships to place. On file with: Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

Research Institute, U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture, P.O. Box 8089, 

Missoula, MT 59807. 

Christensen, N.; Watson, A.; Burchfield, J. 2007. Relationships to place in 

wildland resources management: developing an effective research approach. 

In: Watson, A.; Sproull, J.; Dean, L., comps. 2007. Science and stewardship 

to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress 

symposium. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 470–478.

Christensen, N.; Watson, A.; Whitiker, D. 2004. Situk River 2003 Recreation 

Visitor Study. http://leopold.wilderness.net/unpublished/UNP102.pdf. (19 June 

2009). 

Colt, S.; Martin, S.; Mieren, J.; Tomeo, M. 2002. Recreation and tourism in 

south-central Alaska: patterns and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-551. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 78 p.
33

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Dugan, D.; Fay, G.; Griego, H.; Colt, S. 2009. Nature-based tourism in 

southeast Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Institute of Social and Economic Research. 

ISER Working Paper 2009.1. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/

workingpapers/WP2009%201_SEnbt_final.pdf. (19 June 2009).

Kneeshaw, K.; Watson, A.; Christensen, N.; Glaspell, B.; Liljebald, A. 2003.

Providing scientific input to indicators and standards: a focus on wilderness 

experience stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. On file 

with: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, U.S. Departments of Interior 

and Agriculture, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807.

McDowell Group. 2008. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program V technical appendix. 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/AVSPVTecAppendix.pdf. (19 June 

2009).

Straugh, T.B.; Converse, P.; White, K. 2003. 2003 deer hunter survey summary 

statistics, southeast Alaska, August 2003-January 2004 hunting season. http://

www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/mgt_rpts/dhs2003/intro.pdf. (19 June 

2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Recreation survey 1995 

forestwide and district summary of findings. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Region, 

Chugach National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. National Wildlife Refuge System, Visitation 

Estimation Workbook. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75 p. 

White, E.M.; Wilson, J.B. 2008. National Visitor Use Monitoring implementation 

in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-740. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Appendix 1: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program Visitor 

Survey

Figure 7—Questions on locations visited on the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program survey.
35

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Appendix 2: Sources of Information and Documentation

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, 1983-1984, 1993-1994, 2000-2001, 2006-2007 

plus secondary arrival studies for intervening years. These provide Alaska numbers 

and Prince William Sound in 2006 but are not reliable on a place basis for small 

communities. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/research.htm

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

Office of Economic Development

Caryl McConkie

P.O. Box 110804

Juneau, AK 99811-0804

(907) 465-5478

caryl.mcconkie@alaska.gov

McDowell Group

Susan Bell, Principal

9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 201

Juneau, AK 99801

susan.bell@mcdowellgroup.net

Chambers of Commerce and Other Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Cordova Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau

Martin Moe, Executive Director

404 First St., P.O. Box 99

Cordova, AK 99574

(907) 424-7260

Cchamber@ctcak.net

http://www.cordovachamber.com

Whittier Chamber of Commerce

P.O. Box 607

Whittier, AK 99693

(907) 472-2493
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Valdez Convention and Visitors Bureau

David Petersen, Executive Director

Box 1603, 200 Fairbanks St. 

Valdez, AK 99686

(907) 835-4636

info@valdezalaska.org

http://www.valdezalaska.org

Prince William Sound Economic Development District

Sue Cogswell, Executive Director 

2207 Spenard Rd., Suite 207

Anchorage, AK 99503

sue_cogs@yahoo.com

http://www.pwsedd.org

National Wildlife Federation, Alaska Office

Tony Turrini

750 West Second Avenue, Suite 200

Anchorage, AK 99501

turrini@nwf.org

Cruise Ship Industry

Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska

21905 64th Avenue West, Suite 301-A

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

(425) 329-1020

office@sea.claa.com

http://www.claalaska.com/index.html

Valdez office:

P.O. Box 1170

224 Kobuk Street - Suite 2

Valdez, AK 99686

(907) 835-8901

office@vdz.claa.com
37

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Alaska Department of Fish And Game

Annual Sport Fish License Information

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Licensing Section

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/participationandharvest/index.cfm

Click on “Southcentral Region II,” then select the year and “Prince William 

Sound,” hit “submit.” The resulting table can be pasted into an Excel spreadsheet 

taking care to make sure that the locations line up—this may take some moving 

around because the reported locations change from year to year. These data are for 

all resident and nonresident anglers based on the location where fishing occurred. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish 

Bill Romberg, Project Manager 

333 Raspberry Road

Anchorage, AK 99518-1599

william_romberg @fishgame.state.ak.us

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Kurt Kamletz

Information Management Team Leader

Division of Wildlife Conservation

333 Raspberry Road

Anchorage, AK 99518-1599

kurt.kamletz@alaska.gov

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

State Parks, Cabin Reservations, and Other Use Statistics

James King 

Director’s Office

Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation

550 W 7th Ave., Suite 1380

Anchorage, AK 99501-3561

Chief of Field Operations: Chris Degernes

Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

Data Management and Information: Lynn Wibbenmeyer

lynn.wibbenmeyer@alaska.gov
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

National Park Service

Becky Brock

Chief of Concessions (Lake Clark and Katmai National Park and Preserves, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, and Alagnak Wild River)

National Park Service

240 West 5th Ave., Suite 236

Anchorage, AK 99501

Ferry, Railroad, and Highway Traffic Information

Alaska Marine Highway System

7559 N. Tongass Highway

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901-9101

(907) 228-7255 

Ask_AMHS@dot.state.ak.us

Alaska Marine Highway System Annual reports: 

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/reports.shtml

Whittier Tunnel

Gordon S. Burton

Facilities Manager AAMT

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

gordon.burton@alaska.gov

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/trafficdata.htm

The information on this Web site is monthly and annual vehicle counts, which is 

the number of vehicles recorded in one direction times two—on the assumption 

that each vehicle goes round trip. This is the standard method for conducting traffic 

counts. The visitor estimates are from the raw Whittier Tunnel data from Gordon 

Burton. These are not doubled but estimates of individual visitors passing through 

the tunnel based on average occupancy rates for different types of vehicles. 

Highway/Road Traffic Counts

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/highwaydata/traffic.shtml

At this point, the Department of Transportation (DOT) does not have a permanent 

traffic recorder (PTR) between Glenallen and Valdez. Alaska DOT provided 

monthly average daily traffic counts (MADT) numbers for a couple of count locations on the Richardson Highway south of Glenallen. The count station at the Edgerton Highway is not a permanent installation, so information is only available for 
39

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

the month that it was actually counted. The Valdez PTR site is heavily influenced 

by local traffic and not a good indicator of visitor traffic along the highway in and 

out of Valdez. The Ernestine location is probably the number that would provide 

the best long-term assessment of visitor traffic in and out of Valdez, but that permanent counter was discontinued after 2005. Their plan is to have the Ernestine site 

functioning again at some point in the next few years. The Northern Region Annual 

Traffic Volume Report, which is published each year, includes MADT for all PTRs 

in the Northern Region as well as average annual daily traffic counts (AADT) for 

many seasonal counts. The most recent version includes the years 2004-2006. This 

document is usually published in the fall of each year.

Jennifer Eason

Planner II

Northern Region Traffic Data

2301 Peger Road

Fairbanks, AK 99709

jennifer.eason@alaska.gov

Alaska Railroad Passenger Counts

Bruce Carr, Director of Strategic Planning

CARRB@akrr.com

Airport Passenger Boarding Statistics

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_

allcargo_stats/passenger/

The Federal Aviation Administration posts airport passenger information by 

calendar years on its Web site. Information is available in downloadable Excel 

spreadsheets and as Adobe .pdf files. The reference to the pertinent spreadsheets 

is “Primary and Nonprimary Commercial Service Airports (by Rank Order).” A 

search will turn up Cordova and Valdez annual statistics. 

Researcher Interviews

David Cole

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

790 E. Beckwith Ave.

Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 542-4199

dcole@fs.fed.us

http://leopold.wilderness.net/staff/cole.htm
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Brian Glaspell

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge

1390 Buskin River Road

Kodiak, AK 99615

(907) 487-0248

Jim E. Henderson

Environmental Lab 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 

3909 Halls Ferry Rd. 

ATTN: CEERD-EE-E 

Vicksburg, MS 39180-0699

(800) 522-6937, Ext. 3305 

jim.e.henderson@erdc.usace.army.mil

John Loomis 

Professor

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Colorado State University 

Fort Collins, CO 80523

(970) 491-2485 

john.loomis@colostate.edu

Jeff Marion 

U.S. Geological Survey

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

Virginia Tech/Department of Forestry

Natural Resource Recreation

304 Cheatham Hall (0324)

Blacksburg, VA 24061

jmarion@vt.edu

(540) 231-6603 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/staff/profiles/documents/marion.htm
41

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Norma Nickerson

Research Professor

Director of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research

The University of Montana

32 Campus Drive #1234

Missoula, MT 59812-1234

(406) 243-5686

norma.nickerson@umontana.edu

Alan Watson

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

790 E. Beckwith, P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 542-4197

awatson@fs.fed.us

http://leopold.wilderness.net/staff/watson.htm
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Appendix 3: Diagrams of National Park Service, 

Southwest Alaska Network Park Visitation

Figure 8—Katmai visitor flow diagram.
43

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Figure 9—Lake Clark National Park visitor flow diagram.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Figure 10—Kenai Fjords National Park visitor flow diagram.
45

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Appendix 4: Bibliography of Visitor Use Estimation 

Literature

Aldrich, R.C. 1979. Remote sensing of wildland resources: a state-of-theart review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 56 p.

Anderson, A.; Hewitt, L.; Marcouiller, D. 1999. Outdoor recreation, community 

development, and change through time: a replicated study of canoeing and 

angling in southwestern Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of WisconsinCooperative Extension, Center for Community Economic Development.

Bayfield, N. 1971. A simple method for detecting variations in walker pressure 

laterally across trails. Journal of Applied Ecology. 8: 533–536.

Becker, R.H.; Gates, W.A.; Niemann, B.J. 1980. Establishing representative 

sample designs with aerial photographic observations. Leisure Sciences. 3(3): 

277–300.

Behan, R.W. 1974. Police state wilderness: a comment on mandatory wilderness 

permits. Journal of Forestry. 72: 98–99.

Bergstrom, J.C.; Cordell, H.K.; Ashley, G.A.; Watson, A.E. 1990. Economic 

impacts of recreational spending on rural areas: a case study. Economic 

Development Quarterly. 4(1): 29–39.

Blank, U.; Simonson, L. 1982. Recreational resource use: Who gains? Who pays? 

The Crow Wing Canoe Trail case. Staff Paper P82-1. Saint Paul, MN: University 

of Minnesota, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics. http://purl.

umn.edu/13395. (22 June 2009).

Bowker, J.M.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Gill, J.K. 2004. The Virginia Creeper Trail: an 

assessment of user demographics, preferences, and economics. http://www.srs.

fs.usda.gov/trends/VCT.pdf. (22 June 2009).

Browning, J.A.; Hendee, J.C.; Roggenbuck, J.W. 1989. 103 wilderness laws: 

milestones and management direction in wilderness legislation, 1964-1987. 

In: Watson, A., comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: proceedings of the 

National Outdoor Recreation Forum, 1988. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 304–318.

Cessford, G.; Muhar, A. 2003. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national 

parks and natural areas. Journal of Nature Conservation. (11): 240–250.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Cessford, G.R.; Cockburn, S.; Douglas, M. 2002. Developing new visitor 

counters and their applications for management. In: Arnberger, A.; Brandenburg, 

C.; Muhar, A., eds. Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational 

and protected areas. Vienna, Austria: Institute for Landscape Architecture and 

Landscape Management, Bodenkultur University: 14–20.

Chilman, K. 2005. Using participant observation to study recreation management 

decision-making. In: Peden, J.; Schuster, R., comps., eds. Proceedings of the 

2005 Northeastern recreation research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-341. 

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station: 103–107.

Chilman, K.; Lane, D.; Foster, D.; Everson, A.; Lannoy, M. 1990. Monitoring 

social conditions on wild lands: designing low-cost systems. In: Lime, D., ed. 

Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource: proceedings of the 1990 

conference. St. Paul, MN: Tourism Center, Minnesota Extension Service, and 

Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station: 163–169.

Christensen, N; Watson, A.; Burchfield. 2007. Relationships to place in wild land 

resources management: developing an effective research approach. In: Watson, 

A.; Sproull, J.; Dean, L., comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain 

wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium. Proc. RMRS49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 470–478.

Cochran, W.G. 1967. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and 

Sons. 330 p.

Cole, D.N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: a sourcebook. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 57 p.

Cole, D.N. 1991. Changes on trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Montana, 

1978-1989. Res. Pap. INT-450. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 5 p.

Cole, D.N. 1995. Wilderness management principles: science, logical thinking, or 

personal opinion? Trends. 32(1): 6–9.

Cole, D.N. 1996. Wilderness recreation in the United States—trends in use, users, 

and impacts. International Journal of Wilderness. 2(3): 14–18.

Cole, D.N. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. Res. 

Pap. INT-488. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.
47

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Cole, D.N. 2002. Simulation of recreational use in backcountry settings: an aid 

to management planning. In: Arnberger, A.; Brandenburg, C.; Muhar, A., eds. 

Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected 

areas. Vienna, Austria: Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape 

Management, Bodenkultur University: 478–482.

Cole, D.N. 2004. Monitoring and management of recreation in protected areas: the 

contributions and limitations of science. In: Sievänen, T.; Erkkonen, J.; Jokimäki, 

J.; Saarinen, J.; Tuulentie, S.; Virtanen, E., eds. Policies, methods and tools for 

visitor management: proceedings of the second international conference on 

monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. 

Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute: 9–16.

Cole, D.N. 2006. Visitor and recreation impact monitoring: Is it lost in the gulf 

between science and management? The George Wright Society Forum. 23(2): 

11–16.

Cole, D.N. 2007. Managing recreation in wilderness: special areas and specialized 

research. In: Kruger, L.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, K., eds. Proceedings: national 

workshop on recreation research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 115–121.

Cole, D.N.; Daniel, T.C. 2005. The science of visitor management in parks and 

protected areas: from verbal reports to simulation models. Journal for Nature 

Conservation. 11(4): 269–277.

Cole, D.N.; Petersen, M.E.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation 

use: common problems and potential solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-230. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 60 p.

Cole, D.N.; Wright, V. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline 

data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-117. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 52 p.

Cole, D.N.; Wright, V. 2004. Information about wilderness visitors and recreation 

impacts: Is it adequate? International Journal of Wilderness. 10(1): 27–31.

Cope, A.; Doxford, D.; Probert, C. 2000. Monitoring visitors to UK countryside 

resources: the approaches of land and recreation resource management 

organisations to visitor monitoring. Land Use Policy. 17(1): 59–66.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Daigle, J.J.; Watson, A.E.; Haas, G.E. 1994. National forest trail users: planning 

for recreation opportunities. Res. Pap. NE-685. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 13 p.

Davenport, M.; Flitsch, K.; Thompson, J.; Anderson, D. 2002. 2001 Niobrara 

National Scenic River visitor study. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota 

Cooperative Park Studies Program.

Deland, L.F. 1976. Development of the Forest Service trail traffic counter. 

Equipment Development and Test Report No. 7700-10. Missoula, MT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Equipment Development Center. 

19 p.

Deming, W.E. 1960. Sample design in business research. New York: John Wiley 

and Sons. 517 p.

Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New 

York: Wiley-Interscience. John Wiley and Sons. 325 p.

Eagles, P.F.J.; McCool, S.F.; Haynes, C.D.A. 2002. Sustainable tourism in 

protected areas: guidelines for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland 

and Cambridge, UK: International Union of Concerned Scientists. 183 p.

Echelberger, H.E.; Leonard, R.E.; Plumley, H.J. 1981. Validation of trailside 

registration boxes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 36(1): 53–54.

Echelberger, H.E.; Moeller, G.H. 1977. Use and users of the Cranberry 

Backcountry in West Virginia: insights for eastern backcountry management. 

Res. Pap. NE-363. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p.

Emerick, M.; Cole, D.N. 2008. Searching for solitude in the wilderness of 

southeast Alaska. International Journal of Wilderness. 14(1): 25–27.

English, D.B.K.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Kocis, S.M. 2004. Designing a sampling 

system for concurrently measuring outdoor recreation visitation and describing 

visitor characteristics. In: Sievänen, T.; Erkkonen, J.; Jokimäki, J.; Saarinen, 

J.; Tuulentie, S.; Virtanen, E., eds. Proceedings of the second international 

conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and 

protected areas. Saarijarvi, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute: 27–32.

Farrell, T.A.; Marion, J.L. 2002. The Protected Area Visitor Impact Management 

(PAVIM) Framework: a simplified process for making management decisions. 

Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 10(1): 31–51.
49

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Gardner, M.J.; Altman, D.G. 1986. Confidence levels rather than P values: 

estimation rather than hypothesis testing. British Medical Journal. 292: 746–750.

Gasvoda, D. 1999. Trail traffic counters: update. Report 9923-2835-MTDC. 

Missoula MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula 

Technology and Development Center. 14 p.

Gibbs, K.C. 1973. A measure of outdoor recreational usage. Economics Report 

52. Gainesville, FL: Food and Resource Economics Department, Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of 

Florida. 51 p.

Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental 

biologists. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 183 p.

Gregorie, T.G.; Buhyoff, G.J. 1999. Sampling and estimating recreational use. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-456. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p.

Hendee, J.C.; Lucas, R.C. 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a necessary 

management tool. Journal of Forestry. 71: 206–209.

Herath, G. 1997. Ecotourism development in Australia. Annals of Tourism 

Research. 24 (2): 442–446.

Hogans, M.L. 1978. Using photography for recreation research. Res. Note PNW327. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p.

Hollenhorst, S.J.; Whisman, S.A.; Ewert, A.W. 1992. Monitoring visitor use in 

backcountry and wilderness: a review of methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-134. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 10 p.

Hornback, K.E.; Eagles, P.F.J. 1998. Guidelines for public use measurement and 

reporting at parks and protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: World Commission 

on Protected Areas, World Conservation Union (IUCN). 92 p.

James, G.A. 1967. Recreation use estimation of Forest Service lands in the United 

States. Res. Note SE-79. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p.

James, G.A.; Henley, R.K. 1968. Sampling procedures for estimating mass and 

dispersed types of recreation use on large areas. Res. Pap. SE-31. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 15 p.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

James, G.A.; Quinkert, A.K. 1972. Estimating recreational use at developed 

observation sites. Res. Pap. SE-97. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p.

James, G.A.; Ripley, T.H. 1963. Instructions for using traffic counters to estimate 

recreation visits and use. Res. Pap. SE-3. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 12 p.

James, G.A.; Schreuder, H.T. 1972. Estimating dispersed recreation use along 

trails and in general undeveloped areas with electric-eye counters: some 

preliminary findings. Res. Note SE-181. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p.

James, G.A.; Taylor, N.W.; Hopkins, M.L. 1971. Estimating recreational use of 

a unique trout stream in the coastal plains of South Carolina. Res. Note SE-159. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

James, G.A.; Wingle, H.P.; Griggs, J.D. 1971. Estimating recreation use on large 

bodies of water. Res. Pap. SE-79. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Johnson, A.K.; Dawson, C. 2002. Coping, crowding and satisfaction: a study 

of Adirondack wilderness hikers. In: Todd, S., comp. Proceedings of the 2001 

Northeastern recreation research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-289. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Research Station: 25–31.

Johnston, R.J.; Tyrrell, T.J. 2005. Estimating recreational user counts: 

corrigendum (visitor count estimator). American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics. 87(2): 524–527.

Knotek, K.; Watson, A.; Christensen, N. 2007. Diverse recreation experiences at 

Denali National Park and Preserve. Alaska Park Science: Crossing Boundaries in 

a Changing Environment. 6(2): 93–95.

Landres, P.B. 2004. Developing indicators to monitor the “outstanding 

opportunities” quality of wilderness character. International Journal of 

Wilderness. 10(3): 8–11.

Landres, P.B. 1995. The role of ecological monitoring in managing wilderness. 

Trends. 32(1): 10–13.
51

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Landres, P.B; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; Barns, C.; Davis, D.; Hall, T.; 

Henry, S.; Hunter, B.; Janiga, P.; Laker, M.; McPherson, A.; Powell, D.S.; 

Rowan, M.; Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness 

character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-151. Ft. Collins, CO: 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 38 p. 

Landres, P.; Cole, D.; Watson, A. 1994. A monitoring strategy for the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. In: Hendee, J.; Martin, V.; Vance, G., eds. 

International wilderness allocation, management and research. Fort Collins, CO: 

International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation: 192–197.

Lawson, S.; Itami, R.; Gimblett, R.; Manning, R. 2006. Benefits and challenges 

of computer simulation modeling of backcountry recreation use in the Desolation 

Lake area of the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research. 38(2): 

187–207.

Leatherberry, E.C.; Lime, D.W. 1981. Unstaffed trail registration compliance. 

Res. Pap. NC-214. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Forest Experiment Station. 11 p.

Leonard, R.E.; Echelberger, H.E.; Plumley, H.J.; van Meter, L.W. 1980.

Management guidelines for monitoring use on backcountry trails. Res. Note NE286. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 20 p.

Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in 

wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Cole, D.; McCool, S.; Borrie, W.; 

O’Laughlin, J., comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—

Vol. 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. Proceedings RMRS15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 23–48. 

Lime, D.W.; Lorence, G.A. 1974. Improving estimates of wilderness use from 

mandatory travel permits. Res. Pap. NC-101. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Loomis, J.B. 2000. Counting on recreation use data: a call for long-term 

monitoring. Journal of Leisure Research. 32(1): 93–96.

Lucas, R.C. 1963. Bias in estimating recreationist’s length of stay from sample 

interviews. Journal of Forestry. 61(12): 912–914.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Lucas, R.C. 1975. Low compliance rates at unmanned trail registers. Res. 

Note INT-200. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Lucas, R.C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes, and 

preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Res. Paper INT-253. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 89 p.

Lucas, R.C. 1983. Low and variable visitor compliance rates at voluntary trail 

registers. Res. Note INT-326. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Lucas, R.C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness Complex, 1970-1982. Res. Pap. INT-345. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 32 p.

Lucas, R.C. 1990. How wilderness visitors choose entry points and campsites. 

Res. Pap. INT-428. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 12 p.

Lucas, R.C. 1990. Monitoring social conditions in wilderness: introduction to 

the topic. In: Lime, D., ed. Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource: 

proceedings of the conference, 1990. St. Paul, MN: Tourism Center, Minnesota 

Extension Service, and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station: 148–149.

Lucas, R.C.; Kovalicky, T.J. 1981. Self-issued wilderness permits as a use 

measurement system. Res. Pap. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 18 p.

Lucas, R.C.; Oltman, J.L. 1971. Survey sampling wilderness visitors. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 3(1): 28–42.

Lucas, R.C.; Schreuder, H.T.; James, G.A. 1971. Wilderness use estimation: a 

pilot test of sampling procedures on the Mission Mountains Primitive Area. Res. 

Paper INT-109. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 44 p.

Lucas, R.C.; Stankey, G.H. 1985. Role of research in applying the limits 

of acceptable change system. In: Watson, A., ed. Proceedings of the 1985 

Southeastern recreation research conference. Statesboro, GA: Department of 

Recreation and Leisure Services, Georgia Southern College: 1–15.
53

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Manfredo, M.J.; Fishbein, M.; Haas, G.E.; Watson, A.E. 1990. Attitudes toward 

prescribed fire policies. Journal of Forestry. 88(7): 19–23.

Marion, J.L. 1984. Methods for estimating recreational use: a bibliography. 

Research/Resources Management Report. Philadelphia, PA: National Park 

Service, Mid-Atlantic Region. 12 p.

McClaran, M.P.; Cole, D.N. 1993. Packstock in wilderness: uses, impacts, 

monitoring, and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-301. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

33 p.

McCool, S.F.; Braithwaite, A.; Kendall, K. 1990. An estimate of backcountry 

day use of Glacier National Park. Unpublished report. On file with: University 

of Montana, School of Forestry, Missoula, MT. 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 

59812.

McCurdy, D.R. 1970. A manual for measuring public use on wild lands: parks, 

forests, and wildlife refuges. Publication No. 5. Carbondale, IL: School of 

Forestry, Southern Illinois University. 48 p.

McIntyre, N. 1999. Towards best practise in visitor use monitoring processes: a 

case study of Australian protected areas. Parks and Leisure. 1999(Sept.): 24–29.

Melville, S.; Ruohonen, J. 2004. The development of a remote-download system 

for visitor counting. In: Sievänen, T.; Erkkonen, J.; Jokimäki, J.; Saarinen, 

J.; Tuulentie, S.; Virtanen, E., eds. Proceedings of the second international 

conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and 

protected areas. Saarijarvi, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute: 37–43.

More, T.A. 1980. Trail deterioration as an indicator of trail use in an urban 

forest recreation area. Res. Note NE-292. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Moore, R.; Barthlow, K. 1998. The economic impacts and uses of long-distance 

trails: a case study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service. 130 p. 

Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Brandenburg, C. 2002. Methods for visitor 

monitoring in recreational and protected areas: an overview. In: Sievänen, 

T.; Erkkonen, J.; Jokimäki, J.; Saarinen, J.; Tuulentie, S.; Virtanen, E., eds. 

Policies, methods and tools for visitor management: proceedings of the second 

international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in 

recreational and protected areas. Saarijarvi, Finland: Finnish Forest Research 

Institute: 1–6.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Muhar A.; Zemann, R.; Lengauer, M. 1995. Permanent time lapse video 

recording for the quantification of recreational activities. Resource Technology. 

94: 219–229. 

Neter, J.; Wasserman, W.; Kutner, M.H. 1985. Applied linear statistical models. 

2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1127 p.

Parsons, D.J.; Stohlgren, T.J.; Kraushaar, J.M. 1982. Wilderness permit 

accuracy: differences between reported and actual use. Environmental 

Management. 6(4): 329–335.

Petersen, M.E. 1985. Improving voluntary registration through location and design 

of trail registration stations. Res. Pap. INT-336. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 8 p.

Ploner A.; Brandenburg C. 2004. Modeling visitor attendance levels subject to 

day of the week and weather: a comparison between linear regression models and 

regression trees. Journal for Nature Conservation. 11(4): 297–308.

Pollock, N.; Chase, L.C.; Ginger, C.; Kolodinsky, J. 2008. Methodological 

innovations for measuring economic impacts of long-distance recreation 

trails. In: LeBlanc, C.; Vogt, C., comps. Proceedings of the 2007 Northeastern 

recreation research symposium Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-23. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 

257–263. 

Puttkammer, A.; Wright, V., series editors. 2001. Linking wilderness research 

and management. Volume 3–Recreation fees in wilderness and other public 

lands: an annotated reading list. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-VOL 3. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 29 p.

Rawhouser, D.; Harris, C.C.; Grussing, L.; Krumpe, E.E.; McLaughlin, W.J. 

1989. Cooperative research for monitoring recreation use of the Lower Salmon 

River. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 7(1): 41–57.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Wilderness use and user characteristics: a 

state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R.C., ed. Proceedings of the 1985 national 

wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station: 204–245.
55

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. 1981. Estimates of recreation use, Mount Rogers 

National Recreation Area, Jefferson National Forest. Report to the Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station and the Jefferson National Forest. Blacksburg, VA: 

School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University. 186 p.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. 1989. Wilderness recreation use: the current 

situation. In: Watson, A., comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: 

proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station: 346–356.

Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E.; Stankey, G.H. 1982. Wilderness management 

in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 

147–152. 

Ross, J. 2005. Visitor counters in parks: management practice for counter 

calibration. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. http://www.

doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/docts33.pdf. (27 July, 

2009).

Rupf-Haller, R.; Wernli, M.; Filli, F. 2006. Visitor counting with acoustic slab 

sensors in the Swiss National Park. In: Siegrist, D.; Clivaz, C.; Hunziker, M.; 

Iten, S., eds. Exploring the nature of management: proceedings of the third 

international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in 

recreational and protected areas. Rapperswil, Switzerland: University of Applied 

Sciences: 13–17.

Schaeffer, R.L.; Mendenhall, W.; Ott, L. 1986. Elementary survey sampling. 3rd

ed. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press. 390 p.

Schnell, K.F.; Taft, J.H. 1972. Application of remote sensing techniques to 

measurement of outdoor recreation resources. PB-214 638. Knoxville, TN: 

University of Tennessee. 70 p.

Schreuder, H.T.; Tyre, G.L.; James, G.A. 1975. Instant- and interval-count 

sampling. Forest Science. 21(1): 40–45.

Snedecor, G.W.; Cochran, W.G. 1980. Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa 

State University Press. 507 p.

Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C.; Petersen, M.E.; Frissell, S.S. 1985. 

The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 37 p.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Steel, R.G.; Torrie, J.H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: a 

biometrical approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.

Stockdale, J. 1989. Concepts and measures of leisure participation and preference. 

In: Jackson, E.; Burton, T., eds. Understanding leisure and recreation: mapping 

the past, charting the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing: 113–150.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2006. Reflections on measuring recreation and travel 

spending. Journal of Travel Research. 45(August): 8-16. 

Stynes, D.J.; Propst, D.B.; Chang, W.; Sun, Y. 2000. Estimating national park 

visitor spending and economic impacts: the MGM2 model. http://web4.canr.msu.

edu/MGM2/MGM2.pdf. (27 July, 2009).

Tombaugh, L.W.; Love, L.D. 1964. Estimating number of visitors to National 

Forest campgrounds. Res. Note RM-17. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 4 p.

Tyre, G.L.; Siderlis, C.D. 1979. Instant-count sampling: a technique for estimating 

recreation use in municipal settings. Leisure Sciences. 2(2): 173–179.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Benedict, J.M. 1980. Wilderness permit compliance and 

validity. Journal of Forestry. 78(7): 399–401.

Verner, J. 1984. Assessment of counting techniques. In: Johnston, R., ed. Current 

ornithology. Vol. 2. New York: Plenum Publishing: 247–302.

Vistad, O.I. 2006. Visitor monitoring in Norwegian national parks? If so: how will 

it find a position in the present situation with low funding, biological hegemony, 

expanding user interests and indistinct management priorities? In: Siegrist, D.; 

Clivaz, C.; Hunziker, M; Iten, S., eds. Exploring the nature of management: 

proceedings of the third international conference on monitoring and management 

of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Rapperswil, Switzerland: 

University of Applied Sciences: 13–17.

Wagar, J.A. 1964. Estimating numbers of campers on unsupervised campgrounds. 

Res. Pap. NE-18. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 16 p.

Wagar, J.A. 1969. Estimation of visitor use from self-registration at developed 

recreation sites. Res. Pap. INT-70. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 27 p.
57

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

Wagar, J.A.; Thalheimer, J.F. 1969. Trial results of net count procedures for 

estimating visitor use at developed recreation sites. Res. Note INT-105. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Washburne, R.F.; Cole, D.N. 1983. Problems and practices in wilderness 

management: a survey of managers. Res. Pap. INT- 304. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 56 p.

Watson, A.E. 1989. Wilderness visitor management practices: a benchmark and an 

assessment of progress. In: Watson, A., comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark, 

proceedings of the 1988 national outdoor recreation forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern 

Forest Experiment Station: 394–398.

Watson, A.E. 1990. Why is it important to monitor social conditions in 

wilderness? In: Lime, D., ed. Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource: 

proceedings of the conference. St. Paul, MN: Tourism Center, Minnesota 

Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota: 150–155.

Watson, A.E. 1993. Characteristics of visitors without permits compared to those 

with permits at the Desolation Wilderness, California. Res. Note INT-414. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 7 p.

Watson A.E.; Cole, D.N.; Turner, D.L.; Reynolds, P.S. 2000. Wilderness 

recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods and systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-56. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 198 p.

Watson, A.E.; Cordell, H.K.; Hartmann, L.A. 1989. Characteristics of 

wilderness users in outdoor recreation assessments. In: Lee, M.; Brown, P., eds. 

Recreation and park management: papers from the first national symposium of 

social science in resource management. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

College of Forestry: 1–10.

Watson, A.E.; Cronn, R.; Christensen, N.A. 1998. Monitoring inter-group 

encounters in wilderness. Res. Pap. RMRS-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

20 p.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-808

Watson, A.E.; Niccolucci, M.J. 1992. Defining past-experience dimensions for 

wilderness recreation. Leisure Sciences. 14: 89–103.

Watson, A.E.; Niccolucci, M.J.; Williams, D.R. 1993. Hikers and recreational 

stock users: predicting and managing recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. 

Res. Pap. INT-468. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 35 p.

Watson, A.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Odom, G. 1987. Wilderness use estimates: 

opportunities for technology transfer. In: McDonald-Cordell, B., ed. Proceedings 

of the 1986 Southeastern recreation research conference. Athens, GA: University 

of Georgia: 127–133.

Watson, A.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Williams, D.R. 1991. The influence of past 

experience on wilderness choice. Journal of Leisure Research. 23(1): 21–36.

Watson, A.E.; Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Daigle, J.R. 1992. Visitor 

characteristics and preferences for three national forest wildernesses in the 

South. Res. Pap. INT- 455. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 27 p.

Wenger, W.D., Jr.; Gregerson, H.M. 1964. The effect of nonresponse on 

representativeness of wilderness-trail register information. Res. Pap. PNW-17. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p.

Wilton, J.; Nickerson, N. 2006. Collecting and using visitor expenditure data. 

Journal of Travel Research. 45(1): 17–25.

Whisman, S.A. 1990. The relative importance of administrative and visitor costs in 

selecting a wilderness use monitoring system. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia 

University. 130 p. Thesis.

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2008. National forest visitor spending averages and the 

influence of trip-type and recreation activity. Journal of Forestry. 116(1): 17–24.
59

Data Survey and Sampling Procedures to Quantify Recreation Use of National Forests in Alaska

White, E.M.; Wilson, J.B. 2008. National Visitor Use Monitoring implementation 

in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-740. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

White, E.M.; Zarnoch, S.J.; English, D.B.K. 2007. Area-specific recreation 

use estimation using the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program data. PNWRN-557. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 26 p. 

Yuan, S.; Maiorano, B.; Yuan, M.; Kocis, S.M.; Hoshide, G.T. 1995. Techniques 

and equipment for gathering visitor use data on recreation sites. Report 9523-

2838-MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Technology and Equipment Development Program. 76 p. 
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300