Encyclopedia of the Arctic Alaska s National Parks

Encyclopedia of the Arctic Alaska’s National Parks Introduction: The National in Alaska serve a number of purposes and respond to a diverse variety of constituencies. Foremost among park purposes is the preservation, insofar as it is possible, of natural and healthy ecosystems. Parks also function to provide for visitor experiences to educate the public, to allow for wilderness experiences and to interpret the historic and cultural experience of Alaska. Parks also provide the opportunity for scientific research across a broad range of biological and social science disciplines. In addition, some park lands are also designated as preserves where sports hunting and trapping, under an appropriate regulatory regime, are permitted. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) also provide for the continuation of traditional subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering of natural resource on park lands by eligible rural residents. The allowance for sports hunting and subsistence pursuits is atypical of most national parks in the U.S. but these practices help define some of the unique attributes and difficulties faced by park managers in Alaska. Managers face a constant balancing act requiring decision making with imperfect and incomplete information. For example, a complex management structure is needed to balance preservation of natural resources with the consumptive uses allowed under subsistence access. In addition, these consumptive activities may conflict with park visitors seeking solitude and a wilderness experience. At the same time the volume of tourists in some parks may impinge on the health of some natural resources. Park management is a constant tension between protecting park resource and allowing access to them. Alaska Federal Lands: 1 At 1,518,807 square kilometers (about 365,000,000 acres) Alaska is the largest state in the union and is equal to about 20% of the size of the combined lower 48 states. More remarkably less than one percent of the total land area is owned by private entities. A perusal of Table xx indicates that the federal government has land management responsibilities for about 978 million square kilometers or nearly two thirds of the entire state. Km2 (in millions) 374 305 205 94 343 142 11 4 Total 1,477 Owner U.S. BLM U.S. Fish & Wildlife National Park Service Forest Service State Native Military & other Federal Private Percent of Total 25% 21% 14% 6% 23% 10% 1% <1% 100% The National Park System Within Alaska: The National parks and preserves in Alaska comprise over half of the land set aside for parks in the entire United States. The vast majority of all federally managed land in Alaska is inaccessible by road. The following table details the size (in km2 ) of the larger national parks within Alaska. Total area km2 2,439,447 11,270,733 2,629,380 24,591,709 34,288,276 Major National Parks/Preserves in Alaska Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Cape Krusenstern National Monument Denali National Park & Preserve Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve Park 555,151 2,629,380 19,190,510 30,449,175 Preserve 1,884,295 11,270,733 5,401,199 3,839,102 2 Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve Katmai National Park & Preserve Kenai Fjords National Park Kobuk Valley National Park Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Noatak National Preserve Wrangell-St.Elias National Park & Preserve Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve 13,052,724 14,870,863 2,714,088 7,085,229 10,671,287 - 234,257 1,694,475 5,695,315 26,588,401 13,286,981 16,565,338 2,714,088 7,085,229 16,366,602 26,588,401 53,324,850 10,224,782 221,375,817 33,685,678 19,639,172 10,224,782 - Administrative History of Alaska’s National Parks: Prior to 1972 the National Park Service (NPS) had administrative responsibility for only four areas in Alaska. These four areas, created mostly by executive action, totaled about 30,534,615 km2. In 1910, President Taft, invoking the Antiquities Act, established Sitka National Monument to protect significant cultural resources, recently damaged by vandalism, that were related to the Tlingit-Russian battle of 1804 (Willis 1985:2). The establishment of Mt. Mckinley National Park (at 5,698,176 km2) in 1917 was largely due to the efforts of Charles T. Sheldon, a big game hunter (and conservationist), and the Boone and Crockett Club of New York City. Although large game animals, including Dall sheep, could not be hunted within park boundaries, the park could act as a refuge and source of breeding stock for the surrounding country (Catton 1997:94). The establishment of Mt. Mckinley National Park had met substantial opposition in Congress (for reasons independent of the merits of the action) and officials in the newly created NPS were concerned that attempts to create additional parks through Congressional action might rebound against the NPS. Accordingly, Katmai National Monument, at 4,403,095 km2 acres, was set aside by the executive action of Woodrow Wilson in 1918. Wilson, under lobbying from the National Geographic Society and the NPS, set aside Katmai as an area important “in the study of volcanism”. Despite the 3 vociferous objection of the Territorial Governor Thomas Riggs, Jr., the editors of the Juneau Empire and other Alaskans, Calvin Coolidge, once again invoking the Antiquities Act set aside 4,713,945 km2 acres in southeast Alaska to create the Glacier Bay National Monument. Spurred by the efforts of the National Ecological Society, Glacier Bay was set aside as a significant resource for scientific research into tidewater glaciers. A key component in developing the huge oil deposits on the North Slope of Alaska and especially with respect to the construction of the 700 mile pipeline that would bring the oil to Valdez, an open water port, was closure and quit claim to existing or pending land claims. Under the Statehood act of the 1950’s Congress provided for the selection of 104 million acres by the state of Alaska but did not resolve Native aboriginal claims. Currently some State selections are still being finalized. The issue of Native claims was addressed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. ANCSA provided a cash settlement of nearly one billion dollars and the right to select some 44 million acres. The distribution of money and the selection of lands would be conveyed to 200 Village and 12 Regional corporations established by the Act. ANCSA terminated existing land freezes resulting from litigation, permitted further filing of state selections and the development of the North slope oil fields. Conservation and environmental groups were also concerned about the disposition of lands within Alaska. Section 17(d)(2) of ANCSA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw up to 80 million acres for parks, wildlife refuges, forests and wild and scenic river systems. In 1971 the Alaska office of the NPS completed a proposed “National Park System Alaska Plan” that listed historic, natural and recreation areas for possible inclusion in the National Park System. Many of the proposals from this plan were incorporated in the withdrawals made by Secretary of the Interior Roger Morton under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 4 The Alaska National Interest lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 was a negotiated Congressional compromise between Native, state, mining, sports and environmental interest groups. Environmental groups saw a doubling of the National Park and Wildlife Refuge systems and a tripling of the National Wilderness Preservation system. Mining interests saw the opening of Prudhoe Bay with concomitant huge profits. The state benefited from development of oil as currently 85% of its revenues come from royalties and taxes on North Slope oil development. Native groups, under Title VIII, were allowed to continue hunting and fishing for subsistence purposes in any area traditionally used in the past regardless of whether that area now exists as a “conservation system unit” (CSU). CSU’s include parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, forests and so forth. Sports hunting interests also benefited from ANILCA in that section 203 amended the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 to permit hunting in areas designated as national preserves. The rationale for establishing National Parks, Preserves and Monuments in Alaska: The following section provides a brief description of National Parks within Alaska, including the rationale for their establishment as contained in ANILCA the enabling legislation. Table xx is provided to reduce the substantial redundancies contained in the description of park purposes enumerated in Title II (of ANILCA). One example of the legislative language is provided to convey a sense of this broad sweeping act. Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, … The preserve shall be managed for the following purposes, among others: To protect and interpret examples of arctic plant communities, volcanic lava flows, ash explosions, coastal formations and other geologic processes; to protect habitat for internationally significant populations of migratory birds; to provide for archeological and 5 paleontological study, in cooperation with Native Alaskans, of the process of plant and animal migration, including man, between North America and the Asian Continent, to protect habitat for, and populations of, fish and wildlife including, but not limited to, marine mammals, brown/grizzly bears, moose and wolves; … to protect the viability of subsistence resources; and in a manner consistent with the foregoing, to provide for outdoor recreation and environmental education activities … Several park purposes specifically mentioned in ANILCA: 1. protect the natural habitat of wildlife resources and to conserve wildlife populations. 2. “in cooperation with Native Alaskans, to preserve and interpret evidence of prehistoric and historic Native cultures” 3. study, interpret and provide educational activities concerning natural and cultural phenomena 4. to provide for and protect recreational features and activities 5. to permit “Subsistence uses by local residents … in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII.” 6 Note: the absence of an “X” does not necessarily mean that this activity is not allowed or does not exist, e.g., Katmai, Lake Clark, Noatak, Wrangell’s and Yukon-Charley all permit some form of Title VIII subsistence, in contrast subsistence activities are not permitted in the original Mt. Mckinley National Park but are allowed in the new ANILCA additions to the renamed Denali National Park. Purposes of ANILCA National Parks in Alaska 2. Preserve 3. Provide for 1. Protect Habitat & Wildlife & Protect research into 4. To 5. Allow provide for subsistence or to protect access Archeologic natural & cultural recreational under Title al resources processes activities VIII Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Cape Krusenstern National Monument Denali National Park & Preserve Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve Katmai National Park & Preserve Kenai Fjords National Park Kobuk Valley National Park Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Noatak National Preserve Wrangell-St.Elias National Park & Preserve Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X* X* x x x x x x x x x x x x X* purpose mentioned in pre-ANILCA establishment. 7 Aniakchak: The Aniakchak Caldera, the result of a series of eruptions (the latest in 1931) is one of the finest examples of a dry caldera in the world and contains many volcanic features including lava flows, cinder cones, and explosion pits. In addition, ANILCA mentions the unique purpose - “To maintain the caldera and its associated volcanic features and landscape…” Bering Land Bridge: The Preserve is a remnant of the land bridge that connected Asia with North America more than 13,000 years ago. During the glacial epoch this was part of a migration route for people, animals, and plants. In addition, the preserve is tasked with protecting and interpreting “examples of arctic plant communities, volcanic lava flows, ash explosions, coastal formations and other geologic processes…” Inupiat speakers from neighboring villages continue to pursue marine and terrestrial mammals and manage reindeer herds in and around the preserve. Cape Krusenstern National Monument: The monument is a treeless coastal plain dotted with sizeable lagoons and features a series of 114 beach ridges that present in sequence a detailed record of 9,000 year of prehistoric human use. A road to the Red Dog zinc mine run by the Cominco corporation crosses the northern boundary of the monument. In addition the monument was set aside to “protect and interpret a series of archeological sites depicting every known cultural period in arctic Alaska; to provide for scientific study of the process of human population of the area from the Asian Continent…” Denali Park and Preserve: Denali Park features North America’s highest mountain, 20,320-foot tall Mount McKinley, its six million acres also encompass a “large mammal” sub-arctic ecosystem, which continues to provide a laboratory for research into the natural sciences. (see also: pre-1972 history and Table xx ,above). However, under ANILCA the park’s name was changed from Mt. McKinley to Denali and the new additions were to “be managed for the following purposes, among others: To protect and interpret the entire mountain massif, and additional scenic mountain peaks and 8 formations; … and to provide continued opportunities, including reasonable access, for mountain climbing, mountaineering and other wilderness recreational activities…” [DEFINE PARK, PRESERVE, MOMUNMENT, WILDERNESS] The basic difference between a National Park and a National Preserve is that sport hunting and trapping are permitted only in the Preserve. ANILCA provides for subsistence hunting and trapping in the National Park for local rural residents. All hunting and trapping activities are subject to State and Federal laws. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve: Gates of the Arctic lies entirely north of the Arctic Circle and comprises several congressionally recognized elements, including a national park, A national preserve, wilderness areas, six Wild Rivers and two National Natural Landmarks. It includes the scenic headlands of the Brooks Range which is the northernmost extension of the Rocky Mountains. Barren-ground caribous and grizzly bears make a living on the thin tundra soils. Two indigenous groups have close affiliation with the region – Athabascan speakers of the spruce-taiga forests and Nunamiut Eskimos, caribou hunters of the high mountain valleys. Congress is almost lyrical in describing its intended purposes – “to maintain the wild and undeveloped character of the area, including opportunities for visitors to experience solitude, and the natural environmental integrity and scenic beauty of the mountains, forelands, rivers, lakes, and other natural features; …” Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Contains impressive tidewater glaciers. The Bay has experienced at least four major advances and retreats and serves as an outdoor laboratory for contemporary research. Part of a world heritage site with three other coterminous parks it forms part of the largest internationally protected area in the world (see Wrangell-St. Elias). The Huna Tligingit are closely affiliated with the park. Voted in Consumer Reports as the highest rated National Park in the U.S. Formerly a monument it was re-designated as Glacier National Park under ANILCA. 9 Katmai National Park and Preserve: Mt. Katmai had a tremendous eruption in 1912 which led to its collapse and the formation of thousands of fumaroles that emitted steam hot enough to melt zinc. This area, which became known as the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes, now has only a few active vents remaining. (see also: pre-1972 history and Table xx ,above) Kenai Fjords National Park: the park is crowned by the 700-square-mile Harding Icefield, one of the four major ice caps in the United States. This icefield may be a remnant of the Pleistocene ice masses once covering half of Alaska. The park's wildlife includes mountain goats, moose, bears, wolverines, marmots and other land mammals that have established themselves on a thin life zone between marine waters and the icefield's frozen edges. Bald eagles nest in the tops of spruce and hemlock trees. Thousands of seabirds, including puffins, kittiwakes, and murres seasonally inhabit the steep cliffs and rocky shores. Kayakers, fishermen, and visitors on tour boats share the park's waters with stellar sea lions, harbor seals, Dall porpoises, sea otters, humpback, killer and minke whales. Klondike Gold Rush, National Historical Park/Skagway: This park celebrates the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897-98 through 15 restored buildings within the Historic District. The park also administers the Chilkoot Trail and a small portion of the White Pass Trail. All through the summer and on into the winter of 1897-98, stampeders poured into the newly created Alaskan tent and shack towns of Skagway and Dyea - the jumping off points for the 600-mile trek to the goldfields. During the first year of the rush an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 gold-seekers spent an average of three months packing their outfits up the trails and over the passes to the lakes. The distance from tidewater to the lakes was only about 35 miles, but each individual trudged hundreds of miles back and forth along the trails, moving gear from cache to cache. Once the prospectors had hauled their full array of gear to the lakes, they built or bought boats to float the remaining 560 or so miles downriver to Dawson City and the Klondike mining district. Kobuk Valley National Park: Kobuk Valley National Park is encircled by the Baird and Waring mountain ranges. Sand created by the grinding action of ancient glaciers has 10 been carried to the Kobuk Valley by both wind and water. Dunes now cover much of the southern portion of the Kobuk Valley, where they are naturally stabilized by vegetation. River bluffs, composed of sand and standing as high as 150 feet, hold permafrost ice wedges and the fossils of Ice Age mammals. In addition to the purposes detailed in Table xx ANILCA states that: The park shall be managed …to maintain the environmental integrity of the natural features of the Kobuk River Valley, including the Kobuk, Salmon, and other rivers, the boreal forest, and the Great Kobuk Sand Dunes, in an undeveloped state … Lake Clark National Park and Preserve: this park has been described as the Alaskan Alps, it is the confluence of two mountain ranges, the Alaska and Aleutian and features jagged peaks, granite spires, glaciers and two active volcanoes. Lake Clark, itself is fed by hundreds of waterfalls and is part of an important red salmon spawning ground that may see ten million fish return in a year. In recognition of this the ANILCA legislation documents one of the purposes of Lake Clark is “…to protect the watershed necessary for perpetuation of the red salmon fishery in Bristol Bay…” Noatak National Preserve: the park and preserve are encompassed by the largest undeveloped mountain-ringed river basin the United States. The Noatak River is classified as a national wild and scenic river, and offers unique wilderness float-trip opportunities - from deep in the Brooks Range to the tidewater of the Chukchi Sea. ANILCA states that the preserve will be managed in such a way as “ to maintain the environmental integrity of the Noatak River and …to assure the continuation of geological and biological processes unimpaired by adverse human activity…” Sita National Historic Park: as briefly mentioned in pre-1972 park history section the park became a national monument in 1910 to commemorate the Battle of Sitka fought between the Tlingits and the Russians. All that remains of this last major conflict between 11 Europeans and natives of the Northwest Coast is the site of a Kiks.ádi Fort. A combination of Northwest Coast totem poles and temperate rain forest are combined on the scenic coastal trail within the park. Refurbished and maintained within the park is the Russian Bishop's House, one of four surviving examples of Russian colonial architecture in North America. This original 1843 log structure contains living quarters and the Chapel of the Annunciation with accompanying icons. Unalaska, The Aleutian World War II National Historic Area: birthplace of winds… cradle of storms… this area encompasses the historic footprint of the U.S. Army base Fort Schwatka and is located on Amaknak Island in the Aleutian Island Chain of Alaska. The fort was one of four coastal defense posts built to protect Dutch Harbor (the back door to the United States) during World War II, the fort is also highest coastal battery ever constructed in the United States. In 1996 Congress designated this National Historic Area to interpret, educate, and inspire present and future generations about the history of the Aleut or Unangan people and the Aleutian Islands in the defense of the United States in World War II. Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park: The Chugach, Wrangell, and St. Elias mountain ranges converge into this, the largest unit of the National Park System. The parkpreserve includes the continent's largest assemblage of glaciers and the greatest collection of peaks above 16,000 feet. Mount St. Elias, at 18,008 feet, is the second highest peak in the United States. Adjacent to Canada's Kluane National Park, the site is characterized by remote mountains, valleys, wild rivers, and a variety of wildlife. One glacier, the Malaspina, is larger than the state of Rhode Island. The Kennecott Mine townsite is a national historic landmark within the park. Wrangell-St. Elias along with Kluane National Park (just across the boarder in Canada) together with Glacier Bay and Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park in British Columbia form a 24 million acre wilderness that has been designated a world heritage site. Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve: located along the Canadian border in central Alaska, the preserve protects 115 miles of the 1,800-mile Yukon River and the entire Charley River basin. A number of historic sites within the park document the importance 12 of the Yukon River during the 1898 gold rush. paleontological and archeological sites provide insight into the environment of the region. Peregrine falcons nest in the high bluffs overlooking the river, next to the Athabascan community of Eagle Village. Ecosystems of Alaska National Parks. A map entitled the Unified Eco-Regions of Alaska completed in 2001 describes the tremendous variety of climatic and environmental regimes that exist within the state. Conceptually describing Alaska ecosystems as grading from east to west and south to north then one encounters the coastal maritime habitat of Glacier Bay and Kenai Fjords, with wet climates, relatively moderate fluctuations in seasonal temperatures and modest winds. Katmai experiences a similar but slightly cooler maritime climate while Lake Clark’s continental climate is moderated somewhat by similar maritime influences. On the eastern border of Alaska north of these maritime climates we find the towering mountains of faulted and folded sedimentary rock that comprise Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. These mountains intercept an abundance of maritime moisture, mostly in the form of snow, and as one moves northward from the Gulf of Alaska the park (controlling for altitude) exhibits the severe temperature differentials characteristic of interior Alaska. Moving further north into central interior Alaska, Denali National Park and YukonCharley Preserve, are incorporated within the Intermontane Boreal zones. This zone is characterized by low moisture, large seasonal fluctuations in temperature and increased susceptibility to fire regimes. With the exception of the Boreal zones defined by altitude, the northern crescent of national parks, exemplified by Gates of the Arctic, Noatak Preserve and Kobuk Valley, experience a dry continental climate with long cold winters and short cool summers. 13 Frigid winter conditions are reinforced by cold-air drainages from the Brooks Range. Thin to moderately thick permafrost underlies most of the area. Cape Krusenstern combines a moist polar climate, fine-grained sediments and continuous permafrost with high ice contents. Thawing permafrost is widespread and creates a thawlake cycle that forms a diverse mosaic of wetlands including marshes, wet meadows and riparian shrublands. The following table, derived from the AKSO NPS GIS site characterizes the various ecosystems found in the larger national parks of Alaska. 14 Major National Parks/Preserves in Alaska Wet Moist Tundra Tundra Alpine Tundra Coastal Hemlock- Bottom Sitka Spruce Spruce Poplar Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve Wrangell-St.Elias National Park & Preserve Kenai Fjords National Park Katmai National Park & Preserve Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Denali National Park & Preserve Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve Noatak National Preserve Kobuk Valley National Park Cape Krusenstern National Monument 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Key: 1 significant habitat by area 2 secondary habitat by area 3 tertiary habitat by area 15 The Alaska Natural Resource Program’s Strategy for the Future. Many consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, such as subsistence and visitation, must be balanced. Alaska parks encompass millions of acres, and resource managers must be dedicated to tackle complex and politically sensitive issues with small staff and limited funding. The primary challenge is to provide for appropriate and mandated uses without compromising the health and integrity of the ecosystems protected within the parks. With 54 million acres to manage in Alaska, the National Park Service has a unique opportunity to protect entire ecosystems. No other region has such opportunities. Alaska parks preserve an array of resources, values and uses. The parks span arctic tundra, marine ecosystems, and boreal forests; include designated wilderness and wild and scenic rivers; encompass volcanic and glacial systems; and provide habitat for an array of wildlife and fish. Our responsibility is to protect the natural resources of Alaska parks. In Alaska, park resource managers are challenged with creating a management infrastructure that can effectively span vast park areas; they must be innovative and resourceful, rely on partnerships and central office staff, and leverage funding and support. When Congress expanded and designated the Alaska national parks with the passage of ANILCA in 1980, our representatives considered the variety of human uses and made provisions to allow for appropriate opportunities to continue. Subsistence and sport harvest of fish and wildlife occur in many areas. Nearly 2,000 patented and unpatented mining claims exist within park boundaries. Reasonable access is permitted to pursue activities like subsistence hunting and mining and to reach private inholdings. State, Native, and private landowners own large areas in the parks and may have different land use objectives. Consequently, lodges, logging, and industrial operations occur within the boundaries of the parks. Natural resource management gains importance in the face of complex land use patterns. The integrity of Alaska national parks is important to the expanding economic growth in the state. Tourist development and gateway communities are increasing. Park visitation has steadily increased in the past two decades. Visitation reached a record of 2.14 million in1999, a 200 percent increase from 1989 and a 480 percent increase from recorded levels of 1980. Natural 16 resource protection can be as basic as cooperating with neighboring communities to maintain fresh drinking water, preventing bear/human incidents, and providing toilets for visitors. Development exerts pressures on the conditions of ecosystem health, biodiversity and wilderness attributes in the parks. Managers need science-based tools and information to manage ecosystem processes for the long term, while effectively responding to immediate issues. Science-based management is hampered by the difficulties of conducting ecosystem-scale studies of visitors and effects in the vast and remote Alaska parks. We currently lack basic inventory information that will provide baseline data for future monitoring. Natural resource management needs to be coordinated among parks and central offices and cooperators to make the best use of small staff and limited funds and to benefit all parks in Alaska. Professional development of resource managers is essential to provide them the education and leadership skills to deal with the challenging tasks ahead. ANILCA mandates preserving unrivaled scenic and geological values, wildlife populations and habitat, unaltered ecosystems, wilderness values and recreational visitor use, opportunities for scientific research in undisturbed ecosystems, and providing opportunities for subsistence use of resources. Balancing resource use and preservation is paramount to Alaska national parks. Four Regional Priorities Eleven Focus Areas 1 Preserving Alaska’s Ecosystems State of the Park Resources—fully develop and implement an inventory and monitoring program for Alaska parks. Backcountry and Wilderness Resources—coordinate regionally to create an effective program and comprehensive management plans. Coastal Resources—develop knowledge sufficient to protect resources and processes through cooperative management strategies. Partnerships Across Boundaries—participate in ecosystem management opportunities at local and regional levels. 17 2 Visitation and Access Visitor Use—develop methods to establish visitation goals and levels of use that balance visitor use with resource protection. Transportation and Access—anticipate and plan for appropriate transportation and access methods, levels and infrastructure. 3 Balancing Preservation and Consumption Subsistence and Sport Harvest—provide opportunities for traditional and customary uses while maintaining natural and healthy populations. Non-Federal Ownership—address non-federal ownership consistent with park legislation and sound resource management principles. 4 A Scientific Foundation for Park Management Living Laboratories—seek collaborative research opportunities and broadly share scientific results with visitors and educational institutions. Bringing Information Resources into the 21st Century—develop information management strategy to make new and existing data readily accessible. Fostering Professionalism—develop and support a professional workforce qualified in resource management and protection. The four regional priorities and 11 focus areas described in the body of the document are a consensus opinion of the most important areas to attend to in the near term. Baseline ecosystem health and trends information is lacking for most Alaska national parks. Inventory techniques and monitoring protocols established in other states are not always appropriate for very large, remote geo- graphic areas. Taxa groups with the largest baseline 18 information gaps include plants, birds, small mammals and fisheries. These data deficiencies are consistent for all of the ecological networks in Alaska How Big is Big Enough? William Newmark in his article in Conservation Biology (1995, Vol. 9, No.3), “Extinction of Mammal Populations in Western North American National Parks” used sighting records from 24 parks in the western U.S. and two provinces of Canada to compile a mammalian species checklist through time. In general he found that smaller parks such as Bryce canyon (36,000 acres), Lassen Volcanic (106,372 acres) and Zion (146,597) National Parks had each lost close to forty percent of their larger mammal species, either through direct human persecution or through random effects that seem to impact small island (or isolated “inland” areas) populations harder than other areas. In contrast larger park clusters such as Yellowstone (2.2 million acres) and Grand Teton (310,000 acres) had lost only one species the wolf. Although recent events concerning the buffalo at Yellowstone may belie these conclusions, it is interesting to note, as Table xx above indicates, none of the parks and preserves in Alaska are less than twice the size of Grand Teton and ten are equal or up to six times greater than Yellowstone. Obviously the parks in Alaska vary from those in the Lower 48, they exist in sub-arctic and arctic environments with concomitant differences in productivity, in number of species and so forth. And although they are large “islands” they are not insulated from pollution moving east from Russia or born north on oceanic circulation patterns. In addition, over fishing of stocks in coastal Alaska, habitat destruction of neotropical migrant birds. Equally problematic are the movement of large-scale ungulates such as the 500,000 individuals in the Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) that migrate far beyond the boundaries of even Alaska’s gigantic parks. Newmark’s findings are not definitive, issues such as habitat diversity and its influence of extinction’s still need to be settled. Nevertheless his generalizations are suggestive. 19 Finally, parks in Alaska differ in another aspect from similar lands in the Lower 48 in their allowance of human harvest and consumption of wildlife populations (subsistence). Human Consumptive Uses and Minimum Viable Populations: The concept of minimum viable population (MVP) is linked to Newmark’s question of how much acreage provides the minimal critical area for an ecosystem by asking the additional question how many of a resource population are needed to remain viable. One answer came from a paper done by Mark Shaffer who used data on Grizzly Bears gathered by the Craigheads in Yellowstone National Park. Shaffer reasoned that if you save enough land to sustain the population numbers of species at the top of the food chain then you have probable saved enough to sustain the whole food chain (web). Shaffer’s work helped clarify what factors may bring about extinction in small populations. He identified two general sets of pressures. One set of human generated pressures Shaffer termed “systematic pressures”. Quammen thinks these pressures such as sport hunting, bounties, pesticides, destruction of habitat and so forth can be predicted and controlled. Another set of less predictable pressures that work on small populations are termed “stochastic perturbations”. In Quammen’s (1996:516) terms these perturbations are those that elude human prediction and control, either because they are genuinely random or because the result from nonhuman causes so intricate and obscure as to seem random. Stochastic perturbations introduce uncertainty into the fate of a population - and the smaller he population, the greater the uncertainty. Schaffer’s work indicates four general types of stochastic uncertainty: • demographic - variations in birth and death rates or gender ratios. 20 • environmental - including fluctuations in weather, in food supplies, predation, competition and disease. • • natural catastrophes - fire, floods, earthquakes. genetic - genetic drift, genetic load on small populations All four of these stochastic processes, either individually or in combination can bring about extinction in small populations. Although one can debate the validity of Shaffer’s estimates for MVP his discussion did indicate a critical insight - invoking any numerical standard involves societal standards not just predictions from biological and ecological models. Political and cultural issues help determine critical parameters regarding preservation and security of a species in an ever changing environment. In addition, this considerable acreage supports a variety of flora and fauna that have been harvested for subsistence purposes for a number of millennium. Existent rural communities continue to be dependent on these resources and the continuity of their harvest practices on NPS managed lands is guaranteed under ANILCA. It needs to pointed out that the harvest of these resources (fish, large and small mammals, berries, plants and so forth) are embedded in a series of social relationships that make the activity far more important than just a nutritional equivalent. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Introduction: 21 The social and cultural categories with which people organize and understand their environment are critical for any agency involved in ecological stewardship. An understanding of how other cultures categorize the natural world and their relationship to it is crucial for communication, for legitimate dialogue on resource management issues but most importantly it is necessary for the long term “health and sustainability” of any ecosystem. In Alaska federal agencies have been tasked with the responsibility of managing consumptive uses of natural resources on federal lands. The regulatory framework [including the determination of eligibility, access and seasons and bag limits] may have little overlap with traditional practices. In fact, research conducted by Georgette, Pedersen and others indicate rural communities located on or adjacent to federal lands continue to harvest resources in a manner that largely ignores the federal regulatory framework. This discrepancy between the “virtual reality” of the regulatory framework and actual behavior has serious consequences for all parties involved. It is the intent of this paper to provide a description and analysis of some traditional behaviors, and the knowledge, values and attitudes that underlie these behaviors. It is hoped that an understanding of these behaviors and values will create an awareness that allows for a constructive dialogue between land managers and local community members. In turn this dialogue may help to bridge the gap between regulation and practice and provide a legitimate process to insure the health of the resources in which we all share a vested interest. The first part of this paper provides a brief overview of the practices and values that constitute Traditional Ecological Knowledge [TEK]. The second part of the paper uses several concrete examples from Alaska (which contains half of the US park acreage) to demonstrate that some concepts such as “healthy”, “natural” and “sustainable” are culturally defined. This section will argue that to ignore the ethnocentric content of these assumptions creates a process that is ultimately self-defeating with respect to a resource 22 manager’s overall objectives. In short the intent of this paper is to demonstrate why an awareness of TEK is crucial to park or refuge management and ecosystem stewardship. THE SETTING: Alaska’s population is extremely skewed with respect to residence. About 80% of Alaska’s 550,000 residents live in the major metropolitan areas of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. The remaining 20%, or about 120,000 individuals, live in about 200 small rural communities. The vast majority of these rural communities have less than 300 people. About 120,000 rural residents qualify (see discussion of ANILCA above) for subsistence hunting and fishing on federal lands. In addition, in contrast to the Lower 48 states, federal lands held in refuges and parks may actually constitute sufficient acreage to sustain evolving “ecosystems”, although, as we shall see, even in the vast acreage of Alaska human influences permeate the landscape. 23 Alaska's Population 1990: Rural/Urban by Ethnicity Rural Native Population 10% 55,888 403,850 60,765 Urban Non-Native Population 74% Rural Non-Native Population 11% 29,81 Urban Native Population 5% Note: About 117,000 (21%) Rural Residents Qualify for Subsistence Hunting and Fishing on Federal Lands. As one can see from Chart xx above, the State Supreme Court decision to enfranchise both rural and urban residents has the potential to exert tremendous harvesting pressures on wildlife populations. However, this potential is more hypothetical than concrete given the concentration of human populations in three major urban areas, the lack of road system throughout much of Alaska and the fact that transportation costs makes the harvesting of non-local resources prohibitive. Although sports hunters will pay up to $10,000 to obtain a grizzly bear and proportionally less for other species. What is Subsistence? []Critical to all this logrolling was an accommodation between the federal and state governments as to who would manage fish and game on federal lands. Key to Native 24 negotiations in ANILCA was the provision for a subsistence priority (over sports and commercial activities) for rural (not Native) residents in the harvest of fish and game on public lands. Under ANILCA the State of Alaska could manage wildlife resources on all public lands and long as it was in compliance with the subsistence priority granted to rural residents. In 1982 State Boards of Fisheries and Game adopted regulations creating a rural subsistence priority. []After the passage of ANILCA sports hunters, mostly drawn from urban areas, were unhappy with the priority given to rural residents. For a variety of reasons, which we will discuss below, they classified rural residents as being essentially similar to themselves. To them the issue was a debate over civil rights. Thus despite the many compromises inherent in the negotiation of ANILCA this interest group wished to reopen who had the right to harvest resources, especially under circumstances in which the resource might be of limited availability. It is ironic to note that the Congressional Acts that had opened up oil development, which in turn had provided for Alaska’s economic boom, probably also provided the economic infrastructure that allowed urban hunters to live in Alaska. Based on a lawsuit strongly supported by sports hunting groups, e.g., the Alaska Outdoor Council, the State Supreme Court in 1989 in McDowell v. State ruled that State laws granting a subsistence priority based solely on residency was unconstitutional under the State Constitution. In July of 1990 as a result of the McDowell decision the federal government assumed management of subsistence activities on federal public lands. The current harvest of fish, game and other wildlife resources by both sports and subsistence entities in Alaska is considerable. 25 Wild Resource Harvest by Alaska Residents 1994 Total Pounds Harvested Rural Residents 82% 43.7 Million Pounds 9.8 Million Pounds Total Pounds Harvested Urban Residents 18% And while sports interests usually focus on a few species such as the high profile land mammals of moose, caribou and trophy species such as brown bear, Dall sheep and mountain goat; subsistence harvesters, as documented below, take resources from a wide variety of species, with fish (including salmon and various non-anadromous species) being the keystone resource category. Chart xx documents the resource composition of subsistence harvests for the state. 26 Composition of Wildlife Harvests By Rural Alaskan Households, 1990's Birds 2% Marine Mammals 14% Plants 2% Marine Mammals Plants Game Shellfish Fish Fish 60% Game 20% Birds Shellfish 2% The contribution of wildlife resources, both from the standpoint of nutrition and economics, to rural individuals within Alaska is enormous. Chart xx indicates the per capita contribution, in pounds, for various regions of Alaska. Note, the average U.S. per capita consumption of meat, fish and poultry is about 225 pounds per year. 27 Per Capita Wild Resource Harvest (lbs.) Selected Alaska Regions Western Alaska Rural Interior Alaska Arctic Southwest-Aleutian Kodiak Island Rural Southeast U.S. Store Bought Meat/Fish Rural Southcentral Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks/Delta 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Note: Average Per Capita Consumption of Fish/Meat/Poultry in U.S. Per Capita (lbs.) Chart XX above shows the high dependency on wildlife resources for regions within Alaska. The Arctic region (of which the Northwest Arctic is a part) averages about 650 pounds per person per year in the consumption of wildlife resources. It is apparent that the most substantial part of an individual’s diet comes from subsistence products. As an example of the great dependence Alaskan rural communities have on wildlife resources we have selected four communities from the northwest portion of the state to illustrate the great economic costs associated with not having access to these resources. Rural Northwest Arctic communities are accessible only by air. Bulk items such as food are extremely expensive to transport. Anchorage’s food costs are about 25% greater than food costs for an average city in the US. And while Anchorage food costs are about 25% greater than most cities in the Western US, the rural communities of Northwest Alaska have food costs more than twice that of Anchorage. 28 With per capita incomes ranging from $5,000 to $14,000 the total replacement cost of wildlife resources, in the four communities that have detailed harvest data, range from 13% to 77% of the total per capita income for that community. Kotzebue Deering Noatak Kivalina Per Capita Income - 1990 Census Replacement Cost $3/lb Replacement Cost $5/lb $13,906 $1,779 $2,965 $7,272 $2,016 $3,360 $7,089 $1,383 $2,305 $4,968 $2,283 $3,805 Replacement Cost of Subsistence Products as Proportion of Per Capita Income 0.80 0.70 Replacement Cost $5 as Proportion of Income Replacement Cost $3 as Proportion of Income 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Kivalina Deering Noatak Kotzebue 29 And while the nutrition and economic aspects of wildlife harvests seem the critical issue, in fact, it is the social relations in the harvest, processing, and sharing of these resources that is of paramount concern to the rural Native Alaskans of the region. Subsistence resources and the activities associated with the harvest of these resources provide more than food. Participation in family and community subsistence activities, whether it be claming, processing fish at a fish camp or seal hunting with a father or brother provide the most basic memories and values in an individual’s life. These activities define and establish the sense of family and community. These activities teach how a resource can be identified, methods of harvest, efficient and non-wasteful processing of the resource and preparation of the resource as a variety of food items. The distribution of these resources establishes and promotes the most basic ethical values in Native and rural culture - generosity, respect for the knowledge and guidance of elders, self-esteem for the successful harvest of a resource and family and public appreciation in the distribution of the harvest. No other set of activities provide a similar moral foundation for continuity between generations. The single most respected and reinforced role for young men in the community is to be a successful hunter who distributes the fruits of that success widely within the community. Food preferences are the most conservative behaviors in any culture. The unique preparation and special taste of foods encountered by children as they grow up stays with them forever. Years later the taste and smell of certain foods evoke memories of family and belonging. The 20% of the state’s population that is “rural” harvests about 44 million pounds (or about 80%) of the total wildlife consumed each year. Although large amounts of 30 resources, especially fish, are taken from state lands, it is reasonable to estimate that about 30 million pounds of wildlife resources are extracted from lands managed by federal resource managers. The vast scale of the Alaska landscape when combined with the small number of enforcement personnel has significant implications for agency control and authority. In the huge areas of the sub-arctic and arctic regions regulating the harvest of wildlife resources on a day-to-day basis often devolves to the local communities and their customary and traditional practices. Communities and regional entities often request that their local knowledge of a resource be included in resource management decisions. For their part, most land managers realize that to achieve their conservation objectives and to be effective managers requires the incorporation of local perceptions and values in their management decisions. It is at this interface that anthropologists can make substantial contributions. Integral to all this discussion is the awareness that management of natural resources is a process framed by social attitudes, cultural beliefs, multiple jurisdictions and a variety of vested economic and political interests. Ethnography and other social science methodologies can help us to understand and communicate the importance of these vested interests to resource managers. Intimate knowledge of traditional resource use will allow NPS managers to respond to stakeholders in culturally appropriate ways. (“Ecosystem Management in the National Park Service 1994:15) Cape Krusenstern National Monument: … The monument shall be managed for the following purposes, among others: To protect and interpret a series of archeological sites depicting every known cultural period in arctic Alaska; to 31 provide for scientific study of the process of human population of the area from the Asian Continent, in cooperation with Native Alaskans, to preserve and interpret evidence of prehistoric and historic Native cultures, to protect habitat for seals and other marine mammals; to protect habitat for and populations of, birds, and other wildlife, and fish resources; and to protect the viability of subsistence resources. Subsistence uses by local residents shall be permitted in the monument in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII. 32