DOCSLIB.ORG

FLTP Accomplishments FY15

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FLTP Accomplishments FY15 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Lands Transportation Program Accomplishments Fiscal Year 2015 The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage. i Several drainage structures along the Upper Hogan Creek at Denali National Park were destroyed in the spring thaw of 2013. During repairs, culverts were installed to increase drainage capacity and sections of the creek banks were armored with rip rap to reduce erosion. The project received an award for Best Project Administration. NPS Photo. Cover: Isa Lake Bridge at Yellowstone National Park, a 1936-era log and wood structure located along the Grand Loop Road eight miles south of Old Faithful, was replaced due to critical structural deficiencies which presented a public safety hazard. The new structure was built using modern engineering technology but the historic character was maintained. NPS Photo. ii EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™ Introduction The National Park Service (NPS) includes some of the most treasured and valued places in America, providing each new generation the opportunity to connect with their natural and cultural heritage. Access to and within these federal lands is provided through a variety of transportation systems, with the automobile being the primary mode of transport. Traditionally, park roads have been developed to connect visitors with resources, and many of these roads are celebrated as exemplars of the harmonious integration of engineering and landscape architecture. “For the majority of visitors who rarely stray from the paved path, park roads provide access to key destinations and afford carefully choreographed excursion through landscapes of scenic and historic interest. The NPS is continually exploring means of reducing the environmental impacts of park transportation and remains committed to the ideal that the special places that serve as sources of solace and wellsprings of American identity remain accessible to the public in a manner that preserves their ability to provide similar inspiration for future generations”. 1 System Definition The NPS Federal Lands Transportation Program system is composed of approximately2: 5,500 miles of paved roads with 6,100 paved parking areas 1,400bridges 60 tunnels 120 transit systems 4,600miles of trails Important granular surfaced roads are also included in the FLTP network. These include roads that provide primary park access as well as other local considerations. The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage. 1 This document reports the goals and achieve- associated with these roadways. Roads designated ments of the National Park Service Federal Lands as Urban Parkways (functional class VII) or Principal Transportation Program (FLTP) funding (in Fiscal Park Roads (functional class I) are typically, but not Year (FY) 2015), as required by the Implementa- always, high use facilities. High use is often relative tion Guidance for the Federal Lands Transportation to other NPS roads within a given park unit. Program.3 Trails Roads, parkways, and bridges are the NPS FLTP front country trails are pathways for non- transportation system’s backbone and enable motorized use that provide transportation linkages visitors to tour by automobile, bus, bike, or between different transportation modes and trolley. Park roads frequently link to other modes often serve as the primary transportation facility of transportation—water ferries, trains, and connecting visitors with the resources they have trails—both in and outside the parks. When come to see and experience. Front country trails integrated with the transportation networks of are identified in the NPS asset management gateway communities, the parks’ transportation program - the Facility Management Software services provide visitors with seamless access, and System (FMSS) - as those with a designation of frequently improve the mobility and quality of life either “front country” or “urban”. of local residents. Annually, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the national parks is estimated to be in Transit excess of 2.4 billion.4 The NPS National Transit Inventory was conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2014, and serves as the basis Each park unit is created with its own enabling for the systems identification. Transit systems legislation, and in general the NPS transportation within the FLTP inventory are defined as systems network is developed and maintained to support which: the specific congressional intent for each park, 1. Move people by motorized vehicle on a within the context of the Organic Act. Revenue regularly scheduled service; generation for gateway communities and local/ 2. Operate under one of the following regional economies certainly occurs as a result of business models: concessions contract; transportation facilities (roads in particular) being service contract; partner agreement constructed and maintained within and adjacent including memorandum of understanding, to National Park units. memorandum of agreement, or cooperative agreement (commercial use authorizations The NPS recorded over 292 million visitors in are not included); or NPS owned and 2014, averaging approximately 800,000 visitors operated; and, daily. In 2014, national park visitors spent $15.7 3. All routes and services at a given unit that billion in the local region surrounding the parks. are operated under the same business The contribution of this spending to the national model by the same operator are considered economy is 277,000 jobs, $10.3 billion in labor a single NPS transit system. income, $17.1 billion in value added, and $29.7 Building on the previous three years of data billion in output.5 collection and working across multiple branches, the NPS transit inventory is currently underway Roads, Bridges, and Parking Areas for 2015. Ultimately this inventory will form the The NPS roadway system is categorized by NPS foundation for performance management of NPS Functional Classifications (FC). All paved roads transit systems and will be integrated with NPS open to the public (all FC’s except VI – see Figure and Department of Interior systems of record 1) are part of the FLTP system. This includes the to report asset management, operational, and parking areas and structures (bridges and tunnels) financial information about transit systems. 2 EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA™ Figure 1 Functional Classifications of Park Roads 1984 Park Road Standards Public Use Park Roads All park roads that are intended principally for the use of visitors for access into and within a park or other National Park System area are included. This includes all roads that provide vehicular passage for visitors or access to such represen- tative park areas as points of scenic or historic interest, campgrounds, picnic areas, lodge areas, etc. County, state, and U.S. numbered highways maintained by the Service are included in this category for purposes of functional classifica- tion. Public Use Park Roads are subdivided into the following four classes: Class I – Principal Park Road / Rural Parkway. Roads which constitute the main access route, circulatory tour, or thor- oughfare for park visitors. Class II – Connector Park Road. Roads which provide access within a park to areas of scenic, scientific, recreational, or cultural interest such as overlooks, campgrounds, etc. Class III – Special Purpose Park Road. Circulation within public use areas, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor center complexes, concessioner facilities, etc. These roads generally serve low-speed traffic and are often designed for one-way circulation. Class IV – Primitive Park Road. Roads which provide circulation through remote areas and/or access to primitive campgrounds and undeveloped areas. These roads frequently have no minimum design standards and their use may be limited to specially equipped vehicles. Administrative Park Roads The Administrative Park Road category consists of all public and non-public roads intended to be used principally for administrative purposes. It includes roads servicing employee residential areas, maintenance areas, and other adminis- trative developments, as well as restricted patrol roads, truck trails, and similar service roads. Administrative Park Roads are subdivided into two classes: Class V – Administrative Access Road. All public roads intended for access to administrative developments or struc- tures such as park offices, employee quarters, or utility areas. Class VI – Restricted Road. All roads normally closed to the public, including patrol roads, truck trails, and other simi- lar roads. Urban Parkways and City Streets Urban parkways and city streets and generally dual-use facilities in that they serve both park and non-park related purposes. In addition to providing access to park areas, they also serve as extensions of the local transportation network carrying high volumes of non-park related traffic. Class VII – Urban Parkway. These facilities serve high volumes of park and non-park related traffic and are restricted, limited-access facilities in an urban area. This category of roads primarily encompasses the major parkways which serve as gateways to our nation’s capital. Other park roads or portions thereof, however, may be included in this category. Class VIII – City Street. City streets are usually extensions of the adjoining street system that are owned and maintained by the National Park Service. The construction and/or reconstruction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yosemite National Park Visitor Study: Winter 2008
    Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Visitor Study Winter 2008 Park Studies Unit Visitor Services Project Report 198 Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Visitor Study Winter 2008 Park Studies Unit Visitor Services Project Report 198 October 2008 Yen Le Eleonora Papadogiannaki Nancy Holmes Steven J. Hollenhorst Dr. Yen Le is VSP Assistant Director, Eleonora Papadogiannaki and Nancy Holmes are Research Assistants with the Visitor Services Project and Dr. Steven Hollenhorst is the Director of the Park Studies Unit, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho. We thank Jennifer Morse, Paul Reyes, Pixie Siebe, and the staff of Yosemite National Park for assisting with the survey, and David Vollmer for his technical assistance. Yosemite National Park – VSP Visitor Study February 2–10, 2008 Visitor Services Project Yosemite National Park Report Summary • This report describes the results of a visitor study at Yosemite National Park during February 2-10, 2008. A total of 938 questionnaires were distributed to visitor groups. Of those, 563 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 60% response rate. • This report profiles a systematic random sample of Yosemite National Park. Most results are presented in graphs and frequency tables. Summaries of visitor comments are included in the report and complete comments are included in the Visitor Comments Appendix. • Fifty percent of visitor groups were in groups of two and 25% were in groups of three or four. Sixty percent of visitor groups were in family groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and Many Other California Trail Maps Are Available from Sunbelt Publications. Please See
    SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP 6TH EDITION 3RD EDITION ISBN: 9780899977799 Retail: $21.95 ISBN: 9780899974019 Retail: $9.95 Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS Publisher: WILDERNESS PRESS AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The Anza-Borrego and Western Colorado Desert A convenient map to the entire Anza-Borrego Desert Region is a vast, intriguing landscape that harbors a State Park and adjacent areas, including maps for rich variety of desert plants and animals. Prepare for Ocotillo Wells SRVA, Bow Willow Area, and Coyote adventure with this comprehensive guidebooks, Moutnains, it shows roads and hiking trails, diverse providing everything from trail logs and natural history points of interest, and general topography. Trip to a Desert Directory of agencies, accommodations, numbers are keyed to the Anza-Borrego Desert Region and facilities. It is the perfect companion for hikers, guide book by the same authors. campers, off-roaders, mountain bikers, equestrians, history buffs, and casual visitors. The ANZA-BORREGO DESERT REGION MAP and many other California trail maps are available from Sunbelt Publications. Please see the following listing for titles and details. s: catalogs\2018 catalogs\18-CA TRAIL MAPS.doc (800) 626-6579 Fax (619) 258-4916 Page 1 of 7 SUNBELT WHOLESALE BOOKS AND MAPS CALIFORNIA TRAIL MAPS www.sunbeltpublications.com ANGEL ISLAND & ALCATRAZ ISLAND BISHOP PASS TRAIL MAP TRAIL MAP ISBN: 9780991578429 Retail: $10.95 ISBN: 9781877689819 Retail: $4.95 AREA: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA An extremely useful map for all outdoor enthusiasts who These two islands, located in San Francisco Bay are want to experience the Bishop Pass in one handy map.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park Foundation Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Yosemite National Park California Contact Information For more information about Yosemite National Park, Call (209) 372-0200 (then dial 3 then 5) or write to: Public Information Office, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, CA 95389 Park Description Through a rich history of conservation, the spectacular The geology of the Yosemite area is characterized by granitic natural and cultural features of Yosemite National Park rocks and remnants of older rock. About 10 million years have been protected over time. The conservation ethics and ago, the Sierra Nevada was uplifted and then tilted to form its policies rooted at Yosemite National Park were central to the relatively gentle western slopes and the more dramatic eastern development of the national park idea. First, Galen Clark and slopes. The uplift increased the steepness of stream and river others lobbied to protect Yosemite Valley from development, beds, resulting in formation of deep, narrow canyons. About ultimately leading to President Abraham Lincoln’s signing 1 million years ago, snow and ice accumulated, forming glaciers the Yosemite Grant in 1864. The Yosemite Grant granted the at the high elevations that moved down the river valleys. Ice Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove of Big Trees to the State thickness in Yosemite Valley may have reached 4,000 feet during of California stipulating that these lands “be held for public the early glacial episode. The downslope movement of the ice use, resort, and recreation… inalienable for all time.” Later, masses cut and sculpted the U-shaped valley that attracts so John Muir led a successful movement to establish a larger many visitors to its scenic vistas today.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite Guide @Yosemitenps
    Yosemite Guide @YosemiteNPS Yosemite's rockclimbing community go to great lengths to clean hard-to-reach areas during a Yosemite Facelift event. Photo by Kaya Lindsey Experience Your America Yosemite National Park August 28, 2019 - October 1, 2019 Volume 44, Issue 7 Yosemite, CA 95389 Yosemite, 577 PO Box Service Park National US DepartmentInterior of the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Year-round Route: Valley Yosemite Valley Shuttle Valley Visitor Center Summer-only Route: Upper Hetch Yosemite Shuttle System El Capitan Hetchy Shuttle Fall Yosemite Tuolumne Village Campground Meadows Lower Yosemite Parking The Ansel Fall Adams Yosemite l Medical Church Bowl i Gallery ra Clinic Picnic Area Picnic Area Valley l T Area in inset: al F e E1 t 5 Restroom Yosemite Valley i 4 m 9 The Ahwahnee Shuttle System se Yo Mirror Upper 10 3 Walk-In 6 2 Lake Campground seasonal 11 1 Wawona Yosemite North Camp 4 8 Half Dome Valley Housekeeping Pines E2 Lower 8836 ft 7 Chapel Camp Yosemite Falls Parking Lodge Pines 2693 m Yosemite 18 19 Conservation 12 17 Heritage 20 14 Swinging Center (YCHC) Recreation Campground Bridge Rentals 13 15 Reservations Yosemite Village Parking Curry Upper Sentinel Village Pines Beach il Trailhead E6 a Curry Village Parking r r T te Parking e n il i w M in r u d 16 o e Nature Center El Capitan F s lo c at Happy Isles Picnic Area Glacier Point E3 no shuttle service closed in winter Vernal 72I4 ft Fall 2I99 m l Mist Trai Cathedral ail Tr op h Beach Lo or M E4 ey ses erce all only d Ri V ver E5 Nevada Fall To & Bridalveil Fall d oa R B a r n id wo a a lv W e i The Yosemite Valley Shuttle operates from 7am to 10pm and serves stops in numerical order.
    [Show full text]
  • John Muir Trail Entry Points
    John Muir Trail Entry Points Alphabetical list of Inyo National Forest trails that connect to John Muir Trail (JMT) Mileage and elevation are approximate for trip planning, not intended for navigation. * indicates there is no pass between entry point and JMT junction Elevation Miles to Trail Name (area) Elevation at TrailheadElevation of Pass at JMT JunctionMiles to Pass JMT Junction Baxter Pass (Independence) 6,000 ft. 12,270 ft. 10,200 ft. 8 13 Bishop Pass (South Lake/ Bishop) 9,800 ft. 11,960 ft. 8,700 ft. 5 10 Cottonwood Pass -PCT (Horseshoe 9,900 ft. 11,120 ft. 10,600 ft. 3.5 20.5 Meadow) Duck Pass (Mammoth Lakes) 9,100 ft. 10,795 ft. 10,200 ft. 6 7 High Trail (Agnew Meadows) 8,300 ft. * 9,850 ft. * 7.75 JMT North of Devils Postpile (Reds 7,560 ft. * 7,580 ft. * Meadow toward Yosemite) 0.25 JMT South of Devils Postpile (Reds 7,560 ft. * 7,580 ft. * Meadow toward Mt Whitney) 0.25 Kearsarge Pass (Independence) 9,100 ft. 11,800 ft. 10,500 ft. 4 6.5 McGee Pass (Crowley Lake) 8,000 ft. 11,875 ft. 9,500 ft. 7 11.5 Mono Pass (Rock Creek Road) 10,200 ft. 12,040 ft. 8,400 ft. 2.5 15 Mt Whitney Trail (Lone Pine) 8,300 ft. 13,700 ft. 13,480 ft. 8.2 8.7 Pine Creek Pass (Bishop) 7,400 ft. 11,120 ft. 8,075 ft. 7 20 Piute Pass (North Lake/ Bishop) 9,350 ft. 11,420 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park U.S
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Merced Wild & Scenic River Final Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Designated in 1987, the The Merced Wild and Scenic River Merced Wild and Scenic River Final Comprehensive Merced Wild and Scenic River includes 81 miles The Merced Wild and Scenic River, designated in Management Plan and Environmental Impact State- in Yosemite National 1987, includes 122 miles of the Merced River on the ment (Final Merced River Plan/EIS) is the National Park and the El Portal Park Service’s response to these requirements. Administrative Site. western side of the Sierra Nevada in California. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 81 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River through Yosem- The Final Merced River Plan/EIS will be the guid- ite National Park and the El Portal Administrative ing document for protecting and enhancing river Site, including the headwaters and both the Mer- values and managing use and user capacity within ced River’s main stem and the South Fork Merced the Merced River corridor for the next 20 years. As River. As the Merced River flows outside Yosemite’s such, it evaluates impacts and threats to river values western boundary, the U.S. Forest Service and the and identifies strategies for protecting and enhanc- Bureau of Land Management manage the next 41 ing these values over the long-term. The plan fol- miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River. lows and documents planning processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Why a Comprehensive Management Plan? the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) requires and other legal mandates governing National Park comprehensive planning for all designated rivers to Service decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of High-Elevation Wilderness Meadows to Inform Meadow Monitoring and Management of Pack Stock
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Data Analysis and Assessment of High Elevation Wilderness Meadows Surveyed from 2008 to 2011, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science Natural Resource Report NPS/YOSE/NRR—2014/926 ON THE COVER Photograph of Dorothy Lake Meadow, July 2010. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. Data Analysis and Assessment of High Elevation Wilderness Meadows Surveyed from 2008 to 2011, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science Natural Resource Report NPS/YOSE/NRR—2014/926 Tim J. Kuhn National Park Service, Yosemite National Park Resources Management and Science 5083 Foresta Road El Portal, California 95318 Liz Ballenger National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Resources Management and Science P.O. Box 89 Sequoia National Park, California, 93262 Rick Scherer Conservation Science Partners 5 Old Town Square, Suite 205 Fort Collins, CO 80524 John N. Williams, Ph.D., Pacific Agroecology LLC Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CIIDIR-Unidad Oaxaca Hornos No. 10, Col. Noche Buena Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán 71230 Oaxaca, Mexico February 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Necator): a Conservation Assessment
    Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A Conservation Assessment John D. Perrine * Environmental Science, Policy and Management Department and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California, Berkeley Lori A. Campbell** USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Sierra Nevada Research Center Davis, California Gregory A. Green Tetra Tech EC Bothell, Washington Current address and contact information: *Primary Author: J. Perrine, Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401 [email protected] **L. Campbell, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Perrine, Campbell and Green R5-FR-010 August 2010 NOTES IN PROOF • Genetic analyses by B. Sacks and others 2010 (Conservation Genetics 11:1523-1539) indicate that the Sacramento Valley red fox population is native to California and is closely related to the Sierra Nevada red fox. They designated the Sacramento Valley red fox as a new subspecies, V. v. patwin. • In August 2010, as this document was going to press, biologists on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest detected a red fox at an automatic camera station near the Sonora Pass along the border of Tuolomne and Mono Counties. Preliminary genetic analyses conducted at UC Davis indicate that the fox was a Sierra Nevada red fox. Further surveys and analyses are planned. • The California Department of Fish and Game Region 1 Timber Harvest Program has established a Sierra Nevada red fox information portal, where many management-relevant documents can be downloaded as PDFs. See: https://r1.dfg.ca.gov/Portal/SierraNevadaRedFox/tabid/618/Default.aspx Sierra Nevada Red Fox Conservation Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This conservation assessment provides a science-based, comprehensive assessment of the status of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) and its habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Large Pdf File
    After Action Review of the November 28, 2016, Firestorm Vernon H. Guthrie – Lead Mark J. Finucane – Fire Phillip E. Keith – Law Enforcement and Public Policy Donald Bart Stinnett – Emergency Management December 2017 This page intentionally left blank. 2 DISCLAIMER This After Action Review (AAR) was prepared by ABSG Consulting Inc. (ABS Group) solely for the benefit of the City of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and Sevier County, Tennessee. Many parties provided information on events that occurred prior to, during, and after the Chimney Tops 2 firestorm. This AAR is a result of this information. Included in this AAR is a listing of what worked well, issues, and lessons learned from a retrospective review of the response actions before and during the firestorm and the recovery efforts following the incident. Recommendations, actions already taken or underway, and identified best practices are provided to improve future response and recovery efforts to such incidents. None of ABS Group, nor the City of Gatlinburg, nor Sevier County, nor any person acting on their behalf gives any warranty (express or implied), or assumes any responsibility with any third party regarding the use of any information or methods disclosed in this report. Any third party to this report, by accepting or using this report or any information contained therein, releases ABS Group, the City of Gatlinburg, and Sevier County from liability for any direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage, whether arising out of the contract, tort (including negligence), or in any other way. ABS Group and its employees, subcontractors, advisors, and other designees cannot, individually or collectively, predict what will happen in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Story and Photos by Kyle Sparks S a Photographer, My Career Week Was Cycling
    All We Do Is Ride Uphill Story and photos by Kyle Sparks s a photographer, my career week was cycling. With this thought in my another section of grass out of the sprin- has taken me to the far mind, I jumped onto the back of the pack kler’s reach — and then back to sleep. reaches of the world on and kept pushing pedals. Then another attack came more quickly several occasions. But none Brian, Rob, and I pedaled through the and forcefully. At this point, I was done of my experiences abroad fields of Oxnard and Ventura. These nice, moving around. I just covered my face compare to a recent cycling flat roads have great bike lanes. We knew with my sleeping bag, hoping someone Atrip — pedaling through my home state, that soon enough the flat roads would else would deal with the problem. Luckily straight uphill. This idea spawned from give way to our first major climb — Pine Rob was on it in seconds, jamming the stories of a trip my dad went on in 1976. Mountain, 5,080 feet. After a right turn in sprinkler’s movement with a large stick. He rode his bicycle across the U.S. from Ventura, we started up. With the sprinkler issue resolved, we Oxnard, California, to Millinocket, Maine. The Ventura River bike path is 11 miles drifted back into a deep sleep. In the morn- A couple of good friends, Brian Mich and 700 feet of elevation gain from Ventura ing, we’d make our apologies for disrupting and Rob Thompson, and I embarked on to Ojai.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Simulation Modeling of Recreation
    Chapter 2: Historical Development of Simulation Models of Recreation Use Jan W. van Wagtendonk David N. Cole The potential utility of modeling as a park and Numerous sociological studies were launched to elicit wilderness management tool has been recognized for the relationship between benefits and encounters, decades. Romesburg (1974) explored how mathemati- but, other than laborious field work, no means existed cal decision modeling could be used to improve deci- for enumerating encounters. sions about regulation of wilderness use. Cesario (1975) To overcome this obstacle, researchers from Re- described a computer simulation modeling approach sources for the Future began to develop a computer that utilized GPSS (General Purpose Systems Simula- model that would simulate travel behavior in a wilder- tor), a simulation language designed to deal with ness and track encounters between parties. They soon scheduling problems. He identified a number of poten- found that the programming expertise needed far tial uses and the advantages of using simulation exceeded their capabilities, so they approached IBM instead of trial and error. In this chapter, we review for assistance. The result was a simulation program many of the most important applications of computer written by Heck and Webster (1973) in the General simulation modeling to recreation use, and the major Purpose Simulation System (GPSS) language run- lessons learned during each application. ning on an IBM mainframe computer. The model was dynamic, stochastic, and discrete, meaning that it represented a system that evolves over time, incorpo- rates random components, and changes in state at Wilderness Use Simulation discrete points in time (Law and Kelton 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 223 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 403K
    Page 223 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 403k National Forest, located within and adjacent to State of Tennessee of legislative jurisdiction the right-of-way for section 8A of the Foothills over the lands and notification of such accept- Parkway between Tennessee Highway Numbered ance being given to the Secretary of the Inte- 32 and the Pigeon River. rior, such jurisdiction is retroceded to the State. Upon publication in the Federal Register of an (Pub. L. 91–57, § 3, Aug. 9, 1969, 83 Stat. 100.) order of transfer by the Secretary of Agri- culture, the lands so transferred shall be a part § 403i. Secretary of the Interior authorized to of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park purchase necessary lands and available for the scenic parkway as author- ized by section 403h–11 of this title. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire on behalf of the United States by pur- (Pub. L. 88–415, Aug. 10, 1964, 78 Stat. 388.) chase, at prices deemed by him to be reasonable, § 403h–15. Conveyances to Tennessee of lands the lands needed to complete the Great Smoky within Great Smoky Mountains National Mountains National Park in the State of Ten- Park nessee, in accordance with the provisions of sec- tions 403 and 403a to 403c of this title; and the The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, convey to the State of Tennessee, subject to when in his opinion unreasonable prices are such conditions as he may deem necessary to asked for any of such lands, to acquire the same preserve the natural beauty of the adjacent park by condemnation under the provisions of section lands, approximately twenty-eight acres of land 3113 of title 40.
    [Show full text]