Get documents about "Monitoring recreation impacts
Document Sample
• This document is contained within the
Visitor Use Management Toolbox on
Wilderness.net. Since other related
resources found in this toolbox may be of
interest, you can visit this toolbox by
visiting the following URL:
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse
=toolboxes&sec=vum. All toolboxes are
products of the Arthur Carhart National
Wilderness Training Center.
Monitoring recreation impacts
How do we decide what to monitor?
Focus first on monitoring problems that might lead to
restrictive management — LAC-type indicators if you
have them
Focus next on monitoring other concerns (e.g. trail damage)
and use characteristics
Considerations in selecting
monitoring methods
• Amount and type of information (what questions
do you need to be able to answer?)
• Precision and reliability (confidence in conclusions;
minimum detectable change)
• Cost
Campsite monitoring options
1. Photopoints (photographs)
2. Condition class ratings
3. Multiple parameter ratings (rapid
survey)
4. Multiple parameter measures
(detailed measures)
Photographs should not be the primary
source of monitoring data
1979 1990
But photographs are a great supplement to
quantitative data
Condition class ratings
(Modification of Frissell)
Class 1 Class 2
Class 3 Class 4
Condition
class ratings
(Modification
of Frissell)
Condition
class ratings
(Modification
of Frissell)
Condition class ratings
(Modification of Frissell)
Only requires a few seconds to record
Inexpensive way to answer the following questions:
- how many campsites are there?
- where are campsites located?
- which campsites are most highly impacted?
- have the number of campsites increased or decreased?
- have conditions generally improved or deteriorated?
Cannot provide the following types of information:
- which types of impact (e.g. tree damage or vegetation
loss) are most severe or changing most
- how have individual campsites changed (other than
gross changes)
Minimum Protocol
FS Chief’s Wilderness Challenge
Census “all” campsites
1. Site Coordinates
2. Condition Class (1-8) based on:
• Groundcover disturbance (modified Frissell)
• Tree damage
• Disturbed area
Multiple parameter estimates
(Rapid survey)
Impact parameters are quickly estimated
rather than carefully measured
For example, is camp area:
1. <500 feet2
2. 500-1000 feet2
3. > 1000 feet2
Multiple parameter estimates
(Rapid survey)
Parameters estimated usually include:
1. Vegetation loss
2. Mineral soil exposure
3. Tree damage
4. Tree root exposure
5. Level of development (facilities)
6. Level of cleanliness (trash, human waste)
7. Social trailing
8. Campsite area
9. Devegetated area (barren core area)
Multiple parameter estimates
(Rapid survey)
CAMPSITE INVENTORY
IMPACT EVALUATION ON CAMPSITE ON UNUSED COMPARATIVE AREA
(19) VEGETATION COVER: 1 – 0-5% 3 – 26-50% 5 – 76-100% 1 – 0-5% 3 – 26-50% 5 – 76-100%
(Be sure to compare similar 2 – 6-25% 4 – 51-75% 2 – 6-25% 4 – 51-75%
areas, same species, slope,
rockiness, and canopy cover)
(20) MINERAL SOIL EXPOSURE: 1 – 0-5% 3 – 26-50% 5 – 76-100% 1 – 0-5% 3 – 26-50% 5 – 76-100%
(Percent of area that is 2 – 6-25% 4 – 51-75% 2 – 6-25% 4 – 51-75%
bare mineral soil)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rating (Circle one category) Calculation of impact
(21) VEGETATION LOSS: 1 2 3 _ index (do in office)__
(No difference (Difference one (Difference two or more
in coverage) coverage class) coverage classes)
(22) MINERAL SOIL INCREASE: (No difference (Difference one (Difference two or more
in coverage) coverage class) coverage classes)
(23) TREE DAMAGE: (No more than broken (1-8 scarred trees, or ( > 8 scarred trees, or > 3
No. of trees scarred or felled ____ lower branches) 1-3 badly scarred or badly scarred or felled)
% of trees scarred or felled ____ (est.) felled)
(24) ROOT EXPOSURE: (None) (1-6 trees with ( > 6 trees with roots
No. of trees with roots exposed ____ roots exposed) exposed)
% of trees with roots exposed ____ (est.)
(25) DEVELOPMENT: (None) (1 fire ring with or ( > 1 fire ring or other
without primitive major development)
log seat)
(26) CLEANLINESS: (No more than (Remnants of > 1 (Human waste, much
No. of fire scars ____ scattered charcoal fire ring, some litter or manure)
from 1 fire ring) litter or manure)
(27) SOCIAL TRAILS: (No more than 1 (2-3 discernible, ( > 3 discernible or more
No. of trails___ discernible trail) max. 1 well-worn) than 1 well-worn)
(28) CAMP AREA: ( < 500 ft2 ) ( 500 – 2000 ft2 ) ( > 2000 ft2 )
Estimated area ______ (ft2 )
(29) BARREN CORE CAMP AREA: ( < 50 ft2 ) ( 50 – 500 ft2 ) ( > 500 ft2 )
(30) PHOTO RECORD __________________
_____________________
(31) COMMENTS: (Details about location of site, impacts, management suggestions, etc. )
_______________________________________________________________________________ (32) IMPACT INDEX ________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Multiple
parameter
estimates
(Rapid
survey)
Multiple parameter estimates
(Rapid survey)
Requires 5-15 minutes per campsite
In addition to the questions condition class
ratings can answer, these estimates can
answer the following questions:
- which types of impact (e.g. tree damage or vegetation
loss) are most severe
- which types of impact are changing most
- which type of impact are most problematic in
particular places?
However, this is still not a good way to get
precise estimates of trends in the condition of
individual campsites
Multiple parameter measures
Detailed measures
Impact parameters (same as in the rapid survey) are
measured in a repeatable manner
Variable radial transect method
for measuring campsite area
Multiple parameter measures
Detailed measures
Can take 30 minutes to 2 hours per campsite
But, this is the only way to get precise estimates of
trends in the condition of individual campsites
This is also the only way to identify short-term trends on
campsites if change occurs slowly
Multiple parameter measures
Changes on the Main Salmon River,
1996-2002
Area (m2) Sand (%) Rock (%) Bare (%) Veget (%) Litter (%)
Mean
1996 1182 49 21 9 14 7
2002 1154 53 21 12 5 8
Median
1996 905 53 15 3 5 3
2002 837 59 16 3 3 3
# of Sites
Decrease 4 0 1 2 5 2
Increased 6 1 0 2 0 2
Unchange 3 12 12 9 8 9
Signif. 0.52 0.09 0.52 0.37 0.08 0.69
Campsite monitoring
recommendations
Minimum protocol
- locate, photograph and assign condition classes to all
campsites
- repeat every five years
Supplement, if possible:
- multiple parameter measures on 10% of campsites
- repeat every five years
Make certain your monitoring uses protocols and
measurement units that allow you to conclude
whether or not you have problems that must be dealt
with through restrictions
Monitoring trail impacts
Good recent source:
Marion, J.L. and Y. Leung. 2001. Trail resource impacts and an
examination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration 19(3): 17-37
Monitoring
social trails
Social trail condition class:
1. Discernable trail but >20% vegetation cover
2. Less than 20% vegetation cover; <0.5m wide
3. Less than 20% vegetation cover; >0.5m wide
Other impact monitoring protocols
• Grazing impacts
• Wildlife disturbance
• Water quality
For the Bighorn
Crags portion of the
Frank Church-River
of No Return
Wilderness, Idaho
We are inventorying:
- all official trails
- all social trails
- all campsites
We are developing a
simulation model of visitor
use and distribution
Barking Fox Lake # #
Welcome Lake
For the Bighorn Skyhigh Lake #
Crags portion of the
# #
##
# #
#
#
Frank Church-River Lost Lake
of No Return Turquoise Lake
Echo Lake
#
#
#
#
#
Wilderness, Idaho
# ## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
Reflection Lake
#
##
We are inventorying: Twin Cove Lake #
# #
#
- all official trails Buck Lake
- all social trails Tip Top Lake
- all campsites
#
Ramshorn Lake
We are developing a
#
#
Paragon Lake # #
simulation model of visitor Alpine Lake
use and distribution
#
#
For the Bighorn
Crags portion of the
Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness
Salmon-Challis National Forest
See Inset
Frank Church-River
Goat Lake
of No Return Roaring Creek Lakes
Wilderness, Idaho
0 0.3 0.6 1.2
Miles
We are inventorying:
- all official trails
s
- all social trails
ag
Cr
- all campsites
n
or
gh
We are developing a F
Bi
simulation model of visitor
use and distribution
Baseline Scenario
Average Encounters per Trail Link
1
S 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Miles
2
3
4
5
See Inset
Goat Lake
For the Bighorn
Crags portion of the Roaring Creek Lakes
Frank Church-River
0 0.3 0.6 1
of No Return
Wilderness, Idaho
s
We are inventorying:
ag
- all official trails
Cr
- all social trails
n
or
- all campsites
gh
F
Bi
We are developing a
simulation model of visitor Baseline Scenario
Average Encounters per Trail Link
use and distribution
1
S 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Miles
2
3
4
5
See Inset
Goat Lake
For the Bighorn
Crags portion of the Roaring Creek Lakes
Frank Church-River
0 0.3 0.6 1.2
Miles
of No Return
Wilderness, Idaho
s
ag
We are inventorying:
Cr
- all official trails
n
- all social trails
or
gh
- all campsites F
Bi
Baseline Scenario
We are developing a
Average Number of Parties that Use Location
1-4
5-8
simulation model of visitor
9 - 13
S
14 - 16
use and distribution
17 - 35
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 36 - 48
Glacier National Park Site
Monitoring Program
Three Types of Sites
• Designated Campsites
• Administrative Sites
• Undesignated Sites
Designated Campsites
Administrative Sites
Undesignated Sites
Trends for Individual Campgrounds,
1992-2004
NORTH FORK SUBDISTRICT IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed)
Campground 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Kintla Lake, Head 1.75 1.00 1.48 1.28 1.35 1.16 1.15 1.08 1.08 1.00 1.55 1.43 1.17
Upper Kintla Lake 1.83 1.06 1.55 1.45 1.39 1.14 1.33 1.11 1.14 1.20 1.70 1.08 1.36
Boulder Pass * 1.45 1.32 1.36 1.24 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.15 1.15
Brown Pass 1.80 1.61 1.60 1.40 1.35 1.12 1.25 1.13 1.16 1.25 1.16 1.25 1.25
Bowman Lake, Head 1.40 1.00 1.42 1.37 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.22 1.09 1.10 1.40 1.40 1.19
Quartz Lake 1.68 1.50 1.70 1.53 1.33 1.29 1.33 1.25 1.29 1.30 1.33 1.04 1.25
Lower Quartz Lake 1.72 1.06 1.62 1.37 1.28 1.28 1.23 1.14 1.25 1.17 1.75 1.60 1.14
Akokala Lake 1.25 1.00 1.26 1.20 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Logging Lake 1.80 1.20 1.44 1.48 1.35 1.80 1.31 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.20 1.12 1.40
Round Prairie* N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adair 1.50 1.02 1.57 1.40 1.17 1.10 1.00 1.11 1.14 1.10 1.00 1.14 1.14
Grace Lake 1.40 1.14 1.33 1.30 1.16 1.16 1.10 1.08 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.08
Overall Trends on Designated
Campgrounds, 1992-2004
Backcountry Cam pground Im pact Ratings 1992-2004
60
50
Number of Campgrounds
40
Impact Rating-Good
30 Impact Rating-Fair
Imapct Rating-Poor
20
10
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Overall Trends in Facility Ratings,
1992-2004
Backcountry Campground Facility Ratings 1992-2004
70
60
50
Number of Campgrounds
Facility Rating-Good
40
Faciltiy Rating-Fair
Facility Rating-Poor
30
20
10
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Ye ar
Trend data are used to identify needs
for management and/or restoration
Trend data are used to identify needs
for management and/or restoration
Rating Legend Good Fair Poor
Impact Rating 1.0-1.5 1.51-2.2 2.21-3.0
Faciltiy Rating with *no 24-33 33.1-53 53.1-91
hitchrail
Facility Rating with 27-36 36.1-56 56.1-100
Hitchrail
UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT
LOCATION UTM'S SITE CONDITIONS
Lonely Lakes Basin 323.5 E No evidence of human impacts found.
8/02,8/04 5378.9 N No food hanging trees.
Aurice Lake area 316.9 E No evidence of human impacts found.
9/02 5368.1 N No food hanging trees. Pristine
area.
Razeredge Mtn and 314.6 E No impacts from humans found. One
Triple Divide Mtn 5382.3 N area of matted grass from a recent
8/01 camp. No food hanging trees.
Saddle between Triple 314.6 E No impacts. 72 sq.ft. of vegetation
Divide and Razor Edge 5382. 2 N matted down.
1995
North side of Tinkham 316.8 E No evidence found of any campsites
Mtn 5377.5 N after searching area all day.
8/02
Katoya Lake 319.3 E Fire rings x2, 30 ft to water, no
1996 5377.7 N recent impacts.
Red Eagle Meadows 307.0 E No impacts found. Great site
1995 5384.0 N potential.
Lena Lake 327.2 E No new impacts. Very old fire ring
2003 5363.8 N
ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT
Cobalt Lake Trail Crew 321.7 E Overall impact rating of GOOD. Area
Spike Camp 5368.9 N in good shape; food pole present, but
9/03 no pit toilet.
2004 Food pole and toilet present.
331sq.ft of vegetation loss with 252
sq.ft of barren core.
Morning Star Trail Crew 319.4 E Trail access site, 165 ft. from
Spike Camp 1992 5382.4 N water, fire ring present, food pole
present, impacted area = 3000 sq.
ft., no barren core, litter present,
4 social trails. @ human waste pits
used and filled in by Trail Crew (20
days in 1992)
2004 Low rider in place. Two social trails
place well defined trail coming in.
Food prep area shows 264 sq.ft of
bare ground and 410 sq.ft impacted
veg. Hanging pole area is 57 sq.ft
and 107 sq.ft.
