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: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 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: PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 568d4-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

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:

Description:

This document is contained within the Visitor Use Management Toolbox on Wilderness.net. ... Low rider in place. Two social trails place well defined trail coming in. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 41
Provided by: FSDefau5
Learn more at: http://www.wilderness.net
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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:


1
  • 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?fusetoolboxessecvum. All toolboxes are
    products of the Arthur Carhart National
    Wilderness Training Center.

2
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
3
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

4
Campsite monitoring options
  1. Photopoints (photographs)
  2. Condition class ratings
  3. Multiple parameter ratings (rapid survey)
  4. Multiple parameter measures (detailed measures)

5
Photographs should not be the primary source of
monitoring data
But photographs are a great supplement to
quantitative data
6
Condition class ratings(Modification of Frissell)
7
Condition class ratings(Modification of Frissell)
8
Condition class ratings(Modification of Frissell)
9
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)

10
Minimum ProtocolFS Chiefs Wilderness Challenge
  • Census all campsites
  • Site Coordinates
  • Condition Class (1-8) based on
  • Groundcover disturbance (modified Frissell)
  • Tree damage
  • Disturbed area

11
Multiple parameter estimates(Rapid survey)
Impact parameters are quickly estimated rather
than carefully measured
  • For example, is camp area
  • lt500 feet2
  • 500-1000 feet2
  • gt 1000 feet2

12
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)

13
Multiple parameter estimates(Rapid survey)
14
Multiple parameter estimates(Rapid survey)
15
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
16
Multiple parameter measuresDetailed measures
Impact parameters (same as in the rapid survey)
are measured in a repeatable manner
17
Variable radial transect method for measuring
campsite area
18
Multiple parameter measuresDetailed 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
19
Multiple parameter measuresChanges on the Main
Salmon River,1996-2002
Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to
2002.  
Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to
2002.  
 
 
20
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
21
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
22
Monitoring social trails
  • Social trail condition class
  • Discernable trail but gt20 vegetation cover
  • Less than 20 vegetation cover lt0.5m wide
  • Less than 20 vegetation cover gt0.5m wide

23
Other impact monitoring protocols
  • Grazing impacts
  • Wildlife disturbance
  • Water quality

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
Glacier National Park Site Monitoring Program
Three Types of Sites
  • Designated Campsites
  • Administrative Sites
  • Undesignated Sites

30
Designated Campsites
31
Administrative Sites
32
Undesignated Sites
33
Trends for Individual Campgrounds, 1992-2004
NORTH FORK SUBDISTRICT IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) IMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) 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
34
Overall Trends on Designated Campgrounds,
1992-2004
35
Overall Trends in Facility Ratings, 1992-2004
36
Trend data are used to identify needs for
management and/or restoration
37
Trend data are used to identify needs for
management and/or restoration
38
Rating Legend Good Fair Poor
Impact Rating 1.0-1.5 1.51-2.2 2.21-3.0
Faciltiy Rating with no hitchrail 24-33 33.1-53 53.1-91
Facility Rating with Hitchrail 27-36 36.1-56 56.1-100
39
UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT
LOCATION UTM'S SITE CONDITIONS
Lonely Lakes Basin 8/02,8/04 323.5 E 5378.9 N No evidence of human impacts found. No food hanging trees.
Aurice Lake area 9/02 316.9 E 5368.1 N No evidence of human impacts found. No food hanging trees. Pristine area.
Razeredge Mtn and Triple Divide Mtn 8/01 314.6 E 5382.3 N No impacts from humans found. One area of matted grass from a recent camp. No food hanging trees.
Saddle between Triple Divide and Razor Edge 1995 314.6 E 5382. 2 N No impacts. 72 sq.ft. of vegetation matted down.
North side of Tinkham Mtn 8/02 316.8 E 5377.5 N No evidence found of any campsites after searching area all day.
Katoya Lake 1996 319.3 E 5377.7 N Fire rings x2, 30 ft to water, no recent impacts.
Red Eagle Meadows 1995 307.0 E 5384.0 N No impacts found. Great site potential.
Lena Lake 2003 327.2 E 5363.8 N No new impacts. Very old fire ring
40
ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT
Cobalt Lake Trail Crew Spike Camp 9/03 321.7 E 5368.9 N Overall impact rating of GOOD. Area in good shape food pole present, but no pit toilet.
2004 321.7 E 5368.9 N Food pole and toilet present. 331sq.ft of vegetation loss with 252 sq.ft of barren core.
Morning Star Trail Crew Spike Camp 1992 319.4 E 5382.4 N Trail access site, 165 ft. from water, fire ring present, food pole present, impacted area 3000 sq. ft., no barren core, litter present, 4 social trails. _at_ human waste pits used and filled in by Trail Crew (20 days in 1992)
2004 319.4 E 5382.4 N 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.
About PowerShow.com