Monitoring recreation impacts - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ostinmannual
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Monitoring recreation impacts PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Monitoring recreation impacts

play fullscreen
1 / 40
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Monitoring recreation impacts

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  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?fuse=toolboxes&sec=vum. 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 • Photopoints (photographs) • Condition class ratings • Multiple parameter ratings (rapid survey) • Multiple parameter measures (detailed measures)

  5. 1990 1979 Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data

  6. Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 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 Chief’s 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: • <500 feet2 • 500-1000 feet2 • > 1000 feet2

  12. Multiple parameter estimates(Rapid survey) Parameters estimated usually include: • Vegetation loss • Mineral soil exposure • Tree damage • Tree root exposure • Level of development (facilities) • Level of cleanliness (trash, human waste) • Social trailing • Campsite area • 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. Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to 2002. Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to 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 Multiple parameter measuresChanges on the Main Salmon River,1996-2002

  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 >20% vegetation cover • Less than 20% vegetation cover; <0.5m wide • Less than 20% vegetation cover; >0.5m 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 • Designated Campsites • Administrative Sites • Undesignated Sites Three Types of Sites

  30. Designated Campsites

  31. Administrative Sites

  32. Undesignated Sites

  33. Trends for Individual Campgrounds, 1992-2004

  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