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: =toolboxes&sec=vum. All toolboxes are products of the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. =toolboxes&sec=vum

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 But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data

Condition class ratings (Modification of Frissell) Class 1 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2

Condition class ratings (Modification of Frissell)

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? Only requires a few seconds to record 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 Groundcover disturbance (modified Frissell) Tree damage Disturbed area Census “all” campsites 1.Site Coordinates 2.Condition Class (1-8) based on:

Multiple parameter estimates (Rapid survey ) Impact parameters are quickly estimated rather than carefully measured For example, is camp area: 1.<500 feet feet 2 3.> 1000 feet 2

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)

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, Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to Table 1. Changes on the main camp, 1996 to Area (m 2 )Sand (%)Rock (%)Bare (%)Veget (%)Litter (%) Mean Median # of Sites Decrease Increased Unchange Signif

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 Marion, J.L. and Y. Leung Trail resource impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(3): Good recent source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Designated Campsites

Administrative Sites

Undesignated Sites

NORTH FORK SUBDISTRICTIMPACT RATING (1995-criteria for evaluating campgrounds changed) Campground Kintla Lake, Head Upper Kintla Lake Boulder Pass * Brown Pass Bowman Lake, Head Quartz Lake Lower Quartz Lake Akokala Lake Logging Lake Round Prairie*N/A 1.00 Adair Grace Lake Trends for Individual Campgrounds,

Overall Trends on Designated Campgrounds,

Overall Trends in Facility Ratings,

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 LegendGoodFairPoor Impact Rating Faciltiy Rating with *no hitchrail Facility Rating with Hitchrail

UNDESIGNATED CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT LOCATIONUTM'SSITE CONDITIONS Lonely Lakes Basin 8/02,8/ E N No evidence of human impacts found. No food hanging trees. Aurice Lake area 9/ E N No evidence of human impacts found. No food hanging trees. Pristine area. Razeredge Mtn and Triple Divide Mtn 8/ E 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 E N No impacts. 72 sq.ft. of vegetation matted down. North side of Tinkham Mtn 8/ E N No evidence found of any campsites after searching area all day. Katoya Lake E N Fire rings x2, 30 ft to water, no recent impacts. Red Eagle Meadows E N No impacts found. Great site potential. Lena Lake E N No new impacts. Very old fire ring

ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPSITES - TWO MEDICINE SUBDISTRICT Cobalt Lake Trail Crew Spike Camp 9/ E N Overall impact rating of GOOD. Area in good shape; food pole present, but no pit toilet. 2004Food pole and toilet present. 331sq.ft of vegetation loss with 252 sq.ft of barren core. Morning Star Trail Crew Spike Camp E 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 human waste pits used and filled in by Trail Crew (20 days in 1992) 2004Low 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.