Campsite Inventory and Monitoring David Cole Research Geographer Forest Service Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT
Presentation Overview 1. Process for developing a campsite monitoring program 2. Alternative monitoring approaches 3. Examples of how information can be used 4. Resources with examples and more information
Process 1. Plan 2. Train 3. Document 4. Implement 5. Refine 6. Use Data
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support • What resources are available? • How will line officers use information? • Ask decision-makers “What types and levels of impact would have to occur to cause you to restrict recreation more than you would like to?”
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support 2. Evaluate program needs • What information do I need—what questions do I want to be able to answer? For example: Do you need to know trends on individual sites or is it sufficient to know what’s happening in general? Do you need to know trends for individual types of impact (such as in tree damage or trash) or is it sufficient to know that campsite impact generally is better or worse?
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support 2. Evaluate program needs • What information do I need—what questions do I want to be able to answer? • How will I use this information? For example: Will the data be used primarily to get a sense of what is going on, how effective programs are and to set priorities? Or will they be used in a standards-based planning process, such as Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) or Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support 2. Evaluate program needs • What information do I need—what questions do I want to be able to answer? • How will I use this information? • Do I need an inventory of all sites? • How many sites are there? Is a sample sufficient or do you need a census of sites? The number of sites will determine the resources required
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support 2. Evaluate program needs • What information do I need—what questions do I want to be able to answer? • How will I use this information? • Do I need an inventory of all sites? • How many sites are there? • What impacts are of most concern? • How frequently should sites be monitored? • What resources are available (personnel, time, money)?
Develop a Monitoring Plan 1. Gain institutional support 2. Evaluate program needs 3. Decide among existing monitoring approaches
Considerations in selecting a monitoring approach 1. Amount and type of information (what questions do you need to be able to answer?) 2. Accuracy (how close is an estimate to the truth?) 3. Precision (how close are repeated estimates to each other?) 4. Sensitivity (how small a change can be detected?) 5. Resources Required (how much will it cost?) – Number of sites – Frequency of measurements – Travel time between sites – Availability of volunteers
Thoughts about Selecting a Monitoring System Unfortunately, there are no cheap systems that provide lots of accurate, precise, sensitive data. There must be a trade-off between desirable attributes. Select the system that provides the most precise and accurate data of the types that you need that you can afford. No systems are “bad,” they just vary in their costs and their limitations.
Campsite monitoring approaches 1. Photopoints (photographs) 2. Overall condition class ratings 3. Multiple parameter ratings (rapid survey) 4. Multiple parameter measures (detailed measures ) 5. Hybrids/combinations
Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data 1990 1979 Changes are hard to quantify and many are not apparent on photographs
Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data 1985 1988 But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data
Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data Turquoise 1984 2005 But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data
Overall condition class ratings • Campsites are given a single numeric overall impact rating on a scale from low to high impact • Sid Frissell’s system is best known • His rating system is on a scale from 1 to 5 and combines (1) groundcover disturbance, (2) tree damage and (3) erosion
Frissell’s Condition Class System 1. Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change except for possibly a simple rock fireplace. 2. Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or center of activity. 3. Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but humus and litter still present in all but a few areas. 4. Bare mineral soil obvious. Tree roots exposed on the surface. 5. Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigor and dead.
Problems with Frissell condition class ratings • Few class 5 campsites • Several types of impact are blended – Some sites don’t meet all the criteria of any single class – Some sites meet some of the criteria of more than one class For example, it is not uncommon to have a site in a meadow with a small area without vegetation (a class 2 characteristic) but with trees with exposed roots where horses have been tied up (a class 4 characteristic)
Problems with Frissell condition class ratings • Few class 5 campsites • Several types of impact are blended – Some sites don’t meet all the criteria of any single class – Some sites meet some of the criteria of more than one class • Definitions don’t work in some ecosystems • A huge class 4 site is the same as a small class 4 site So—adapt and modify
Cole Modification of Frissell’s Condition Class System 1. Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change except for possibly a simple rock fireplace. 2. Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or center of activity. 3. Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but humus and litter still present in all but a few areas. 4. Bare mineral soil obvious.
Frissell condition class ratings from western mountains Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
Condition class ratings Cole’s modification of Frissell’s system with: - ratings from 1-4 - only groundcover disturbance is assessed 1972 2004
Condition class ratings Modification of Frissell’s systems with: - ratings from 1-4 - only groundcover disturbance is assessed Change between 1972 and 2004
Overall condition class ratings • Cost--low (only takes a few seconds per site) • Amount of information provided--low. • Accuracy—fairly high • Precision—moderate • Sensitivity—low (only large differences can be detected)
Overall condition class ratings 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)
Multiple parameter approaches Types of impact that are 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 categorical ratings (rapid survey ) Impact parameters are quickly estimated rather than carefully measured For example, instead of measuring camp area, record area in one of the following classes: 1. <500 feet 2 2. 500-1000 feet 2 3. > 1000 feet 2
Recommend
More recommend
