Campsite Inventory and Monitoring David Cole Research Geographer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• f 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

1979 1990

Changes are hard to quantify and many are not apparent on photographs

Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data

But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data

1985 1988

1984 2005 Turquoise

Photographs should not be the primary source of monitoring data

But photographs are a great supplement to quantitative data

Overall condition class ratings

• Campsites are given a single numeric
• verall 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 4 Class 3 Class 2

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 feet2

• 2. 500-1000 feet2
• 3. > 1000 feet2

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 ________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Sample form for multiple parameter ratings

Multiple parameter ratings

Summary ratings

red = 51-60 yellow = 41-50 blue = 31-40 white = 20-30 BUT can also display ratings for any individual impact parameter

Multiple parameter categorical ratings (rapid survey)

• Cost--moderate (takes 5-10 minutes per site)
• Amount of information provided--high.
• Accuracy--fairly high
• Precision--low
• Sensitivity--moderate

Multiple parameter categorical ratings (rapid survey)

In addition to the questions condition class ratings can answer, these ratings 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 types 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 more carefully and in a more repeatable manner

Variable radial transect method for measuring campsite area

Multiple parameter measures (detailed measures)

Other common measurements:

• 1. Assess damage to each tree
• 2. Estimate vegetation cover in quadrats
• 3. Measure depth of organic horizons
• 4. Etc.

Multiple parameter measures Changes on the Main Salmon River, 1996-2002

Area (m 2) 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 1 2 5 2 Increased 6 1 2 2 Unchange 3 12 12 9 8 9 Signif. 0.52 0.09 0.52 0.37 0.08 0.69

Multiple Parameter Measures

(detailed Measures)

• Cost--high (takes 30 minutes to 2 hours per

site)

• Amount of information provided--high.
• Accuracy—high
• Precision—high
• Sensitivity—high

Multiple parameter measures

(detailed measures)

Cost is high But, this is the only way to get precise estimates

• f trends in the condition of individual campsites

This is also the only way to identify short-term trends on campsites if change occurs slowly

Forest Service Minimum Protocol:

10 Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge

• Groundcover disturbance (1-4)
• Tree damage (0-2)
• Disturbed area (0-2)

Process (takes a couple minutes)

• 1. Census “all” campsites
• 2. Obtain site coordinates
• 3. Assess condition class (between 1 and 8) based
• n independent assessments of:

Hybrid/Combination Options

Condition Class-Multiple parameter ratings hybrid

Minimum protocol

• locate, photograph and assign condition classes to all

campsites

• repeat every five years

Supplement with:

• multiple parameter measures on 10% of campsites
• repeat every five years

Hybrid/Combination Options

Resources

1. Cole, David N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: a sourcebook. Forest Service General Technical Report INT- 259 2. Marion, Jeffrey L. 1991. Developing a natural resource inventory and monitoring program for visitor impacts on recreation sites: a procedural manual. National Park Service Natural Resources Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06 3. The Minimum Recreation Site Monitoring Protocol—FS 10 Year Wilderness Challenge 4. Examples of forms, training manuals and electronic data gathering techniques

These are all available in the Recreation Site Monitoring toolbox on www.wilderness.net

Process

1. Plan

• 2. Train
• 3. Document
• 4. Implement
• 5. Refine
• 6. Use Data

Training and documentation are critical to obtaining reliable data

Training should:

• 1. Stress importance of being systematic

and careful

• 2. Illustrate techniques
• 3. Calibrate different evaluators, train

people as a group

• 4. Provide opportunities to refine

techniques

Develop a monitoring manual

• it should be full of

definitions and examples

• it should be dynamic

Sample from one of Jeff Marion’s monitoring manuals— showing how to identify campsite boundaries

Documentation

Sample from one of Jeff Marion’s monitoring manuals— showing how to assess tree damage

None/Slight: No

• r slight damage

such as broken or cut smaller branches, 1 nail, or a few superficial trunk scars.

Moderate:

Numerous small trunk scars and nails or 1 moderate sized scar.

Severe: Trunk scars

numerous and many that are large and have penetrated to the inner wood; any complete girdling of tree.

A Few Final Tips

1. Once protocols are implemented, don’t be afraid to refine techniques, but document changes 2. Develop computer data bases and enter data sooner rather than later 3. Take repeat measures at the same time

• f year each time

4. Be sure to use your data to improve planning and management!!