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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plan
Train
Document
Implement
Refine
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Amount and type of information (what questions do
you need to be able to answer?)
Accuracy (how close is an estimate to the truth?)
Precision (how close are repeated estimates to
each other?)
Sensitivity (how small a change can be detected?)
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
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ground vegetation flattened but not
permanently injured. Minimal physical change
except for possibly a simple rock fireplace.
Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or
center of activity.
Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but
humus and litter still present in all but a few
areas.
Bare mineral soil obvious. Tree roots exposed on
the surface.
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.
2.
3.
4.
Ground vegetation flattened but not
permanently injured. Minimal physical change
except for possibly a simple rock fireplace.
Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or
center of activity.
Ground vegetation lost on most of the site, but
humus and litter still present in all but a few
areas.
Bare mineral soil obvious.
Frissell condition class ratings
from western mountains
Class 1
Class 3
Class 2
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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)
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
Sample form for multiple parameter ratings
IMPACT EVALUATION
(19)
VEGETATION COVER:
(Be sure to compare similar
areas, same species, slope,
rockiness, and canopy cover)
ON CAMPSITE
1 – 0-5%
2 – 6-25%
3 – 26-50%
4 – 51-75%
ON UNUSED COMPARATIVE AREA
5 – 76-100%
1 – 0-5%
2 – 6-25%
3 – 26-50%
4 – 51-75%
5 – 76-100%
(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
in coverage)
(Difference one
coverage class)
(Difference two or more
coverage classes)
(23)
TREE DAMAGE:
No. of trees scarred or felled ____
% of trees scarred or felled ____ (est.)
(No more than broken
lower branches)
(1-8 scarred trees, or
1-3 badly scarred or
felled)
( > 8 scarred trees, or > 3
badly scarred or felled)
(24)
ROOT EXPOSURE:
No. of trees with roots exposed ____
% of trees with roots exposed ____ (est.)
(None)
(1-6 trees with
roots exposed)
( > 6 trees with roots
exposed)
(25)
DEVELOPMENT:
(None)
(1 fire ring with or
without primitive
log seat)
( > 1 fire ring or other
major development)
(26)
CLEANLINESS:
No. of fire scars ____
(No more than
scattered charcoal
from 1 fire ring)
(Remnants of > 1
fire ring, some
litter or manure)
(Human waste, much
litter or manure)
(27)
SOCIAL TRAILS:
No. of trails___
(No more than 1
discernible trail)
(2-3 discernible,
max. 1 well-worn)
( > 3 discernible or more
than 1 well-worn)
(28)
CAMP AREA:
Estimated area ______ (ft2 )
( < 500 ft2 )
( 500 – 2000 ft2 )
( > 2000 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 ________________
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 (m2)
Sand (%)
Rock (%)
Bare (%)
Veget (%)
Litter (%)
1996
1182
49
21
9
14
7
2002
1154
53
21
12
5
8
1996
905
53
15
3
5
3
2002
837
59
16
3
3
3
Decrease
4
0
1
2
5
2
Increased
6
1
0
2
0
2
Unchange
3
12
12
9
8
9
0.52
0.09
0.52
0.37
0.08
0.69
Mean
Median
# of Sites
Signif.
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
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
Hybrid/Combination Options
Forest Service Minimum Protocol:
10 Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge
Condition Class-Multiple parameter ratings hybrid
Process (takes a couple minutes)
1. Census “all” campsites
2. Obtain site coordinates
3. Assess condition class (between 1 and 8) based
on independent assessments of:
• Groundcover disturbance (1-4)
• Tree damage (0-2)
• Disturbed area (0-2)
Hybrid/Combination Options
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
Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cole, David N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods:
a sourcebook. Forest Service General Technical Report INT259
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
The Minimum Recreation Site Monitoring Protocol—FS 10 Year
Wilderness Challenge
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Plan
Train
Document
Implement
Refine
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
Documentation
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
Sample from one of Jeff Marion’s monitoring manuals—
showing how to assess tree damage
None/Slight: No
or 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
of year each time
4. Be sure to use your data to improve
planning and management!!