This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
The Measurelnent of Changes in a Colorado
Subalpine Ecosystenl Resulting froln
Alterllative Recreation Canlping Bella"iors
Deborah J. Overton and Glenn E. Haas 1
A principle of wilderness management is to use the
"minimum tool" necessary to control recre,ation use (He,ndef~,
et a1. 1978). This principle is based on the public perception
and desire to have opportunities i.n wilderness that are characteriz,ed by lack of restrictions, freedom, spontaneity and
escape from daily work lifestyles. Hence, federal land managers often prefer to employ less regulative actions; those, which
indirectly alter human behavior (e.g., information or education) as opposed to those which directly regulate human
be,havior (e.g., party size or designated campsites).
In favor of the "minimum tool" management approach,
federal land agencies have begun a large scale information and
education campai.gn entitle,d, "l\finimum Impact Camping".
The inte,nt is to educate recreat10nists as to how they can
minimally impact natural areas. The hope is that (1) increased
awareness and knowledge will lead to (2) altered or appropriate human behavior which wHl lead to (3) minimal alteration
of ecosystem processes and quality of appearance.
The study compares the effect of two alternative camping
behaviors, l\fICB and TICB, to establish the functlonal relationship between: (1) amount of use and amount of impact, (2)
human behavior and system modification at light use subalpine
campsites. More specifically, the hypotheses are:
1. The amount of impact is greater for the TICB
treatment than for the l\UCB treatment.
2. There is no treatment time interaction for each of
the weekly treatment applications.
The research design incorporates l\fICB and TICB treatme,nts administered over a 2 year monitoring period during the
summers of 1986 and 1987. This is a progress report summarizing the results of the first ye,ar of the study, an assessme,nt
of the changes that occurred throughout the 9 treatments and
how these changes relate to the type of recreational behavior
at each site.
Related Research
Focus of the Study
Detailed studies of wilderness campsites are few. Most
impact studies have centered on developed campsite,s accessible by car receiving much heavier use. \Vilderness campsite
c.ondition studies have been conducted in northern Minnesota
(Merriam, et a11973; Frissell and Duncan 19(5), the eastern
United States (Leonard, et a11983; Bratton 1978), Oregon
(Cole 1982), Idaho (Coombs 1976), and Montana (Fichtler
1980). Of these studies, only Cole (1982), Fichtler (1980) and
Coombs (1976) begin to quantify low use data.
Previous studies of wilderness campsite deterioration
concentrated on documenting vegetation cover losses through
mechanical damage; i.e., trampling studies (Emanue.lsson
1979; Liddle 1975; Burden and Randerson 1972) and soil
deterioration at campsites (Leonard and Plumley 1979; Legg
and Schneider 1977). Live tree damage, mutilations and
scarring was reported by Cole (1982). Seedling loss was
reported by Cole (1982), Coombs (1976) and Fichtler (1980).
Cole (1982) concluded that prevention of seedling elimination
may be most critical due to loss of future overs tory .
It is generally assumed that the amount of impact in a
subalpine ecosystem will be less if recreationists follow prescribed minimum impact camping behaviors (MICB) rather
than traditional impact camping behaviors (TICB). In this
study: l\UCB is defined as camping without a campfire (stove
only); where such living activities as cooking, eating and
relaxing are dispersed away from the tent; human artifacts
(trash, log or rockse,ats) are not apparent; and soft soled shoes
are worn in cam p. TICH is defined as cam pingwit:h a campfire;
where such living activities as cooking, eating and relaxing are
concentrated around the campfire; human artifacts are likely
(rock fire ring, woodpile, rock or log seats, trash in firepit); and
camp shoe type is of individual choi.ce. Light use campsites are
defined as having no previous recreation use through 9 nights
use per year.
1Authors are Research Associate and Associate Professor, respectively, in the Department of Recreation Resources and Landscape
Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
246
Conclusions about the relationship between use and impact ,,'ary. Frissell and Duncan (1965), working in the BWCA,
found no relationship betwe,en amount of use and either
ve.getati.on loss or bare ground. ~lerriam, et. a1. (1973), also
working in the same area, found a more consistent relationship
between vegetation loss and amount of impact when sites were
stratified by vegetation type. Cole (1982) reported that the
response of variables as use increases is poorly understood,
especially in the light use portion of the impact/amount of use
spectrum.
A partial e.xplanation for the dufe.rence in re.sults may lie
in the method of analysis employed by individual researchers.
The functional re.lationship betwee.n impact and use is hyperbolic rather than linear; Le., the rate of impact increase
decreases as use increases (Cole 1982). Also, the amount of
impact is not the same for every variable. Typical research
results relating campsi.te impact variables and amount of use
show an exponential increase in impact levels from light use,
less than 5 nights per year to m04erate use, estimated at 10 to
20 nights per year (Cole 1982). Coombs (1976) found the most
pronounced differences among sites (light, moderate, and
heavy use) to occur between light use and moderate. use sites.
Study Are;l
The Comanche Peak Wilderness was selected for study
because of its proximity to Fort Collins, as a primary source of
treatment volunte.ers; location where recreation and other
social uses could be controlled; visitor use patterns similar to
other eastern slope wilderness areas; and the representativeness of the are to the many glaciated, mountainous wilderness
areas in Colorado and the central Rocky ~lountain region.
The Comanche Peak Vlilderness i.s located along the north
and northeast boundary of Rocky ~:fountain National Park in
the ~:fulllmy Range, encompassing 27,316 ha of the Roosevelt
National Forest in north central Colorado. The terrain, in
general, consists of a high rolling plateau at approximately
3350 meters in elevation, reaching 3810 meters at Comanche
Peak.
Study Site Selection Criteria
Subalpine lakes are a primary destination for most visitors
to the Comanche Peak Wilderness. Brown's Lake, at 3180
meters elevation, typically receives 30 visitor days of use each
weekend during the summer (personal observation). Unauthorized public use of study campsites was controlled for by
loca.ting sites one mile away from Brown's Lake, a major
destination point/water supply source, and by locating sites off
the main travel route, the Brown's Lake Trail. Further, study
sites were unobtrusively posted and roped off in the eve·nt that
a site was discovered by the public ..
Environmental differences were minimized by se.1ecting
sites located within the same drainage, on a south facing aspect
on soils derived from granitic bedrock. All sites are within the
Descampsia. ca.espitosa association. This permits the effects of
alternative camping behavior to be measured more precisely.
Control sites are located in the vicinity of each treatment plot
in order to determine measures of natural variation. All
measurements on control plots are identical to measurements
on treatment plots.
Field Methodology
In order to estimate the amount of change and rate of
change that oc·curs oh each treatment site, it is important to
begin weekly measurements from a permanent starting point.
Therefore, the data collection procedure utilizes the poi.nt
method, where the quadrat is reduced to an i.nfinitely small
point and permanent starting/ending points axe located between baselines. In practice, a point frame is held perpendicular to the ground and sharp tipped metal pins are lowered until
intercepting vegetation, litter or bare ground. Each plot is
measured systematically by extending 11 line transects from
the permanent baseline. points. Basal point measurements are
taken every 10 Col along each transect. These measurements
yield unbiased estimates of cover, frequency and density.
The following categories of vegetation cover variables are
measured weekly for each treatment and control plot: forb,
grass, grass like, shrub, tree, ground cover (mosses and lichens), litter, bare ground and rock. Human artifact development, i.e., fire ring, ash, wood piles, trash, rock or log furniture,
and loss of downed wood, are measured on treatment sites.
A count procedure is used to measure tree see.dlings, live
tre·e mutilations/scarring; loss of downed wood and human
artifact development. All human artifacts are left in place
from treatment to treatme.nt in order to monitor manipUlative
activity.
Each treatment site is partitioned according to vegetatIon!
,,'isual impact zones developed as a result of alternative behavioral patterns. Five zones are delineate.d: vegetation erect (no
recreation activity); vegetation flattened and green (tent site);
vegetation flatte.ned and brown (concentrated activity); litter;
bare ground. Post test measures of soil physical properties
(bulk density, percent moisture) and biomass within eac.h
impact zone provide additional estimates of covarianc~ within
and betwee.n treatments.
Volunteer Selection
Potential camping volunteers are interviewed and assigned
to either the MICB or TICB group, depending upon their level
of camping behavior knowledge and experience. Three teams
of 2 people comprise each group. Participants are escorted in
separate groups to their respective campsites. Both groups are
inf ormed that they a.re participants in an elk human interaction
impact study. Participants are requested to confine their living
activities (cooking, eating, relaxing) to the study site in the
evening hours in order to equalize time spent at each campsite.
247
Preliminary Results
Data collection is still in progress at this poi.nt (Summer
1987), but several relationships have been observed. The
reader is cautioned about relying on the preliminary observa"
tions, pending the complete quantitative analysis of data.
Traditional Impact Sites
l\1anipulati.ve behavior includes (1) the building of a rock
fire ring, (2) construction/stocking of a woodpile and (3) the
general "humanizing" of the are·a by arranging logs or rocks to
form a fire circle or the removal of tufts of grass to form a
smoother tent site. Measurem(~nt variables directly affected
by manipulati.ve behavior include human artifacts, loss of
downed wood and changes in herbaceous vegetation/bare
ground area.
The greatest amount of change occurred during treatment
weeks 1 and 2 as a result of manipulative behavior patte.rns.
During this pe.riod, the fire ring was constructed from nearby
rocks, onsite downed wood including branches from logs too
big to move were broken off to form a woodpile, and logs were
carried onto the site to form benches around the fire. During
treatments 3 through 9, manipulative behavior was le.ss evi"
dent, mainly consisting of restocking the woodpile or making
minor changes in the position of the log benches that formed
the fire circle.
A circular impact pattern centered on the fire ring developed even though the campsites were rectangular. The rate of
impact per treatment was greatest for herbaceous vegetation
within the. fire circle and at te·nt entrances. It is speculated that
the wearing of lug soled shoes in camp impacted tent entrance
areas more forcefully than soft soled shoes, resulting in bare
ground formation. \\'ithin the fire circle, the amount of bare
area increased from .4 m2 after treatment 2 to 1.6 m2 after 4
treatments. Further, the vegetation/visual impact rating within
the fire circle dropped from an impact level of flattened and
green after 1 treatment to flattened and brown after 4 treatments. The mean vegetati.on/visual impact zone ratings for
traditional impact sites 1, 3, and 6 after 4 treatments were
estimated as: bare ground, 2(10; litter, 6%; vegetation flattened
and brown, 25%; vegetation flattened and green, 44%; and
vegetation ere.ct, 21%.
During treatments 5 through 9, expansion of the impact
zone areas bare ground and litter were observed within the fire
circle. The overall appearance of the site conti.nued to deteriorate visually from off site areas. Vegetation became flattened
ac·ross the whole site with the excepti.on of untrampled islands,
whereas, offsite vegetation remained erect.
.Minimum Impact Sites
The amount of impact appears to be cumulati.ve on mini...
mum impact sites for the variables: herbaceous vegetation and
bare ground. The greatest amount of change occurred at tent
248
entrances. A bare area 0.4 m2 deve.loped after the fifth
tre.atment on site 5. It is speculated that this was the. most
popular position for the tent entrance. It was also noted that
at this site the vegetation appears less "vigorous" due to lower
soil moisture. levels. The effect of soil moisture levels and
vegetation response to impact will be monitored furthe.r.
l\finimum impact sites 2 and 4 did not develop bare ground
areas, as exhibited on site 5. The mean vegetation/visual
impact ratings for minimum impact sites 2, 4, 5 after four
treatments were· estimated as: vegetation flattened and brown,
1%; vege.tation flattened and gree.n, 33%.; and vegetation
erect, 66%.
Conclusions
l\fany questions remain unanswered at this stage of the
project. The second year of the study will hopefully help to
delimit the relationships among type of camping behavior,
amount and rate of impact, and the carrying capacity at
wilderness campsites.
It appears that manipulative behavior, i.e., the building of
a fIre ring on traditional impact campsites, accounts for
greater amounts of impact over a shorte.r time period because
activity is concentrated around the fire ring! Whereas, on
minimum impact campsites manipulative behavior is lacking,
resulting in less severe vegetative and visual impacts. The
greatest amount of change on minimum impact sites occurs at
tent entrances where bare ground areas may develop due to
concentrated activity.
Literature Cited
Bratton, Susan Powe.r; Hickler, Matthe.w G.; Graves, James H.
1978. Visitor impact on backcountry campsites in the
Great Smoky Mountains. Environ. Management. 2:431442.
Burden, R.F.; Randerson, P.P. 1972. Quantitative studies of
the effects of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to
the management of seminatural are·as. J. Appl. Ecol.
9:439-457.
Cole, David N. 1982. Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Effect of
Amount of Use. Res. Pap. INT -284. Ogden, UT: USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experi"
ment Station. 34 p.
Coombs, Elizabeth A. K. 1976. The Impact of Camping on
Vegetation in the Bighorn Crags, Idaho Primitive }\rea.
l\f.S. Thesi.s. Universi.ty of Idaho, :Moscow. 63 p.
Emanuelsson, U. 1979. A l\fethod for Measuring Trampling
Effects on Vegetation ("The Circle Sector l\lethod"). In:
The use of ecological variables in environmental monitoring. Natl. Swed. Prot. Board, Rep. PM··1151:91-94.
Fichtler, Richard K. 1980. The Relationship of Recreational
Impacts on backcountry campsites to sel.ected ]\.fontana
Habitat Types. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Montana, Missoula.
109 p.
Impact on Wildlands. Conf. Proc. Oct. 27-29, 1978. Seattle, WA. Ittner, Ruth; Dale R. Potter; James K. Agee;
Susie Anschell, eds. Forest Service USDA, National Park
Service, USDI. 333 p.
Li.ddle, 1\1. J. 1975. A Theoretical Relationship Between the
Primary Productivity of Vegetation and its Ability to
Tolerate. Trampling. BioI. Conserve. 8:251-255.
Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Smith, C. K.; l\filler, D. E. 1973. Newly
Deve.loped Campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area A Study of Five Years Use. Univ. 1\finn., St. Paul,
Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 511, 27 p.
Frissell, Sidney S., Jr.; Duncan, Donald P. 1965. Campsite
Preference and Deterioration of the Quetico Superior
Canoe Country. J. For. 63:260-265.
Hendee, John C.; Stankey, Oeorge H.; Lucas, Robert C.1978.
Wilderness Management. USDA, Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. 381 p.
Legg, M. H.; Schneider, 0.1977. Soil Deterioration on Campsites: Northern Forest Types. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:437
-441. (C) 7
Leonard, R. E.; Plumley, H. J.1979. The Use of Soils Information for Dispersed Recreation Planning. In: Recreation
249