Impact of backcountry campsite use on forest structure, within Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.
by James Y Taylor
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Earth Sciences
Montana State University
© Copyright by James Y Taylor (1995)
Abstract:
This study investigated how backcountry campsite use impacts the surrounding forest structure. Forest
structure included the occurrence and distribution of trees around campsites, species composition of
trees, forest canopy density, and understory composition. Additional elements considered were mode of
user travel, annual number of users, and shoreline topography.
It was hypothesized that as distance from the campsite increased, more tree saplings would occur, and
that the more resistant species such as Pinus contorts (lodgepole pine) would occur in greater
abundance nearer campsites than the less resistant species of Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce)
and Abies Iasiocarpa (subalpine fir). Other hypotheses were that more annual campsite users would
positively correlate with a greater impact, and that there would be measurable differences in the forest
structure around campsites with differing user types (backpack, canoe, and motorboat use).
Thirty campsites and three control sites on Yellowstone and Shoshone Lakes were studied. Transects
with quadrats were used to sample the vegetation outward from each campsite. Within each quadrat all
vegetation was classified and counted. Abiotic variables were also noted.
There was a significant difference (P = .00002) between the forest structure surrounding backcountry
campsites and that surrounding control sites. The number of saplings, forest canopy, conifer species
composition and percent bare area were all found to be significantly different between campsites and
control sites. There were also differences in the number of saplings per quadrat between campsites with
differing user types, and a decrease in saplings around campsites with increasing user numbers. There
were positive correlations between distance from the campsites and the number of conifer trees within
all size classes (r = .96, .98, .95, and .80 for trees within the <30 cm, 30-90 cm, 90-140 cm and > 140
cm height size classes respectively), and positive correlations between percent understory (r = .78) and
percent canopy cover (r = .31) with distance. There were significant correlations between distance from
the control sites and the number of saplings.
These measured differences between the campsites and control sites are essential components to sound
resource management plans and provide greater understanding of the forest structure and understory
vegetation surrounding the backcountry campsites in Yellowstone National Park. IMPACT OF BACKCOUNTRY CAMPSITE USE ON FOREST STRUCTURE,
WITHIN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, U.S.A.
by
6
James Y. Taylor
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Earth Sciences
Montana State University
Bozeman, Montana
November, 1995
MS')?
T aW
Il
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
James Y. Taylor
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and
has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, english usage, format,
citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to
the College of Graduate Studies.
Date
iV
Chairperson,
aduate Committee
Approved for the Major Department
/zw f
Date
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date
Graduate Dean
Ni
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
master's degree at Montana State University-Bozeman, I agree that the Library
shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
If I. have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a
copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes,
consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the U.S: Copyright Law. Requests for
. permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of the thesis in whole or
in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder.
)
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Kathy Hansen for the
patient and persistent encouragement during my thesis work. Her knowledge
and field research experience were invaluable to completing this project. I also
wish to thank Dr. Andrew Marcus for his guidance and continued support. Dr.
Ward McCaughey also provided much needed advice and field experience and
was of great assistance during the development of the field methods. Tom
Olliff of the Backcountry Rangers Office in Yellowstone National Park also
provided logistical and technical support which was greatly appreciated.
Funding for this project was provided by the Yellowstone Center for
Mountain Environments at Montana State University. David Cole, of the Aldo
Leopold Center for Wilderness Research, Intermountain Research Station,
United States Forest Service, also provided financial and technical support
which proved invaluable.
I
also wish to acknowledge the continual support of family members and
friends who provided great technical and emotional assistance. In particular I
wish to thank Nancy Taylor for her patience and her encouragement.
V
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL . . . . , ......... ..........................................................................
ii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO U S E ................................................
Hi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................
iv
CONTENTS...............................................................................................
v
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................
vii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT.................................... ..........................................................
xi
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................. ...................................... 1
Previous Research . . : .....................................................................3
Study A re a ..................................................................................... 5
2. METHODOLOGY...........
....................................
........................... 12
Campsite Selection........... ............. ............................................... 12
Sampling Techniques.............................................
..............14
3. RESULTS................................................................................................17
Sapling Occurrence Around Campsites and Control S ite s........... 17
Sapling Numbers and Direction from the Campsite Centers.........18
Impact Associated with Differing Types of Campsite U s e ............. 23
Impact Associated with Increasing User Numbers....................... 25
Analysis of Differing Conifer Size Classes.................................... 28
Differences in Impact within Campsites of Differing Topography . . 31
Difference in Measured Impact Between Conifer Species........... 32
Changes in Percent Forest Canopy due to Campsite U s e ......... 35
Impact of Campsite Use on Percent Bare Area and
Percent Understory Vegetation................................................... 37
Average Percent Bare Area by User T yp e .................................... 38
Average Percent Understory Vegetation...................................... 39
\
vi
4. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................
45
Discussion....................................................................................
45
Conclusions.................................................................
48
Management Implications...........................................................
50
Management Recommendations...................................................... 51
APPENDICES......................................................
54
Appendix A - List of Vegetation Species Identified.....................
Appendix B - Study Site Data by Campsite................................
Appendix C - Complete Listing of All Statistical T ests..............
55
56
73
REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................
77
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1
Diagnostic Characteristics of Lodgepole
Pine Forest Cover Types..................................................... 12
2
Study Site Characteristics....................................................13
3
Comparison of the Number of Saplings per Quadrat
between the Campsites and the Control Sites
for each Transect................................................................. 19
4
Correlation and Slope between Distance and Sapling
Numbers for the Campsites and the Control Sites for
each Transect.................................................................... 19
5
Occurrence of Numbers of Tree Saplings within Various
Size Classes within the Campsites and the Control
S ites......................................................................................28
6
Correlation between Increasing Distance and Average
Number of Saplings for the Campsites and the
Control S ites.........................................................................29
7
Comparison of the Average Percent Moss, Grass, Sedge,
Forb, and Shrub Cover between the Campsites and
the Control Sites...............................................................
8
43
Correlation between Distance and the Average Percent
Moss, Grass, Sedge, Forb, and Shrub Cover within
the Campsites and the Control S ites.................................. 44
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1
Yellowstone National P a rk..................................................... 6
2
Campsites Studied Around Yellowstone Lake....................... 7
3
Campsites Studied Around Shoshone Lake.......................
4
Average Temperature and Precipitation Collected at the
Yellowstone Lake Climate Station, Yellowstone
National Park, 1848-1970 .................................................. 10
5
Transect and Quadrat Placement...................................... i 15
6
Average Number of Conifer Saplings per Quadrat
with Increasing Distance from the Site Centers,
All Campsites and All Control Sites.....................................17
7
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 1 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 20
8
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 2 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 20
9
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 3 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 20
10
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 4 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 20
11
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 5 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 21
8
ix
12
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 6 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites.......................................... 21
13
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 7 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites......................................... 21
14
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects
Numbered 8 and Distance from the Site Centers:
Campsites and Control S ites......................................... 21
15
Spatial Representation of the Campsite Impacts.............
16
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, Comparison of
Type of Use (Motorboat, Canoe, and Backpackers) . . . . 24
17
Spatial Representation of the Intercept Point between the
Campsites and the Control Sites for Canoe, Backpacking,
and Motorboat S ites........................................................ 25
18
Average Yearly Number of Backpacker Users (1979 - 1991)
for 5 Campsites and the Average Number of Saplings
per Quadrat...................................................................... 26
19
Average Yearly Number of Canoe Users (1979 - 1991)
for 13 Campsites and the Average Number of Saplings
per Quadrat......................................................................
23
26
20
Average Yearly Number of Motorboat Users (1979 - 1991)
for 12 Campsites and the Average Number of Saplings
per Quadrat...................................................................... 27
21
Average Number of Conifer Saplings per Quadrat within all
Campsites, by Size C lass................................................ 29
22
Average Number of Conifer Saplings per Quadrat within all
Control Sites, by Sapling Height Size C lass.................. 30
23
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, by
Differing Campsite Beach Topography....................
24
31
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, All
Conifer S p e cie s...................................................................33
X
25
Average Number of Lodgepole Pine Saplings per Quadrat,
Campsites and Control S ites........................................... 34
26
Average Number of Engelmann Spruce Saplingsper Quadrat,
Campsites and Control S ites............................................ 34
27
Average Number of Subalpine Fir Saplings perQuadrat,
Campsites and Control S ites...........................................
35
28
Average Percent Canopy Cover per Quadrat,
Campsites and Control S ite s ..............................................36
29
Average Percent Bare Area per Quadrat,
Campsites and Control S ite s ............................................. 37
30
Average Percent Bare Area by User Type within the
Campsites ............................................................................. 39
31
Average Percent Understory Vegetation Cover in
Campsites and Control S ites...............................................40
32
Average Percent Moss Cover in Campsites and
Control S ites....................................................
40
33
Average Percent Grass Cover in Campsites and
Control S ites........... ............................................................41
34
Average Percent Sedge Cover in Campsites and
Control S ites........................................................................ 41
35
Average Percent Forb Cover in Campsites and
Control S ites....................................................^................ 42
36
Average Percent Shrub Cover in Campsites and
Control S ites...........................................................
42
Xl
ABSTRACT
This study investigated how backcountry campsite use impacts the
surrounding forest structure. Forest structure included the occurrence and
distribution of trees around campsites, species composition of trees, forest
canopy density, and understory composition. Additional elements considered
were mode of user travel, annual number of users, and shoreline topography.
It was hypothesized that as distance from the campsite increased, more
tree saplings would occur, and that the more resistant species such as Pinus
contorts (lodgepole pine) would occur in greater abundance nearer campsites
than the less resistant species of Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) and
Abies Iasiocarpa (subalpine fir). Other hypotheses were that more annual
campsite users would positively correlate with a greater impact, and that there
would be measurable differences in the forest structure around campsites with
differing user types (backpack, canoe, and motorboat use).
Thirty campsites and three control sites on Yellowstone and Shoshone
Lakes were studied. Transects with quadrats were used to sample the
vegetation outward from each campsite. Within each quadrat all vegetation
was classified and counted. Abiotic variables were also noted.
There was a significant difference (P = .00002) between the forest
structure surrounding backcountry campsites and that surrounding control sites.
The number of saplings, forest canopy, conifer species composition and percent
bare area were all found to be significantly different between campsites and
control sites. There were also differences in the number of saplings per
quadrat between campsites with differing user types, and a decrease in
saplings around campsites with increasing user numbers. There were positive
correlations between distance from the campsites and the number of conifer
trees within all size classes (r = .96, .98, .95, and .80 for trees within the <30
cm, 30-90 cm, 90-140 cm and > 140 cm height size classes respectively), and
positive correlations between percent understory (r = J8) and percent canopy
cover (r = .31) with distance. There were significant correlations between
distance from the control sites and the number of saplings.
These measured differences between the campsites and control sites are
essential components to sound resource management plans and provide
greater understanding of the forest structure and understory vegetation
surrounding the backcountry campsites in Yellowstone National Park.
I
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Aldo Leopold stated that it would not be logging, mining or roads that
would threaten the wilderness, but the people who came to visit these areas
(Stankey et al. 1976). Camping within backcountry areas may lead to
environmental impacts that can be problematic for management and
conservation. Although many camping-induced impacts may initially be subtle,
campsites receive the highest impact in backcountry areas and land managers
are concerned that cumulative and accelerated changes may be occurring (Cole
1985, 1987). If management strategies and practices to conserve wilderness
environments are to be developed, measurements of the impacts and
environmental changes are essential. One such impact, or change, that was in
need of additional study was the impact of camping use on the forest structure
surrounding the campsite.
Knowledge about the impact of campsite use on the surrounding forest
structure is critical because changes in tree densities and survival rates may
increase forest openings around campsites (Cole 1982, 1983). This knowledge
is important for improving our resource management decisions, and for our
scientific understanding of the forests within Yellowstone National Park and of
other areas that receive campsite use.
2
The objective of this study was to determine if there were measurable
changes in the conifer forest structure around backcountry campsites. The
hypotheses of the study were, first, that as distance from the campsite
increased, a higher number of tree saplings (0-140 cm height) would occur due
to reduced camper activity in the periphery forest. Second, the more trampling
. resistant species such as Pinus contorts (lodgepole pine) would occur in
greater abundance near campsites than would the less resistant species of
Picea engelmannii (Engelmann spruce) and AtiZels Iasiocarpa (subalpine fir).
Third, more annual campsite user numbers would correlate with a larger area
impacted. Fourth, there would be a measurable difference in the forest
structure around campsites with differing user types due to different camping
activities.
Elements of forest structure measured within the study sites and the
periphery forest up to 57 meters included: a) occurrence and distribution of
mature and saplings trees around the campsites, b) tree species composition
around the campsites, c) percent forest canopy density around the campsites,
and d) percent understory vegetation composition around the campsites.
Additional elements considered were mode of user travel (motorboat, canoe,
and backpack), annual campsite user numbers, and campsite beach
topography (straight shoreline, bay or point).
3
Previous Research
The increased use of backcountry areas over the last few decades has
been a major concern to land managers (Roggenbuck and Williams 1993) and,
as early as the 1970's, managers noticed that the impact of human recreational
activities on the environment was severe, and they predicted that it would be
more so in the future. Within Yellowstone National Park camper numbers
continue to increase. In 1993 the number of people user nights (one person
spending a night) in the Yellowstone backcountry increased to 44,977, an
increase of 37 percent over the previous five years (Olliff and Varley 1994).
Biophysical impacts are common in recreational areas and over 71
percent of public land mangers report problems in managing impacts around
shorelines and in campsites (Washburne and Cole 1983). The types of impact
that concern managers most are reduction in vegetation cover, soil loss and
compaction, tree scaring, tree root exposure, trash and campsite development
(i.e. benches, fire rings, bear poles, toilets, etc.) (Lucas 1980; Washburne
1983).
Previous literature has shown that forest tree species, and other woody
vegetation, are more susceptibility to damage by trampling than forbs (Burden
and Randerson 1971; Rogers 1986). Research has also shown that there has
been less alteration of the vegetation cover in non-forested areas than in
forested areas (Cole 1985; Rogers 1986). Saplings have been found to be"
4
more susceptible to trampling than mature trees (Frissell and Duncan 1965;
Cole 1982, 1989), and Cole (1986, 1989) determined that almost all saplings
within campsite areas were eliminated as a result of trampling. Cole (1986,
1989) also showed that what forest regeneration did occur within campsites
was within isolated islands where young trees were protected by mature trees.
Studies of conifer species changes due to campsite use have shown that
pines (Pinus) were more resilient to campsite use than either spruce (Picea) or
fir (Abiesl (IVIerriam et al. 1973). This difference in susceptibility to trampling,
and campsite use, has been noticed in studies comparing campsites in different
types of forests (Rogers 1986), and in studies of conifer species sapling rigidity
and tolerance to environmental changes during the growing season (Cochran
1973).
Increasing campsite user numbers has been shown to positively
correlate with an increased impact (Cole 1982). It has been found that even
with low levels of use campsite degradation, reductions in tree densities, and
changes in percentage understory vegetation occur (Cole and Fitchler 1983).
This increased impact within campsites due to increasing camper user numbers
has been noticed and documented in many previous campsite impact studies
(Wagar 1964; Coombs 1976; Cole 1893; Stankey 1985)
Studies of campsite impacts due to use have shown that the most
influential factors of recreational impact included user behavior, and mode of
camper travel (Cole 1985; Lucas 1987). Changes in campsite vegetation have
5
been shown to be different between campsites with differing types of campsite
use (Lucas 1980; Cole 1983; Cole etal. 1987).
Study Area
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming (Figure 1), was chosen for this
study because backcountry user data (annual numbers and types of use for
each campsite) was available, and described in chapter two. This data is rare,
and has been lacking in many previous impact studies.
Yellowstone National Park is a high plateau region that is unique in its
topography, biota and management. Established as a National Park in 1872 it
has been managed for preservation where human influence is unnoticed and
natural processes drive natural ecological change (Despain 1990). Within
Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Lake (Figure 2) and Shoshone Lake
(Figure 3) were chosen for specific study because they have a homogeneous
forest species structure, similar elevations (2,357 meters and 2,375 meters,
respectively), differing user types, and an abundant number of campsites.
The Yellowstone and Shoshone Lakes region of the park are in the
Central Plateau region and the Southwest Plateau region, respectively (Despain
1990). Shoshone Lake and Yellowstone Lake are the largest areas in the park
with a even or gently sloped topography and an abundance of backcountry
campsites.
6
r*'
^
^ , ,X vNorth Entrance GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
C ookeC Ity
ARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
r
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
WUUll
PAVED RO AD ■
PARK BO RDER
STATE B O R D E R ---------
From Chase 1987
Figure 1
STUDY REGIONS WITHIN
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, USA
7
To Canyon
Village
.Yellowstone River
Fishing Bridge
Bridge Bay
To East
Entrance
ToOId
Faithful
'» Grant
Village
•> Yellowstone River
To South
Entrance
N
▲
2_______5
10
Km
15
20
Figure 2
CAMPSITES STUDIED AROUND
YELLOWSTONE LAKE
★ Campsites
+ Control Sites
- Paved Road
8
To Fishing
#
Old Faithful
To West
Entrance
Thumb
Grant
Village
Lewis Lake
To South Entrance
N
Q
5_______
10
Km
Figure 3
CAMPSITES STUDIED AROUND
SHOSHONE LAKE
★ Campsites
+ Control Site
- Paved Road
9
Yellowstone National Park has a mountainous, temperate climate
(Figure 4). Precipitation predominately falls in the form of snow from westerly
cool and moist air masses during the months of October through April (Baker
1944; Dirks 1982; Despain 1990). Snow accumulates at Yellowstone and
Shoshone Lakes, on the average, by mid-October, and melt occurs, on the
average, by early April (Despain 1990), resulting in a mean duration snow
cover of 213 days. About 50% of the water from snowfall is retained in the
snowpack in April and continues to melt into the soil during the spring season
(Despain 1990). Maximum daily temperatures during the winter are generally
below freezing (Dirks 1982) with January having the lowest temperatures. The
high elevation and mid-latitude location make the park susceptible to polar air
masses and frequent winter storms (Dirks 1982).
Summer is characterized by warm days, frequent thunderstorms, and
infrequent, but possible, freezing temperatures (Despain 1990). Yellowstone
National Park is subjected to northward moving Gulf of Mexico air masses
during the summer months.
Summer precipitation is often dominated by local thunderstorms
enhanced, frequently by warm moist unstable air masses than by frontal
passages. Mean summer daily maximums range from 21 to 26° C, and
minimums less than 4° C (Dirks 1982).
Within the Yellowstone and Shoshone
Lake regions, summer temperatures are slightly lower near the Iakeshores than
in other locations in the same region.
Figure 4
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION COLLECTED AT THE
YELLOWSTONE LAKE CLIMATE STATION, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, 18481970
(Adapted from Dirks, 1982)
-10
Mean temperature (degrees C.)
------Mean precipitation (cm)
11
The average date of the last freeze is June 8, and the average first
freeze is September 7 with the mean monthly temperature for the year at
Yellowstone Lake ranging from -11° to 12° C. with a yearly average of O0C
(Despain 1990). The number of freeze free days averages 91.
Soils, which are derived from rhyolitic parent material, and fire (Romme
1982) have enhanced the development of extensive stands of serai Iodgepole
(Pinus contorta) forests. Thus the Iodgepole pine forests in Yellowstone
National Park could be enhanced by a greater tolerance to low night
temperatures than both subalpine fir {Abies lasiocarpa) and Engelmann spruce
(Picea Engelmannii) during the growing season (Cochran 1973).
A Iodgepole
pine seedling can tolerate temperatures as low as -9.5° C during the growing
season (Rehfeldt 1980), giving it an advantage for tolerating the low
temperatures of the high plateau regions of the Park.
I
12
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY
Campsite Selection
Topographic maps, aerial photographs, backcountry user data, surficial
geology maps, habitat maps, cover type maps and previous campsite
inventories were used to select backcountry campsites on both Yellowstone
Lake (Figure 2) and Shoshone Lake (Figure 3). Thirty campsites, all within a
similar elevation range (2,350 meters to 2,380 meters), within the LP1 and LP2
(Table 1) cover types, were used in this study. Older forests and those
recovering from fire were eliminated from the study to maintain even
regeneration rate potentials within the campsites. The sites were characterized
by soil, mode of user travel, people user nights, cover type, habitat type,
shoreline topography (Table 2).
Table 1. Diagnostic Characteristics of Lodgepole Pine Forest Cover Types
(From Despain 1990)
LP1
50-150 years old
Dense stands of small diameter trees.
Trees usually smaller than the surrounding forest
LP2
150-300 years old
Closed canopy dominated by Iodgepole pines
Canopy is still largely intact
Intense regeneration of conifer species in the understory.
T a b le 2
5E3
5E4
5E8
5L5
5L6
5L7
5L8
5L9
7L9
7M1
7M3
7M4
7M5
7M6
7M9
7N4
7N6
8Q1
8Q3
804
8R1
8S1
8S2
8S3
8S4
8S5
8S6
8S7
Brimstone Point
Brimstone Bay
Park Point South
Promontory Point
Promontory Shore
Promontory Bay
Promontory Tip
Promontory Saddle
Flat Mountain Arm South
Grizzly Bay
Flat Mountain Bay
Plover Point
Plover Bay
South Arm
South Arm
Southwest Bay
Peale Island
South Narrow Point
South Narrow Beach
Moose Creek Point
Windy Point
Outlet
Delacy Creek
Coyote
North Grizzly Beach
South Grizzly Beach
Red Rocks
North Narrows
TranquiIiIy
Motorboat
Backpack
Backpack
Backpack
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Canoe
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Motorboat
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Backpack
Backpack
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
Canoe
136.6
111.3
128.6
107.9
51.6
37.6
146
158.5
188.7
30.2
106.7
155.3
603.1
59
69.4
23.1
79.6
85.9
207.3
199.6
321.3
273.1
756
446
236.9
429.7
279.1
223.9
215.9
181.9
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole I
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 2
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole 1
Lodgepole Z
Subalpine fir/twinflower
Subalpine fir/globe huckleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/twinflower
Subalpine fir/globe huckleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/pinegrass
Subalpine fir/grouse ^beytleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/pinegrass
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry
Subalpme fir/grouse whortleberry
Straight
Bay
Bay
Straight
Point
Point
Bay
Point
Straight
Bay
Bay
Bay
Point
Bay
Straight
Straight
Bay
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Straight
Bay
Straight
Point
Straight
Straight
Straight
Bay
Lake
</>
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Andesite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Rhyolite
Khyolite
Shoreline Topography
Habitat Type
Cover Type
Average (1973-1993)
People User Nights
Mode of Travel
Campsite Name
Campsite Number
Study Site Characteristics
(Adapted from information from the Backcountry Rangers Office, YNP)
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Yellowstone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
v>hoshone
14
All of the study sites chosen had been in use for over two decades. The
three control sites studied were measured identically to the campsites, so that
as many natural factors as possible would remain constant. These control sites
(non-camping) were randomly located one kilometer along the shoreline from
every tenth campsite.
Sampling techniques
Data collection was conducted during June and July of 1994. Sampling
techniques were based on two pilot studies and on previous literature (Cole
1982, 1983, 1986; Mueller-Dumbois 1974). Eight transects (57 meters in
length) radiated from the center of the campsites outward (Figure 5).
The first transect was placed perpendicular from the campsite center to
the lake shore. The remaining seven transects were spaced at 45° angles from
the first transect and from each subsequent transect (Figure 5). This provided
three transects towards the lake shore, three away from the lake shore, and
two parallel to the lake shore.
Along the eight transects, 10 (5 x 5 m; 25m2) quadrats were sampled
(Figure 5). Thus 2,000 m2 of area was sampled for each campsite representing
20% of the forest surrounding the campsite. Mueller-Dumbois (1974) cites this
percentage as adequate for sampling tree structure, understory vegetation, and
abiotic variables.
15
Transect Placement
5
I I 2I 3
Lake Shore
Quadrat Placement (Along each Transect)
7-12 m 13-17 m 18-22 m 23-27 m 28-32 m 33-37 m 38-42 m 43-47 m 48-52 m 53-57 m
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
5m
Each 5 m
Quadrat
Figure 5
TRANSECT AND QUADRAT PLACEMENT
10
16
The quadrats started at a distance of 7 meters from the campsite center
to avoid an over-sampling of the campsite center by multiple quadrats. The ten
quadrats were placed consecutively along the transect to give a continuous
sampling outward. This sampling structure provided data on the direction, the
intensity, and the spatial extent of the impact.
The biotic components sampled included tree size, tree species,
understory vegetation cover, and percent canopy cover (Appendix B). Trees
were classified by size into height classes (0-30 cm, 30-90 cm, 90-140 cm) up
to sapling height (140 cm). For taller trees, a diameter at breast height (dbh)
measurement allowed classification into two size classes (0-15 cm and 15+
cm). Canopy density for each quadrat was measured using a spherical
densiometer placed in the center of each quadrat. Understory vegetation was
sampled by type (moss, grass, sedge, forb, shrub) and percent cover. Sampled
abiotic components included slope, aspect, and general soil texture. Notes
were made of any occurrence of exposed bedrock, streams, campsite trails, or
other factors. Additionally, photographs of each campsite from the center point
(at breast height), were taken in the direction of each of the transects.
The following statistical tests were used during this study. A t-test was
used to query for variations between samples from the campsites and the
control sites. An ANOVA test was used to compare for differences between
three samples. A product moment correlation coefficient was used to calculate
relationships. A .01 alpha level was used and this data is found in Appendix C.
17
CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
Sapling Occurrence Around Campsites and Control Sites
The average number of saplings per quadrat for all the campsites
studied was 5.22. For comparison, the average number of saplings per quadrat
in the control sites was 11.96. Within all the campsites, the sapling numbers
increased from an average of 1.09 in quadrat number 1 to 8.35 in quadrat
number 10 (the furthest from the campsite center) (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Average Number of Conifer Saplings (under 140 cm in height) per Quadrat
with Increasing Distance from the Site Centers, All Campsites (n=30) and All
Control Sites (n=3) (p=.00002)
14 T
Campsites
Control sites
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
3842
Distance from Site Center (meters)
4347
48-52
52-57
18
There was a strong positive correlation (r = .97) between distance from
the campsite centers and the number of conifer saplings within campsites. The
slope of this line is .26. There was a minor negative correlation (r = -.22)
between distance from the center of the control sites and the number of conifer
saplings. The slope of this line is .02. There was a significant difference
(p=.00002) between the average number of saplings (up to 140 cm in height)
per quadrat surrounding the control sites and those surrounding the campsites,
based on a t-test at the .01 alpha level. This difference between the campsites
and the control sites represents an important measured impact, and further
investigation into the attributes of this impact will now be addressed.
Saplings Numbers and Direction from the Campsite Centers
The spatial impact, and the average number of saplings around the
campsites is best understood by looking at each individual transect. This
investigation into the directional changes of sapling numbers per quadrat
improves our understanding of recreational behavior within campsites.
Table 3 gives a better understanding of the comparison between the transects
of the campsites and the control sites. Table 4 gives the relationships between
distance and the average number of saplings along each transect. It is
important to remember that transect number 1 is oriented from the center of the
campsite towards the shoreline. Figures ( 7 - 1 4) show the impact by transect.
19
Table 3. Comparison of the Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat between
the Campsite (n=30) and the Control Sites (n=3) for each Transect
Transect
P value
t Calculated
t Critical
Transect 1
.001
4.28
2.82
Transect 2
.001
3.01
2.82
Transect 3
.0001
4.39
2.82
Transect 4
.00001
4.57
2.82
Transect 5
.00003
7.12
2.82
Transect 6
.0001
5.83
2.82
Transect 7
.00065
4.60
2.82
Transect 8
.009
2.95
2.82
Table 4. Correlation and slope between Distance and sapling numbers for the
Campsites (n=30) and the Control Sites (n=3) for Each Transect
r Control
Sites
Slope
Campsites
Slope
Control
Sites
CO
CO
Transect 1
-.78
-.74
-.03
Transect 2
.97
-.84
-.01
-.34
Transect 3
.96
-.84
.2
-.33
Transect 4
.94
.03
.26
0
Transect 5
.91
.36
.16
.1
Transect 6
.94
-.55
.16
-.13
Transect 7
.74
I
r Campsites
M
CO
Transect
.06
.1
Transect 8
.74
-.85
-.1
-.36
Figure 7
Figure 8
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 2 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=.001)
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 1 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(pe.001)
Campsites
Campsites
Control Sites
I
23-27
13-17
48-52
23-27
38-42
48-52
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Distance from Site Center (meters)
O
Figure 10
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 4 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(P=-OOOt)
Figure 9
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 3 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=001)
6
T-
Campsltes
Control Sites
4
X
2
Campsites
Control Sites
1
23-27
Distance from Site Center (meters)
13-17
23-27
28-32
38-42
Distance from Site Center (meters)
48-52
Figure 12
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbers and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=.00001)
Figure 11
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All T ransects Numbered S and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p-,00003)
---- ■—
Campsites
---- °
— "—
Control Sites
Campsites
— °—
Control Sites
Average Number of Saplings per
6 T-
4
%3
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
18-22
38-42
38-42
53-57
Dlstzmce from Site Center (meters)
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Figure 13
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 7 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
Figure 14
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat for All Transects Numbered 8 and
Distance from the Site Centers: Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=009)
(p=.00065)
---- 0—
Control Sites
average Number of Saplings per
---- "---- Campsites
13-17
23-27
33-37
38-42
Distance from Site Center (meters)
43-47
48-52
Campsites
Control Sites
33-37
Distance from Site Center (meters)
48-52
22
There were increases in the average number of saplings along all
transects outward except transect number 1 (the transect going from the center,
of the campsite towards the lakeshore). All transects within the campsites were
significantly different than the control sites (Figures 7 -14). There was a
positive correlation between the number of saplings and the distance from the
campsites centers in transects 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 (Table 4). There was a
negative correlation between distance from the campsite centers and the
number of saplings in transect number 1(Table 4). Increased distance from the
campsite centers correlates with increased sapling numbers. It is interesting to
note that transects numbered 1,2, and 8 are those oriented towards the
lakeshore.
-
.
The average number of saplings found within all similarly oriented
transects allows a visualization of the distribution of saplings around the
campsites and control sites (Figures 7- 14) . Graphing the point along each
transect where the slope of the campsites crosses the slope of the control sites,
shows where the average number of saplings per quadrat would be equal in
both (Figure 15). This graph allows a visual assessment of the distance from
the center of the campsite that conifer sapling numbers have been changed,
and shows the spatial extent and possible impact surrounding the backcountry
campsites. This directional attribute and spatial description of the impacts
surrounding the backcountry campsites is an essential part of understanding the
impact of backcountry campsite use of forest structure,
23
Figure 15
Spatial Representation o f the Campsite Impacts (Slope Intercept Point Along
Each Transect Where the Number of Saplings in the Campsites and Control
Sites Would be Equal).
1 Lake
Impact Associated with Differing Types of Campsite Use
The types of use, or mode of travel, addressed in this study were
motorboat, canoe and backpacking. There were 5 campsites utilized by
backpacking groups, 13 utilized by canoe travelers, and 12 campsites utilized
by those traveling by motorboat. A comparison of these three types of use and
the average number of saplings per quadrat within these sites shows
differences in the amount of impact these different campsite uses have on
forest structure (Figure 16).
24
Figure 16
Average Numberof Saplings per Quadrat, Comparison of Type of Use
(Motorboat, Canoe, and Backpackers) (p=.008)
Canoe
— °—
Motorboat ----- "-----Backpack
------ 0-----Control
14 T
a
12
10 T
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
38-42
43-47
48-52
53-57
Distance from Site Center (meters)
There was a significant difference (p = .00000002) in the average
number of conifer saplings surrounding campsites for the three types of use.
The positive correlation between saplings and increasing distance for canoe
use, motorboat use, and backpacking use were .96, .92 and .77 respectively.
The corresponding slopes of these three lines are .34 for canoe use, .32 for
backpacking sites, and .16 for motorboat sites. This shows that within all sites
of a particular user type, sapling numbers increase with distance. A radar
graph (Figure 17) of the three types of campsite use shows the differences in
the amount of spatial impact each of the three campsites uses has on the
number of saplings from the campsites centers.
25
Figure 17
Spatial Representation of the Intercept Point between Campsites and Control Sites
for Canoe, Backpacking, and Motorboat Sites
——
-
Canoefn=I 3)
Backpack(n=5)
“
■ Motorboat (n=12)
1 Lake
Impact Associated with Increasing User Numbers
The number of saplings around campsites with increasing user numbers,
per user type, was analyzed (Figures 18 - 20). Understanding possible
correlations between increasing user numbers and reduced numbers of saplings
per quadrat helps in understanding the previously measured difference between
the campsites and the control sites. Because the campsites with differing types
of use are different in their impact on the number of saplings, it is important to
look at possible correlations between increasing user numbers within each of
the three types of campsite uses.
26
Figure 18
Average Yearly Numberof Backpacker Users (1979 - 1991) for 5 campsites
and the Average Numberof Saplings per Quadrat
10
Average Number of Users per Campsites (1979 -1991)
Figure 19
Average Yearly Number of Canoe Users (1979 -1991) for 13 Campsites and
the Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat
20
I
S
HT
i
£
■
18
16
B.
14
E
=
■
0
30
80
86
182
200
207
216
224
237
273
Average Number of Users per Campsite (1979 -1991)
280
321
430
27
Fi gure 20
Average Yearly Number of Motorboat Users (1979 - 1991) for 12 Campsites
and the Average Numberof Saplings per Quadrat
There was a negative correlation (r = -.70) between increasing
backpackers and the number of saplings.
This shows that with increasing
numbers of backpacking users there is a decrease in the number of conifer
saplings. There was no substantial correlation (r = .16) between increased
canoe users and number of saplings. This indicates that there is a uniform
coverage of saplings per quadrat around the campsites. There was also a
negative correlation (r = -.40) between the number of motorboat users and the
number of saplings, indicating that increasing the number of motorboat users
also has an increased impact on the number of conifer saplings around the
campsites. This decrease in the average number of saplings per quadrat with
increased use for both the sites used by backpackers and motorboat users is a
critical element of campsite use and impact to the conifer saplings surrounding
the campsites.
28
Analysis of Differing Conifer Size Classes
The impact that does exist within the conifer forest species due to
campsite use has spatial, and user attributes as previously mentioned. Another
attribute of this impact is the measured changes in differing conifer size classes
(<30 cm, 30-90 cm, 90-140 cm, and > 140 cm). The measured changes in the
differing conifer size classes are represented in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 21.
The distribution of size classes for the control sites is found in figure 22 for
reference.
Table 5. Occurrence of Numbers of Tree Saplings within Various Size Classes
within the Campsites (n=30) and the Control Sites (n=3)
Size Class
P Value
t Critical
t Calculated
< 30 cm
.000907
4.36
.96
30 - 90 cm
.00031
5.13
.98
90 - 140 cm
.0000695
6.31
.95
> 140 cm
.00000000025
27.74
.80
.
29
Table 6. Correlations between Increasing Distance and Average Number of
Saplings for the Campsites (n=30) and the Control Sites (n=3) by Size Classes
Size Class
r Campsites
r Control
Slope
Slope
Sites
Campsites
Control Sites
CM
O
< 30 cm
.96
-.79
.40
30 - 90 cm
.98
.21
.26
.10
90 - 140 cm
.95
.25
.13
.04
> 140 cm
.80
-.70
.03
.01
Figure 21
Average Number of Conifer Saplings per Quadrat within All Campsites
(n=30), by Sapling Height Size Class
<30 cm
— o—
3 0 -9 0 cm
------*
90-140 cm -----0----->140 cm
4.5 T -
3.5
o 5 2.5
i
1.5 -
0.5
12-17
18-22
23-27
33-37
Distance from Site Center (meters)
43-47
48-52
53-57
30
Figure 22
Average Number of Conifer Saplings per Quadrat within All Control Sites
(n=3), by Sapling Height Size Class
— *
<30 cm
— o—
30 - 90 cm
— «—
90 -140 cm — °—
>140 cm
0.8 T
2.
0.7
0.6
- -
0.5 - "ro 0.4
O)
0.2
-
0.1
■-
12-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
38-42
43-47
48-52
Distance from Site Center (meters)
There was a significant difference in the average number of saplings per
quadrat between the campsites and the control sites within all size classes at
the .01 significance level (Table 5; Figures 21-22). There were positive
correlations between distance and the average number of saplings per quadrat
in all size classes (including mature trees over 140 cm) for the campsites. This
increased number of saplings per quadrat can be seen in figure 21. It is
interesting to note that with increasing tree size the slope of the line decreases,
or the larger the tree the less impact associated with campsite use measured.
31
Differences in Impact within Campsites of Differing Shoreline Topography
All of the campsites studied were classified by differing campsite
shoreline topography (straight, bay, and point). This difference in the campsite
shoreline topography is an important variable in understanding the impacts
associated with campsite use, and a possible abiotic variables affecting this
impact. It was hypothesized that there would be a difference in the number of
saplings per quadrat surrounding the campsites with the differing shorelines.
The average number of saplings per quadrat were compared between the three
types of shorelines (Figure 23).
Figure 23
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, by Differing Campsite Shoreline
Topography, All Transects Combined (p = .19)
7-12
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
38-42
Distance From Site Center (meters)
4347
48-52
53-57
32
In comparing the three types shorelines the Critical F value at the .01
alpha level was 5.49. With the calculated value of 1.75 there was no significant
difference between the average number of saplings per quadrat and campsites
with different shoreline topography (p=.19). This implies that the shoreline
topography is not a controlling impact on the average number of saplings per
quadrat.
There was also a positive correlation within each topographic group.
The r values were .89, .96, and .97 for sites with bay, point, and straight
shorelines respectively. The slopes of these lines were .15 for bay sites, .26 for
point sites, and .16 for sites with a straight shoreline.
Difference in Measured Impact Between Conifer Species.
The previous impact characteristics addressed all have significance as to
the spatial, directional and behavioral attributes of campsite use. One of the
critical elements of forest structure was the conifer species composition around
the campsites. It was hypothesized that there would be a difference in the
average number of saplings per quadrat between the differing conifer species.
This hypothesized difference in impact between pines, spruce, and fir can be
seen in figure 24.
33
Figure 24
Average Number of Saplings per Quadrat, All Conifer Species (p=.00002)
-----■—
Pine
— D—
Spruce ----- •-----Fir
4.6 T
3.6 -a
3 -
o- 2.5 o
2
1.5 - -
13-17
18-22
23-27
33-37
43-47
48-52
53-57
Distance from Site Center (meters)
The F calculated for the ANOVA test was 16.82. There was a significant
difference (P = .0002) between the average number of saplings per quadrat and
the differing conifer species at the .001 significance level.
The r values
comparing increasing distance from the site centers and the average number of
saplings per quadrat are .98, .93, and .96 for pine, spruce and fir respectively
(Figure 24). The slopes of the lines for pines, spruce, and fir are .4, .01, and
.26 respectively. The highest slope found was within the population of pines
showing a greater increase in the average number of pine saplings per quadrat
with increasing distance than both spruce and fir. Figures 25, 26 and 27 show
the comparison of the populations of pine, spruce, and fir in the campsites and
the control sites.
34
Figure 25
Average Number of Lodgepole Pine Saplings per Quadrat, Campsites (n=30)
and Control Sites (n=3) (p=.00000007)
Campsites
-----0-----Control Sites
.....
4
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
43-47
48-52
53-57
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Figure 26
Average Numberof Engelmann Spruce Saplings per Quadrat, Campsites
(n=30) and Control Sites (n=3) (p = .0025)
P
Ti
N
<•
l o i - t c n w o i w e
Average Number of Saplings per
Quadrat
— ■— Campsites
— D— Control Sites
I
|
............... |...............
i
I
................!...............
|
I
I
I
......
.......
r
f
...........
...................i................... | .....................
j
j--— '
'" 'S
i
I
I
......I.... ^
'------------ ------------" ______
7-12
13-17
18-22
,
i
-------------------------
...
------------ ------------• '
23-27
28-32
33-37
3842
Distance from Site Center (meters)
4347
48-52
53-57
35
Figure 27
Average Number of Subalpine FirSapIings per Quadrat, Campsites (n=30)
and Control Sites (n=3) (p=.001)
-----■—
13-17
18-22
Campsites
23-27
28-32
— D~
Control Sites
33-37
4347
48-52
63-57
Distance from Site Center (meters)
There were significant differences in the average number of saplings per
quadrat for all three conifer species populations. The p values were .00000007,
.0025, and .001 for Iodgepole pine, Engelmann Spruce, and subalpine fir
respectively at the .01 alpha level.
Changes in Percent Forest Canopy due to Campsite Use
The percent canopy cover of the campsites is an important component of
forest structure as changes can influence microclimatic changes. Figure 28
show a graph of the average percent forest canopy within the campsites and
the control sites.
36
Figure 28
Average Percent Canopy Cover per Quadrat, Campsites (n=30) and Control
Sites (n=3) (p=.00003)
-----■—
Campsites
0—
Controls
70 r
60
Sr
> 50 —
5 40 .......
u 30 --
3
10 -
13-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
38-42
43-47
48-52
63-57
Distance from Site Center (meters)
When comparing the campsites and the control sites (Figure 28) there
was a difference in the average percent forest canopy cover between the
campsites and the control sites (P = .00003). There was a positive correlation
(r = .31) between distance and canopy cover in the campsites. The control
sites showed a negative correlation between distance and canopy (r = -.55).
This r value of .31 shows that with increasing distance from the campsite
centers there is an increase in percent canopy cover. This is another feature of
forest structure that has been negatively impacted due to campsite use. The r
value of -.55 in the control sites represents a decrease in the canopy cover
from the control site centers.
37
Impact of Campsite Use on Average Percent Bare Area
Bare area is a significant attribute of forest structure that was addressed
in this study. Understanding how bare area increases or decreases with
distance from the site centers gives further definition to the impacts of trampling
and campsite use. Figure 29 shows graphical representation of the average
percent bare area in the campsites and the control sites.
Figure 29
Average Percent Bare Area Per Quadrat Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites
(n=3) (p= 0005)
— Campsites -----D—
Controls
60 x-
5 0
--
40
30 20
10
13-17
18-22
-27
28-32
33-37
38-42
Distance from Site Center (meters)
43-47
48-52
53-57
38
There was a significant difference (P = .0005) between the percent bare
area around the campsites and the control sites. The r values for the
campsites are -.95, and the slope of the line is -.16 showing a strong negative
correlation between distance and the percent bare area within the campsites.
As distance from the site center increases the percent bare area decreases.
The r value for the control sites is .18, and the slope of the line is 0 showing a
weak positive correlation between distance and percent bare area, indicating
the bare area is uniform in coverage throughout the control site area (Figure
28).
Average Percent Bare Area by User Type
As has been shown in previous sections of the research, user type is a
significant attribute of backcountry campsite use and the associated impact to
conifer species saplings. Analyzing the differences between average percent
bare area within the three types of user groups within this study (backpacking,
canoe, and motorboat) allows better understanding of the differences in impact
associated with these three uses.
Changes in average percent bare area are shown graphically in Figure
30 comparing increasing distance from the site centers and the average percent
bare area by user types.
39
Figure 30
Average Percent Bare Area by User Type within Campsites (n=30)
80 T
70 —
<60
Backpacking (n=5)
Canoe (n=13)
S 40
Motorboat (n=12)
30
20
10
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Impact of Campsite Use on Average Percent Understorv Vegetation
Measurements of changes in average percent understory vegetation
cover from the center of the campsite outward helps in understanding the
dimensional attributes of the use of backcountry campsites. Within this study
understory vegetation included measurements of moss, grasses, sedges, forbs,
and shrubs.
Figure 31 show a comparison of the average percent understory
vegetation cover in the campsites and the control sites.
Additional investigation into the individual components of the understory
vegetation cover will be shown in Figures 32 - 36 comparing each of the
components of understory vegetation between the campsites and the control
sites. Statistical data for these comparisons are found in Table 7.
40
Figure 31
Average Percent Understory Vegetation Cover In Campsites (n=30) and
Control Sites (n=3) (p=.000008)
70 T
60 ^
£ 5 50
40
Campsites
30
Control Sites
> 20
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Figure 32
Average Percent Moss Cover in Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p= .008)
41
Figure 33
Average Percent Grass Cover in Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=.004)
Figure 34
Average Percent Sedge Cover in Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=.002)
42
Figure 35
Average Percent Forb Cover in Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(P= 22)
Distance from Site Center (meters)
Figure 36
Average Percent Shrub Cover in Campsites (n=30) and Control Sites (n=3)
(p=.003)
43
The t calculated value for the average percent understory vegetation was
8.35. The t critical value was 2.82 at the .01 alpha level indicating that there is
indeed a difference between the average percent understory vegetation
between the campsites and the control sites.
Table 7. Comparison of the Average Percent Moss, Grass, Sedge, Forb, and
Shrub Cover between the Campsites (n=30) and the Control Sites (n=3)
t Critical
t calculated
P value
Understory
Component
Moss
.008
2.95
2.82
Grasses
.004
3.4
2.82
Sedges
.002
4
2.82
Forbs
.22
.8
2.82
Shrubs
.003
3.9
2.82
There is a difference between the campsites and the control sites for all
understory components at the .01 alpha level except in the average percent
cover of forbs (Table I). This difference shows that the impact surrounding
backcountry campsites and extending into the periphery forest is not just
isolated within the conifer forest species, but also within all herbaceous and
understory vegetation as well. An important attribute of these differences is
found in looking at the correlations between distance and percent cover and the
slope of the lines representing these understory vegetation populations. This
information is found within table 8.
44
Table 8. Correlation between Distance and the Average Percent Moss, Grass,
Sedge, Forb, and Shrub Cover within the Campsites (n=30) and the Control
Sites (n=3)
Understory
Component
I r Campsites
r Control
Sites
Slope
Campsites
Slope
Control Sites
Moss
I .36
.31
.20
.02
-.44
.01
.02
Sedges
.89
-.23
.33
.05
Forbes
.29
.57
.03
.08
Shrubs
.75
.39
.13
.18
Grasses
'57
Understory vegetational changes do exist between the campsites and the
control sites. Those elements that are most influenced by distance from the
site centers are moss, sedge, and shrubs as can be seen by the r values and
the slope of the lines representing these populations. The populations of
grasses and forbes appear to be unaffected by distance from the site centers.
This understanding of the changes in understory vegetation cover, along
with the other attributes of impact addressed in this study, give definition and
spatial understanding to the impact of backcountry campsite use on forest
structure within Yellowstone National Park.
45
CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
The number of saplings were found to increase as distance from the
campsite center increased. This implies that campsite related activities do have
an impact on regeneration and survivorship of forest saplings. It is possible
that trampling may be one of the greatest causes of this impact, as suggested
by Cole (1985, 1987, and 1993) as bare area also increased towards the
campsite centers.
The general direction of the impact appeared to be uniformly distributed
in all directions except along transect number 1, which ran perpendicular to the
lake shore where the impact is the greatest. This impact in all directions implies
that the focal center of impact is the center of the campsites. The direction of
impact is important because impact is defined by user behavior. Understanding
the behavior of backcountry campsite users may help in managing the impact .
associated with this use (Lucas 1980).
There was a difference in the number of young saplings surrounding
campsites with motorboat, canoe and backpacking use. The average number
of saplings declined per quadrat surrounding the sites used by those traveling
46
by backpacking, canoe or motorboat (6.3, 6.9 and 2.9 respectively). Within the
control sites the average number of saplings per quadrat was 12, indicating less
impact compared to all user types. Cole (1983) indicated that user mode of
travel and user type have one of the greatest determining factors on the impact
of a campsite.
There was statistical support that increasing user numbers resulted in a
decrease in the number of young saplings. This result is in agreement with
previous impact studies and has implications for management and conservation
(Cole 1982). This correlation between increasing numbers and increased
impact helps to give guidelines to decisions about group size and annual
campsite users, and may help managers limit the potential campsite impacts.
The number of the conifer trees within differing size classes within
campsites was different compared to the control sites in all conifer size classes.
It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between distance
and the number of saplings within the three smaller size classes between 0 and
140 cm, but it is surprising to find the correlation also within the mature trees
over 140 cm. All campsites have been in continual use for over two decades
and this evidence suggests that the impact has been occurring for two decades.
There was no statistical difference between the campsites of different
beach topography. This campsite attribute is important to management
decisions about closing old campsites and opening new campsites in that it
indicates shoreline topography is not an important attribute.
47
There was a significant difference (p = .00002) between the average
number of saplings per quadrat within the different conifer species, but there
was not evidence that pines were less affected by campsite use. Spruce and
fir had no significant change from the control sites, and pines were the only
affected population as a result of campsite use.
Slight decreases in percent canopy cover were found surrounding
campsites. This change in the canopy may lead to microclimate changes
including an increase in precipitation reaching the forest floor, increased local
forest winds, increased radiation, etc., which could influence tree survival.
There was a difference in the amount of bare area between the
campsites and the control sites. There was a strong negative correlation, as
distance increased the percent bare area decreased. This increase in bare
area with distance was much greater for motorboat sites than for canoe and
backpacking sites.
••
Understory vegetation is substantially reduced due to campsite use.
. Shrubs, sedges, and moss appear to be more impacted than do the forbes and
grasses. These changes in understory vegetation are critical in that reductions
in vegetation cover and canopy can significantly change overall campsite
condition and potentially increase forest openings and reduce the potential for
vegetation regeneration and tree species survival.
48
Conclusions
The campsites studied gave evidence that there is a measured impact
from backcountry campsite use when compared to control sites with all other
variables being constant. Understanding this impact plays a critical role in
managing and preserving the natural ecosystem surrounding these islands of
impact.
The impact due to campsite use is important, and a greater
understanding of the attributes of this impact is essential in developing
management strategies and conservation practices to preserve the forested
ecosystem. As hypothesized by Cole (1983) the near elimination of forest
regeneration due to campsite use cpuld lead to reductions in tree density and
the creation, or expansion, of nonforested areas used as campsites. The
important attributes studied included the direction of impact, differing types of
campsite use, increasing user numbers, different conifer size classes, different
beach topography, different conifer species and forest canopy and campsite
bare area.
The campsites surrounding Yellowstone Lake and Shoshone Lake within
Yellowstone National Park have been changed compared to non-campsite
areas. This change is focused near the center of .the campsites as measured
by the percent bare area and the occurrence of trees around the campsites, but
49
also extends into the periphery forest. This extending impact should be a. great
concern to resources managers of Yellowstone National Park. Tree
regeneration was reduced and nearly eliminated as a result of campsite use.
It was found that as distance increased the number of trees increased.
The resistant conifer species (Pinus) were affected by campsites use as were
the populations of spruce (Picea) and fir (Abies). All three populations were
changed as a result of campsite use, but there is not adequate data to support
the hypothesis that pines would be less affected than the populations of spruce
and fir.
There was a difference between the number of conifer saplings per
quadrat between the campsites with differing modes of user travel. This user
attribute is important as can be seen by the distribution of trees around those
sites with motorboats when compared to the sites used by backpackers and
those traveling by canoes. The importance of user type can also be seen when
looking at the spatial extent of impact around the sites used by motorboats
which has an average impacted area of 82 meters.
The spatial extent of change around the campsites where the average
number of saplings per quadrat reached the number of the control sites was 45
meters from the center of the campsites (an average impacted area associated
with the use of the campsites of 6,362 m2). With the 30 backcountry campsites
studied this is a total impacted area of 1.90,860 m2.
50
An average impact of 6,362 m2 per campsite could be considered
substantial. For the 302 backcountry campsites in Yellowstone National Park
that equals a potential impact of 1,921,324 m2. Aldo Leopold appears to be
correct when he stated that the people that do come to visit wilderness areas
do have an impact. The use of backcountry areas for camping is not a benign
use and does seem to have a spatial attribute that should be better understood
if a management goal of this primitive ecosystem is for sustainable recreational
use, while maintaining environmental integrity. These forest changes are
important for management decisions and it is hoped that this data provides
some needed guidelines for managing the impacts of backcountry campsite use
in Yellowstone National Park.
Management Implications
There has been a rapid growth over the last century in recreational use
of wild lands (Smith 1993; Olliff and Varley 1994). This increase is at an
alarming rate, which for a time (1940-1975) averaged 10% annually (Stankey
et al. 1976). These are the lands that have been protected through regulations
such as the National Park Service and the Wilderness Bill of 1964, which states
that we are to manage these lands so that "natural conditions are preserved
and the imprint of man's work remains substantially unnoticeable."
51
User type appears to be the most significant attribute of campsite use
within the 30 campsites studied. Canoe and backpack user groups have an
average number of saplings per quadrat of 6.9 and 6.4 respectively, while sites
used by those traveling by motorboats have an average of 2.9.
This study supports previous research of recreational impacts showing
that backcountry campsite use does decrease vegetation cover, tree
regeneration and percent forest canopy, and increase percent bare area. The
reduction of forest regeneration within the periphery forest should be of concern
to the recreation and resource managers of Yellowstone National Park. It is
important that we understand that a continual increase in recreational use. might
lead to a greater forest impact. Educating recreational users in backcountry
ethics including reduction in trampling, group size and social trails, and an
increased use of canoes or backpacking over motorboat use may reduce the
impact to conifer saplings surrounding the backcountry campsites in
Yellowstone National Park.
Management Recommendations
The types of management changes that could potentially reduce the
impact to backcountry campsites within Yellowstone National Park and other
areas that receive similar types of recreational use are reductions in motorboat
use, decreased party size, increased use of vegetation and natural barriers
around campsites, an increased effort to regenerate sites, and a continual effort
to educate backcountry users.
As mentioned above motorboat use should be eliminated or substantially
reduced if a goal of management is to reduce the impacts occurring in the
. periphery forest surrounding the campsites. The evidence of bare area,
spatially impacted area, and the changes in sapling numbers around campsites
support the hypothesis that differing user types have a different measured
impact. One potential solution to the continual use of motorboats is to increase
the use of moorings as overnight docking sites which would allow those utilizing
motorboats to stay in the backcountry, and provide protection for the fragile
forested ecosystems on the shorelines.
Reducing group size can also be an effective way of minimizing the
impact of backcountry campsite use. This study has shown that an increased
group size does correlate with increased impact, or a decreased number of
trees. Group size restrictions are. common in managed areas and have been
effective at reducing impact, but additional restrictions in group size could
substantially reduce the impact within the campsites. A combination of
reductions in group size within certain user types, such as motorboat use, may
also prove to be effective in reducing impacts.
Other possible solutions are to increase the use of vegetation, and
natural barriers to focus impact. It was observed in the field that deadfalls and
thick vegetation provided natural fences to reduce trampling. In sites that are
53
heavily impacted more traditional fencing may be needed to close portions of
campsites for potential rehabilitation.
The reductions in motorboat travel, annual user numbers, and the
increased use of natural barriers and fencing can make substantial reductions
in the measured impact, but it is still important for resource and recreation
managers to educate campers in backcountry ethics. This education should
occur before entering the backcountry, but should also continue as the campers
are in the backcountry through frequent ranger visits, which would mean an
increase in the number of backcountry rangers.
The use of backcountry and wilderness areas by recreational users does
have an impact that extends beyond the campsite center. This impact is critical
because these changes are spatially tied to the campsites, and are potentially
increasing with increased annual users. This data, and these management
recommendations, are important to our understanding of the impact of
backcountry campsite use on forest structure, and to those who manage these
lands sustainably so that recreational use does not change the wilderness
character of Yellowstone National Park.
APPENDICES
55
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION SPECIES
Identified during - summer 1994
Iodgepole pine
Engelmann spruce
whitebark pine
narrowleaf cottonwood
Colorado columbine
heart leaf arnica
mountain arnica
Engelmann aster
showy aster
wester mountain aster
marsh marigold
common Indian paintbrush
Canada thistle
fireweed
glacier Iilly
skyrocket gilia
mountain bluebell
fringed gentian
western coneflower
goldenrod
grouse whortleberry
harebell
globe huckleberry
pinegrass
big sagebrush
elk sedge
sickletop Iousewort
silvery lupine
common snowberry
sticky geranium
Richardson geranium
wild strawberry
twinflower
cascade willow
yarrow
Pinus contorts
Picea engelmannii
Pinus aibicaulis
Populus angustifolia
Aquilegia coerulea
Arnica cordifolia
Arnica Iatifolia
Aster engelmannii
Aster conspicuus
Aster occidentalis
Caltha Ieptosepala
Castilleja miniata
Cirsium avernse
Epilobium angustifolium
Erythronium grandiflorum
Ipomopsis aggregata
Mertensia ciliata
Gentianopsis detonsa
Rudbeckia occidentalis
Solidago missouriesis
Vaccinium scoparium
Campannula rotundifolia
Vaccinium globulare
Calamagrostis rubescens
Artemisia tridentata
Carex geyeri
Pedicularis racemosa
Lupinus argenteus
Symphoncarpos albus
Geranium viscosissimum
Geranium richardsonii
Fragaria virginiana
Linnaea borealis
Salix cascadensis
Achillea millefolium
56
APPENDIX B
STUDY SITE DATA BY CAMPSITE
Average Number of Saplings by Size Class, Percent Canopy Cover,
and Percent Bare Area per Quadrat for each Campsite
Campsite - 5E2, Terrace Point, Yellowstone Lake
6
9
8
10
3
.875
.63
.75
.428
0
.4
.2
1.6
.8
1.4
30-90 cm
.63
.5
.75
.142
0
.4
.2
1
.2
1.2
90-140 cm
.25
.38
.375
.142
1.5
0
.2
.6
0
.4
# Saplings
1.75
1.51
1.87
.71
1.5
.8
.6
3.2
1
3
> 140 cm
2
1.58
.875
1.28
1.5
1.6
.8
2.2
1.2
3.6
% Canopy
78
72
64
75
77
69
73
64
59
58
% Bare
44
33
50
24
23
20
19
28
19
39
1
0-30 cm
5
7
2
Quadrat
4
Campsite - 5E3, Brimstone Point, Yellowstone Lake
6
7
8
2.57
.57
2.4
6.8
7
5.4
1.12
2.57
.71
2
6
5
4.6
.75
.88
1.14
1.42
1.4
3
3.2
1
1.76
1.01
2.87
6.28
2.7
5.8
15.8
15.2
11
1.13
2
1.75
2.75
3.42
3.14
2.6
2.4
2.4
3.4
% Canopy
67
68
61
59
69
80
77
72
78
77
% Bare
46
38
58
56
44
48
36
33
39
21
Quadrat
I
2
3
4
0-30 cm
.12
.63
.13
.87
30-90 cm
.13
.63
.13
90-140 cm
0
.5
# Saplings
.25
> 140 cm
5
9
10
57
Campsite - 5E4, Brimstone Bay, Yellowstone Lake
2
5
6
7
3.83
2.4
2.4
3.4
2.75
3.83
2.6
3.2
1.63
1.25
1.33
1.6
2.76
5.14
6.50
8.99
> 140 cm
2.63
3
1.25
% Canopy
71
74
% Bare
48
46
Quadrat
I
9
10
0-30 cm
.75
1.63
2.5
2
5.4
2.2
30-90 cm
.63
1.88
3.6
1.2
4
2
90-140 cm
1.38
1
2
2.4
1.6
1.6
# Saplings
6.6
6.6
9
5.6
11
5.8
4.17
2.6
1.6
4.8
4.2
3.2
2.8
71
65
71
65
82
81
81
80
34
39
26
38
21
36
27
33
3
4
8
Campsite - 5E8, Park Point South, Yellowstone Lake
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
.25
1.88
3.38
2.37
2.14
5.33
2.47
4
5.2
6
30-90 cm
.5
1.5
3.13
2.5
1.72
5.5
2.33
4.2
5
4.4
90-140 cm
.63
.75
1.13
.5
.14
1.16
1
1.4
2.2
1.2
# Saplings
1.38
4.13
7.64
5.37
4
12
5.8
9.6
12.4
11.6
> 140 cm
2.75
1.5
2.58
1.63
1
1.67
1.67
2.4
4
3
% Canopy
69
58
62
61
62
58
63
83
81
84
% Bare
50
43
53
51
44
56
53
48
33
32
Quadrat
I
0-30 cm
8
9
58
Campsite - 5L5, Promontory Point, Yellowstone Lake
Quadrat
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
.38
.5
1.12
.62
0
2
3.33
7
7.5
30-90 cm
.25
.38
.75
1.12
.12
.37
1.87
3.66
7
7.5
90-140 cm
.63
.38
.625
.25
.87
.12
.25
.5
.83.
2.33
# Saplings
.88
1.14
1.87
2.49
1.61
.49
4.12
7.49
14.8
17.3
> 140 cm
2.63
3.25
2.37
1.75
1.62
1.5
2.25
2.83
1.5
2.5
% Canopy
49
48
50
51
48
49
46
54
53
54
% Bare
32
21
21
26
36
41
38
28
41
36
Campsite - 5L6, Promontory Shore, Yellowstone Lake
5
6
.14
1.28
.25
.28
.75
1.12
.63
1.13
> 140 cm
2.5
% Canopy
% Bare
10
7
8
9
1.66
2.6
3.4
3.6
5
1.28
1.5
2.2
2.4
3.8
3
.85
1.57
1.33
3.2
3
5
2.5
2.25
1.27
4.13
4.49
8
8.8
12.4
10.5
2.5
2.25
2.71
2.71
2.16
1.4
3
4
2.6
49
46
38
44
49
46
55
49
47
51
44
31
35
40
54
34
46
31
26
30
Quadrat
1
2
3
4
0-30 cm
.25
.25
.88
30-90 cm
.13
.13
90-140 cm
.25
# Saplings
59
I
Campsite - 5L7, Promontory Bay, Yellowstone Lake
2
1
Quadrat
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 30 cm
0
0
.25
0
1.17
.67
.6
2.8
6.4
4.2
30-90 cm
0
0
.25
.12
.33
.67
.8
2.6
3.8
4.4
90-140 cm
0
0
0
0
.33
.17
.2
.4
.6
.2
# Saplings
0
0
.5
.12
1.83
1.51
1.6
5.8
10.8
8.8
> 140 cm
1.5
.25
.12
.12
.5
.5
2.8
2
1
.8
% Canopy
51
42
30
26
47
32
60
50
50
47
% Bare
70
63
59
61
54
52
33
37
42
37
Campsite - 5L8, Promontory Tip, Yellowstone Lake
2
7
6
8
10
Quadrat
I
0-30 cm
1.12
.88
1.88
.42
1.83
.6
1.2
2
1.4
2
30-90 cm
1.25
.88
1.88
.42
1.83
.6
1.2
2
1.6
2.25
90-140 cm
.88
.88
.25
.28
1.33
.4
.8
.2
1.2
1
# Saplings
3.25
2.64
4.01
1.12
4.99
1.6
3.2
4.2
4.2
5.25
> 140 cm
.88
1.25
1.62
1.71
.67
.8
.4
1
3
2.25
% Canopy
58
47
54
46
44
42
37
38
42
49
% Bare
63
69
66
56
64
55
54
60
45
56
3
4
5
9
60
A
Campsite - 5L9, Promontory Saddle, Yellowstone Lake
Quadrat
2
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
2
1.4
30-90 cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
2
1.4
90-140 cm
.13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# Saplings
.13
0
0
0
0
0
.4
0
4
2.8
> 140 cm
.88
.13
.33
.2
.6
.6
.4
.2
.4
.2
% Canopy
49
57
41
39
44
46
56
38
57
53
% B a re
40
48
31
24
26
12
11
14
16
15
Campsite - 7L9, Flat Mountain Arm, Yellowstone Lake
Quadrat
1
0-30 cm
8
9
5
5.62
5.12
4.12
5
1
1.57
2.5
2.7
2.57
3.14
.62
.5
.75
2.37
2
1.12
1.42
6.49
5.49
5.12
7.32
10.4
9.82
7.81
9.56
2.62
2.75
2.89
4.12
3.25
3.62
3.12
3.37
3.28
73
77
63
72
70
71
70
73
73
73
74
70
68
63
58
50
50
48
43
43
3
4
2.5
4.12
3.75
3.5
3.62
30-90 cm
1.25
1.75
1.62
1.37
90-140 cm
.75
1.25
1.12
# Saplings
4.5
7.12
> 140 cm
3.25
% Canopy
% Bare
6
10
7
2
5
61
Campsite - 7M1, Grizzly Bay, Yellowstone Lake
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
.25
1.5
1.25
1
.5
.75
.5
.75
2
1
1.5
.67
3
3.5
5
1.75
3.75
1.38
1.67
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.25
60
48
67
66
68
68
65
66
90
90
86
68
50
50
50
50
Q u a d ra t
I
0-30 cm
.25
0
.5
.12
.5
1.25
1.5
30-90 cm
.12
1.25
0
.37
.17
1.25
90-140 cm
.12
0
.12
.12
0
# Saplings
.49
1.25
.62
.61
> 140 cm
3
2.34
2.75
% Canopy
62
55
% Bare
90
90
Campsite - 7M3, Flat Mountain Bay, Yellowstone Lake
Quadrat
I
2
3
0-30 cm
1.25
1.88
1.88
30-90 cm
1.5
1.25
90-140 cm
.87
# Saplings
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
3.38
2.38
2.63
2.25
4.43
6.14
2.38
1.62
2
2
2.88
2
3.42
3.72
2.38
2.25
1.75
1.62
2.5
1.87
2.25
1.57
2.57
3.62
5.51
6.51
5.37
7
6.88
7.38
6.50
9.42
12.4
> 140 cm
3
3.5
3.62
3.12
4
4.38
3.38
3.62
3.71
3.57
% Canopy
65
60
61
61
59
50
51
54
51
55
% Bare
59
40
28
22
21
18
16
13
9
10
4
62
Campsite - 7M4, Plover Point, Yellowstone Lake
3
2
I
Q u a d ra t
8
7
6
5
4
9
10
0 -3 0 c m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 0 -9 0 c m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9 0 -1 4 0 c m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
# S a p lin g s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
> 140 cm
.25
.12
.37
.82
.82
.62
.86
1
1
1.33
% Canopy
5
8
15
12
9
5
6
20
23
22
% B a re
75
79
80
68
67
68
56
55
54
54
Campsite - 7M5, Plover Bay, Yellovretone Lake
9
8
10
5
6
7
3.42
2.4
3.2
3.6
4
4.8
10.2
.25
.42
1.2
1.2
1
.6
2.6
2.6
0
0
0
.2
0
.6
1.4
1.6
1,2
.38
2.5
2.25
3.84
3.8
4.4
5.2
6
9
14
> 140 cm
3.12
3.75
3.87
2.85
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
3
% Canopy
79
75
67
64
70
69
60
57
55
56
% Bare
54
34
31
25
17
17
19
19
19
19
2
Quadrat
I
0-30 cm
.38
1.62
2
30-90 cm
0
.88
90-140 cm
0
# Saplings
4
3
63
Campsite - 7M6, South Arm, Yellowstone Lake
3
2
I
Q u a d ra t
5
4
6
8
7
10
9
0 -3 0 c m
0
.12
0
0
.2
0
.2
.4
.2
0
3 0 -9 0 c m
0
.12
.12
.57
.2
0
.4
.4
.2
0
9 0 -1 4 0 c m
1.25
.12
.25
.28
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
.8
# S a p lin g s
1.25
.36
.37
.85
1.2
.6
1
I
.4
.8
> 140 cm
1.25
2.12
1.88
3
4.4
3.4
4.6
4
2.8
3
% Canopy
56
67
54
60
80
92
87
79
75
78
% B a re
47
43
43
35
13
14
13
19
23
23
Campsite - 7M9, Brimstone Point, Yellowstone Lake
2
1
Quadrat
3
6
5
4
10
9
8
7
0-30 cm
0
0
.17
1.33
0
.2
0
0
.4
0
30-90 cm
0
0
.5
.17
.17
0
.4
.6
.4
.4
90-140 cm
.75
.5
.5
.66
.5
.6
.2
0
.6
.6
# Saplings
.75
.5
1.17
2.16
.67
.8
.6
.6
1.4
I
> 140 cm
2.75
3.34
3.83
1.33
.67
1.4
.6
1
1.6
.6
% Canopy
43
39
55
45
42
12
16
8
4.6
16
% Bare
34
37
30
35
33
25
23
22
22
22
64
Campsite - 7N4, Southwest Bay, Yellowstone Lake
I
Quadrat
3
2
6
5
4
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
.33
.66
1
30-90 cm
0
0
0
.33
0
0
.5
.33
.66
1.17
90-140 cm
0
0
0
1.16
0
.33
1.33
.5
1
0
# Saplings
0
0
0
1.49
0
.33
2.33
1.16
2.32
2.17
> 140 cm
.75
1.5
1.12
1.5
.5
.66
2
.83
1.17
2.5
% Canopy
52
52
38
42
41
43
41
49
50
51
% Bare
48
41
40
29
24
16
22
23
23
30
Campsite - 7N6, Peale Island, Yellowstone Lake
I
Quadrat
4
3
2
6
5
9
8
7
10
0-30 cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
0
0
0
30-90 cm
0
0
0
.4
0
0
1
.5
1
0
90-140 cm
0
.12
0
0
1.5
2.5
1
1
4.5
2.5
# Saplings
0
.12
0
.4
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
5.5
2.5
> 140 cm
2.25
1.25
1
.8
1.5
2.5
I
1
4.5
2.5
% Canopy
69
64
60
52
62
62
70
79
69.5
71
% Bare
57
49
38
49
40
37
28
18
38
33
65
Campsite - 8Q1, South Narrow Point, Shoshone Lake
9
10
2
1.75
1.5
2.75
.75
.75
1.25
.25
1.25
2
.75
1
4.25
1.75
6.75
4.75
3.25
3.75
4
5.5
5.25
2.75
4
3.75
2
13
11
11
16
15
21
24
24
51
56
53
48
41
41
41
41
3
4
5
6
8
7
Quadrat
1
2
0-30 cm
.25
.33
.5
.75
2
.5
2.75
30-90 cm
.13
.67
.25
.5
1.5
1
90-140 cm
0
.83
.5
.5
.75
# Saplings
.38
1.83
1.25
1.75
> 140 cm
.75
1.5
4.5
% Canopy
22
14
% Bare
48
57
Campsite - 8Q3, South Narrow Beach, Shoshone Lake
6
7
8.6
6.25
10.5
3.66
7.8
6
1.5
2.33
2.2
17.1
12.1
10.3
3.5
5
4
% Canopy
48
48
% Bare
84
69
Quadrat
I
2
3
4
0-30 cm
1.12
8.63
5.67
4.33
30-90 cm
.75
7.25
5
90-140 cm
1
1.25
# Saplings
2.87
> 140 cm
9
10
9
15.2
11.5
8.25
5.25
11.5
6
1.25
2.75
1
2.2
2.5
18.6
13.5
21.5
15.2
28.9
10
4.5
3.4
5
3.5
3
3.25
4.25
56
52
53
53
51
53
53
51
63
61
56
65
55
58
54
54
5
8
Campsite - 8Q4, Moose Creek Point, Shoshone Lake
I
Quadrat
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
9
10
0-30 cm
0
1.25
3.17
5.4
2.4
4.6
11.2
16
16.6
13.4
30-90 cm
0
2
4
7.2
2.4
3.4
8.8
15.2
13.2
11.4
90-140 cm
.13
1.25
4.66
4.6
3
2.8
6.2
7.8
6
4.2
# Saplings
.13
4.5
11.8
17.2
7.8
10.8
16.2
39
35.8
29
> 140 cm
3.25
4.63
4.66
6
7
3.8
4.6
5
12.2
12.2
% Canopy
44
44
51
55
60
60
57
59
67
51
% Bare
71
41
35
33
29
21
28
32
34
32
Campsite - 8R1, Windy Point, Shoshone Lake
1
Quadrat
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
7.16
7.67
6
3.4
8
6.11
0-30 cm
0
1.5
2.5
3
4.75
3.71
2.54
30-90 cm
.38
1
1.75
2.25
2.87
2
1.47 . 2.56
90-140 cm
1.25
.5
.87
1.25
1.5
1.14
1.12
1.4
1
3
# Saplings
1.63
3
5.12
6.5
9.12
6.85
5.13
10.1
14.2
14.1
> 140 cm
5.38
5
5.5
4.75
5
5.71
3.5
4.2
4.72
6.37
% Canopy
57
54
56
58
55
51
64
60
55
51
% Bare
66
7152
48
53
44
48
48
48
46
39
67
Campsite - 8S1, Outlet, Shoshone Lake
Quadrat
3
2
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
0
1.13
.75
2.34
1.62
4.87
5.25
5.38
3.87
30-90 cm
.75
.5
1.63
.38
1
.62
1.34
4.75
2.5
1.58
90-140 cm
1.5
.5
1.63
.88
.25
.63
.38
2.34
1.13
1,43
# Saplings
2.25
I
4.39
2.01
3.59
2.87
6.59
12.3
9.01
6.88
> 140 cm
1.13
2.25
3.5
4.62
4.75
3.62
2.12
1.12
1.88
4.57
% Canopy
62
67
62
75
66
65
66
59
59
60
% Bare
62
37
15
10
18
14
18
23
25
9
Campsite - 8S2, Delacy Creek, Shoshone Lake
I
Quadrat
5
4
3
2
6
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
1
1.25
.5
2
2.6
6.2
2.2
5
3.8
30-90 cm
.13
1.25
1.63
.67
.4
1.6
2.6
.4
1
1.4
90-140 cm
0
.5
.125
.83
.4
.6
1.4
.4
.2
.2
# Saplings
.13
2.75
3
2
2.8
4.8
10.2
3
6.2
5.4
> 140 cm
4.38
5.13
3.75
3
3.8
2.4
2.4
3.4
3
1,6
% Canopy
91
88
67
75
90
86
83
84
72
45
% Bare
51
36
45
29
12
17
13
15
9
15
J
68
Campsite - 8S3, Coyote, Shoshone Lake
Quadrat
2
I
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
0 30 cm
0
0
.125
1.57
.5
3.6
4
4.8
2.4
5.2
30-90 cm
.12
0
.12
.42
2
2.6
3.6
5.4
2.8
4.8
90-140 cm
.12
.12
0
.43
.83
.8
1.8
2.2
3.8
3.6
# Saplings
.24
.12
.25
2.42
3.33
7
9.4
12.4
9
13.6
> 140 cm
3.12
3.62
2.25
2.85
2.33
4.2
4.4
3
3.4
3.2
% Canopy
71
66
66
50
48
44
43
43
45
45
% Bare
25
26
37
22
18
21
20
18
24
18
Campsite - 8S4, North Grizzly Beach, Shoshone Lake
Quadrat
I
2
3
9
8
7
6
5
4
10
0-30 cm
.25
.13
.67
.5
.5
0
0
0
0
0
30-90 cm
.63
.38
.33
0
0
.5
0
0
1
0
90-140 cm
.5
0
.33
.5
.5
0
0
0
0
.5
# Saplings
1.38
.51
1.84
I
1
.5
0
0
1
.5
> 140 cm
1.38
1.88
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
0
1.5
1
% Canopy
43
27
20
43
32
13
23
20
23
25
% Bare
89
90
90
88
52
52
53
52
48
57
69
Campsite - 8S5, South Grizzly Point
9
10
4
4.2
3.2
2.8
3.4
2.2
2
2.4
2.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
9.8
9
12
9.2
8.2
6.8
2.34
3.8
3.6
4
2.2
3.2
4
42
39
45
54
45
54
49
50
63
57
50
37
36
32
31
31
5
6
7
3.25
5.4
4.4
6.4
1.5
1.25
2
2.2
.25
.88
.63
2.4
.5
3.25
4.88
5.13
> 140 cm
3.5
3.75
2.34
% Canopy
54
47
% B a re
73
66
2
3
Quadrat
I
0-30 cm
.25
2
2.5
30-90 cm
.25
1
90-140 cm
0
# Saplings
4
8
Campsite - 8S6, Red Rocks, Shoshone Lake
1
Quadrat
2
3
4
5
9
8
7
6
10
0-30 cm
0
1.2
1.8
1.2
3
3.2
1
4.2
2
5
30-90 cm
.38
1
1.4
1.8
3
2.4
2.8
2.4
1.6
2.6
90-140 cm
.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
2.6
1.6
3.2
2.4
1.6
2.8
# Saplings
.88
3.6
4.8
4.4
8.6
7.2
7
9
5.2
10.4
> 140 cm
.88
.2
3.2
2.2
3.8
3.4
5
2.2
3.6
3.4
% Canopy
30
29
32
35
39
41
41
41
43
43
% Bare
71
64
58
48
34
28
30
24
42
42
70
Campsite - 8S7, North Narrows, Shoshone Lake
I
Quadrat
2
3
5
4
6
7
8
9
10
0-30 cm
0
.13
.67
1
.4
4.4
3.8
4.4
3
3.4
30-90 cm
0
1
.5
.8
0
2.8
4
2.4
1.8
2.4
90-140 cm
0
.25
1.16
1.4
.8
2.2
4.4
1.8
3
3
# Saplings
0
1.38
2.33
3.2
1.2
9.4
12.2
8.6
7.8
8.8
> 140 cm
2.88
3
2.66
4.2
2
3.8
2
3.2
4.4
2.4
% Canopy
58
54
56
57
53
57
53
51
52
51
% Bare
66
63
56
61
61
54
48
48
48
48
Campsite - 8T5, Tranquility, Shoshone Lake
7
8
9
10
6
6.8
6.2
6.8
5.8
7.4
5.8
4.8
4.4
5.8
4.6
2.57
1.8
1.8
1.6
2.2
4.2
1.8
7.01
12.4
17.8
13.6
13.2
12.8
16.8
12.2
3.25
4.87
5.87
5.4
4.4
5.2
4.8
5.6
5.4
43
47
46
47
50
64
65
60
62
65
61
59
50
53
32
36
33
40
40
39
3
4
.25
1.25
3.13
5.28
8.6
30-90 cm
0
1.13
2.63
4.57
90-140 cm
.88
.5
1.25
# Saplings
1.13
2.88
> 140 cm
2.5
% Canopy
% Bare
1
0-30 cm
6
5
2
Quadrat
71
Campsite - Control Site 7M1, Yellowstone Lake
5
4
7
6
9
8
10
Quadrat
1
2
3
0-30 cm
5.88
7.62
9.25
7.5
6
6.86
7
4
4.75
4.5
30-90 cm
3.38
3
3.62
3.25
5.13
3.86
3.8
4
4.5
2.5
90-140 cm
2.63
1.5
2.63
3.38
1.63
4.71
2.8
.2
3.5
4.25
# Saplings
11.9
12.1
15.5
14.1
12.8
15.4
13.6
8.2
12.8
11.3
> 140 cm
3.34
3.5
3.5
3.75
3.38
3.71
3.2
2
1.25
.5
% Canopy
64
71
72
66
59
66
69
67
70
71
% Bare
21
20
14
17
22
18
18
15
16
14
Campsite - Control Site 8S2, Shoshone Lake
7
8
9
10
5.2
6.25
5.75
4.75
5.75
3.8
1.8
2.5
2.75
1.5
1.25
2.5
3.2
1
.75
2.5
1.25
3.5
9.6
12
12.8
8
9.5
11
7.5
10.5
3.75
4
4.12
2.8
2.8
3.75
3.5
3
4.25
57
63
63
67
64
60
63
56
48
48
38
29
31
41
34
34
42
49
48
27
Quadrat
I
2
3
4
0-30 cm
7.12
8.62
5.75
30-90 cm
3.5
2.5
90-140 cm
1.87
# Saplings
5
6
5.12
5.8
2.12
4.33
1.5
1.75
12.5
12.6
> 140 cm
2.75
% Canopy
% Bare
:
72
Campsite - Control Site 5L7, Yellowstone Lake
6
7
8
9
10
6
5.34
4.12
8.88
6.75
4.71
3.34
3.34
3
3.5
9.75
5.38
4.58
1.5
3.25
2.63
1
1.62
4
2.63
1.71
12.2
10.2
11.7
12
9.34
9.24
22.6
14.8
11
2.13
3.25
2.13
3
2.63
2.25
2.38
2
1.5
1.29
% Canopy
64
71
72
66
59
66
69
67
70
71
% Bare
21
20
14
17
21
18
18
15
16
14
Quadrat
I
2
3
4
0-30 cm
5.88
5.25
5.25
5.12
30-90 cm
3.12
3.88
3.5
90-140 cm
2.88
3.12
# Saplings
11.9
> 140 cm
5
73
APPENDIX C
COMPLETE LISTING OF ALL STATISTICAL TESTS
Test
Alpha
df
Critical
Value
Calculated
Value
r
P
Value
Average Number of Saplings
in Campsites and Control
Sites
.01
9
2.82
7.42
NA
.00002
Correlation Between Distance
from Campsite Centers and
the Average Number of
Saplings per Quadrat
NA
NA
NA
NA
.97
NA
Correlation Between Distance
from Control Site Centers
and Average Number of
Saplings
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.22
NA
Transect #1 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
4.28
Transect #2 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
3.01
.97
.001
Transect #3 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
4.39
.96
.0001
Transect #4 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
4.57
.94
.0001
Transect #5 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
7.12
.91
.00003
Transect #6 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
5.83
.94
.0001
Transect #7 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
4.60
.74
.00065
Transect #8 Campsites and
Control Sites (r for Campsite)
.01
9
2.82
2.95
.74
.009
.001
.77
74
.01
2
5.48
5.87
NA
.0008
Average Number of Saplings
in Canoe Sites and Control
Sites,
(r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
6.50
.96
.000056
Average Number of Saplings
in Motorboat Sites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
12.0
.92
.00000039
Average Number of Saplings
in Backpacker Sites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
6.53
.76
.0001
Average Number of Saplings
< 30 cm, Campsites and
Control Sites.
.01
9
2.82
4.36
.96
.0009
Average Number of Saplings
30-90 cm, Campsites and
Control Sites
.01
9
2.82
5.13
.98
.0003
Average Number of Saplings
30-90 cm, Campsites and
Control Sites
.01
9
2.82
6.31
.95
.00007
Average Number of Saplings
> 140 cm, Campsites and
Control Sites
.01
9
2.82
27.7
.80
.00000000
025
Correlation between Control
Site Centers and Saplings
< 30 cm
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.79
NA
Correlation between Control
Site Centers and Saplings,
30-90 cm
NA
NA
NA
NA
.21
NA
Correlation between Control
Site Centers and Saplings,
90-140 cm
NA
NA
NA
NA
.26
NA
Correlation between Control
Site Centers and Conifers, >
140 cm
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.70
NA
Different Campsite Beach
Topography
.01
2
5.49
1.75
NA
.19
Different User Types
75
Correlation between Distance
and Average Saplings in Bay
Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.89
NA
Correlation between Distance
and Average Saplings in
Point Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.96
NA
Correlation between Distance
and Average Saplings in
Straight Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.97
NA
Average Number of Saplings
per Quadrat within all Conifer
Species
.01
2
5.49
16.8
NA
.00002
Lodgepole pines in
Campsites and Control Sites
(r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
14.6
.98
.00000007
Subalpine fir in Campsites
and Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
2.91
.96
.001
Englemann spruce in
Campsites and Control Sites
(r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
3.67
.93
.0025
Average Canopy Cover,
Campsites and Control Sites
(r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
6.97
.31
.00003
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Canopy Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.55
NA
Average Percent Bare Area,
Campsites and Control sites,
(r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
4.77
-.95
.0005
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Bare Area in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.18
NA
Average Percent Vegetation
Cover in Campsites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
4.80
.94
.0004
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Vegetation
Cover in Control Sites
.01
NA
NA
NA
.17
NA
76
Average Percent Understory
Vegetation Cover in
Campsites and Control Sites
(r for campsites)
.01
9
2.82
8.35
.78
.000008
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Understory
Vegetation Cover in Control
Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.01
NA
Average Percent Moss Cover
in Campsites and Control
Sites (r for campsites)
.01
9
2.82
2.95
.57
.008
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Moss Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.31
NA
Average Percent Grass
Cover in Campsites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
3.4
.36
.004
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Grass Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.44
NA
Average Percent Sedge
Cover in Campsites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
4
.89
.002
Correlation between Distance
and Percent Sedge Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
-.23
NA
Average Percent Forb Cover
in Campsites and Control
Sites (r for Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
.8
.29
.22
Correlation between Average
Percent Forb Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.57
NA
Average Percent Shrub
Cover in Campsites and
Control Sites (r for
Campsites)
.01
9
2.82
3.69
.75
.003
Correlation between Average
Percent Shrub Cover in
Control Sites
NA
NA
NA
NA
.39
NA
77
REFERENCES CITED
Baker, F. S. 1944. Mountain climates of the Western United States.
Ecological Monographs. 14(2):224-254.
Burden, R.F. and Randerson, P.F. 1971. Quantitative studies of the effects of
human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of semi­
natural areas. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9:439-457.
Chase A. 1987. Playing God in Yellowstone. Harcourt Brace & Company.
New York. 464p.
Cochran, P. H. 1973. Tolerance of Iodgepole and ponderosa pine seedlings to
low night temperatures. Forest Science, 19(4):272-280.
Cole, D. N. 1977. Ecosystem dynamics in the coniferous forest of the
Willamette Valley, Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography A-ASl-192.
--------------- 1982. Wilderness campsite impacts: Effect of amount of use.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-284. 34p.
--------------- 1983. Campsite Conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness,
Montana. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-312. 18p.
--------------- 1985. Management of ecological impacts in wilderness areas in
the United States. R:E.R.G. Report No. 9. Wye, England; Recreation
Ecology Research Group: 138-154.
--------------- 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in
Western Montana. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-350. 42p.
--------------- 1986. Ecological changes on campsites in the Eagle Cap
Wilderness, 1974 to 1984. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT368. 15p.
78
--------------- 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-ofknowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert C., compiler. Proceedings-National
wilderness research conference: Issues, State-of-knowledge, future
directions; July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-220:135-177.
--------------- 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: A sourcebook.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-259. 57p.
Cole, D. N., Petersen, M. E., Lucas, R. C. 1987. Managing wilderness
recreation use: Common problems and potential solutions. USDA Forest
Service Research Paper INT-230. 60p.
Cole, D. N. and Fichtler, R. K. 1983 Campsite impact and frequency of use in
three western wilderness areas. Environmental Management 7:257-288.
Coombs, E. A. K. 1976. The impact of camping on vegetation in the
Bighorn Crags, Idaho Primitive Area. Moscow Idaho: University of Idaho.
63p. M.S. Thesis.
Despain, D. G. 1990. Yellowstone vegetation: Consequences of environment
and history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinhart Publishers: Boulder.
239p.
Dirks, R. A. 1982. The climate of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks. National Park Service Occasional Paper Number Six. 25p.
Fichtler, R. K. 1980. The relationship of recreational impacts on backcountry
campsites to selected Montana habitat types. Missoula, Montana:
University of Montana; 1980. 109p. M.S. Thesis.
Frissell, S. S., Jr. and Duncan, D. P. 1965. Campsite preference and
deterioration in the Quetico-Superior canoe country. Journal of Forestry.
63:256-260.
Lucas, R. C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes and
preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless areas. USDA Forest
Service Research Paper INT-253. 89p.
Lucas, R. C. 1987. Proceedings-National wilderness research conference:
Issues, state of knowledge, future directions. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper INT-220:135-177.
79
Merriam, LC., Jr. 1973. Newly developed campsites in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area - A study of five years' use. University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, Agriculture Experiment Station. Bulletin 511. 27p.
Mueller-Dumbois, D. and Heinz, E.. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation
ecology. 547 p. John Wiley and Sons, New York: New York.
Olliff, T. and Varley, A. 1994. Backcountry office news. Backcountry
Rangers Office, Yellowstone National Park. 2p.
Rehfeldt, G. E. 1980. Cold acclimation in populations of Pinus contorts
from the Northern Rocky Mountains. Botanical Gazette 141(4):458-463.
Rogers, P. 1986. Campsite impacts in the High Uintas Wilderness area: A
study of two attitudinal zones. M.S. Thesis. Department of Geography
University of Wisconsin - Madison. Wisconsin. 11 Op.
Roggenbuck1J.W. and Williams, D.R. 1993. Defining acceptable conditions in
wilderness. Environmental Management. 17:187-197.
Romme, W. H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of
Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs. 52(2): 199-221.
Shaw, R. J. 1992. Annotated checklist of the vascular plants of Grand Teton
National Park and Teton Country Wyoming. Grand Teton Natural
History Association: Moose Wyoming. 92p.
Shaw, R. J. 1992. Wildflowers of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National
Parks, including the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wheelwright
Press, Ltd.: Salt Lake City. Utah. 64p.
Smith, L.. 1993. Carrying capacity, how much can Yellowstone and Grand
Teton take? Greater Yellowstone Report. 10:1-5. Greater Yellowstone
Coalition. Bozeman, Montana.
Stankey, G. H., et al. 1976. Crowding in parks and wilderness. Design and
Environment, Fall 1976.
Stankey, G. 1985. The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for
wilderness planning. USDA Forest Service INT-176. 37p.
80
Stohlgren, T. J. 1985. Variation of vegetation and soil characteristics within
wilderness campsites. In: Lucas, Robert C., compiler. ProceedingsNational wilderness research conference: Issues, State-of-knowledge,
future directions; July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report INT-220:152-157.
Wagar, J. A. 1964. The carrying capacity of wild land for recreation. Forest
Science-Monograph 7-1964. 24p.
Washburne1 Randel F. and Cole, David N. 1983. Problems and practices in
wilderness management: A survey of mangers. USDA National Forest
Service Research Paper INT-304. 56p.
MONTAMA state
university libraries
3 1 7 6 2 10 2 2 4 4 8 4 3