Management Unit / Wilderness Name(s)
Wilderness Areas:
Linville Gorge, Ellicott Rock, Citico Creek, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock, Shining Rock, Middle
Prong, Birkhead Mountain, Swanquarter, Sheep Ridge, Catfish Lake South, Pond Pine,
Pocosin, and Southern Nantahala Wildernesses, plus the Craggy Mountain, Snowbird,
Overflow, Lost Cove, and Harper Creek Wilderness Study Areas.
Management Units:
National Forests in North Carolina
Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan, and Uwharrie National Forests.
Matrix Problem Categories:

Campsite Management.
Matrix Strategy Categories:


Maintain or Rehabilitate the Resource.
Modify Location of Use.
Recreation Impact Type:
Management concerns are focused on impacts to sites in terms of barren core area.
While some direct management actions are being taken, the emphasis at this time is on
assessment and visitor education. Impacts accrue mainly along trail corridors; there are
no natural lakes, although viewpoints, rock outcrops, and the edges of creeks and
streams are also focal points for use.
Management Objectives:
Management Objectives:

Meet Elements (4, 5, 6 and 8) of the Chief’s 10-year Wilderness Stewardship
Challenge.
Desired Future Condition:


Complete a recreation site inventory and begin a program of site monitoring.
Revise pertinent Forest Plan standards to provide for more realistic management
direction.
Actions Taken:
 Action 1: Site inventory and condition assessments, assessments of use levels.
In the absence of a seasonal workforce, these actions are being accomplished
through university research projects.
Rationale: Inventory is a logical first step and an integral part of the
Chief’s 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge.
1
 Action 2: Evaluation of site inventory and assessment work through a university
research project.
Rationale: Necessary before getting locked-into an ongoing process.
 Action 3: Education efforts through posters, pamphlets, Leave No Trace training,
use of volunteers and student internships.
Rationale: Education is logically the first way to approach changing
visitor behavior, and given recent staff reductions, it is the only means
available.
 Action 4: Rehabilitation of impacted sites, mainly by removing fire rings, some
efforts to “shrink” sites or make them less obvious.
Rationale: Effort to concentrate use within existing trail corridors.
 Action 5: Direct management by restrictions on where use occurs.
Rationale: Limit social and physical impacts by keeping group size to
what an acceptable large campsite can absorb. Focus use into those
areas which are already heavily impacted, while protecting riparian areas.

Groups size limit of 10.

Linville Gorge Wilderness has a permit system with restricted use
and reservations.

Ellicott Rock Wilderness has a campfire and camping mandatory
setback of 50-foot from water, as well as a camping setback of
one-quarter mile from any roadway within the wild and scenic river
corridor.
Implementation Details:
How well did the actions work?

Initial site inventory and monitoring work seems to show that current standards for
sites are being exceeded, and revising standards will likely be a priority preceding
more aggressive management.
How is the success of these actions monitored?

In terms of the process itself, the Forests are working with a university research
project to compare volunteer impact assessments against assessments made by
more professional-level staff, to determine the effectiveness of site monitoring.
However, this is still in an early stage. In terms of campsite conditions, such as
barren core, it appears that the current standards are so widely exceeded that they
are not very useful.
2
What aspects of implementation worked to help attain desired conditions?

Partnership with universities is the only way this work will be accomplished given
current staffing and budget.
What aspects did not work?

Not all Districts have personnel to keep these projects going; the work won’t
happen by itself.

Standards are applied in too general a manner (by opportunity class) and need to
be made more site-specific.

Some current standards seem too unrealistic; it’s hard to see how conditions
could ever be brought to standard (such as barren core.)
Public Acceptance:

There does not seem to have been much public concern or comment: neither
positive nor negative.
Unexpected results:

N/A
Lessons Learned and Tips for Others:

The minimum is to keep up to date with current research and policy. Save time
and money by learning from what other units have tried and done.

It’s important to avoid management actions which might shift impacts from the
already heavily-used and heavily-impacted sites to areas of lighter use and
impact.
Estimated Costs to Implement:

In recent years the District has 0 paid seasonal rangers, for roughly 100,000 acres of
wilderness. Each District has just 1 person to oversee wilderness issues, and even
some of these personnel lack much experience in wilderness management.

Student internships, university sponsored projects, and volunteer efforts have been the
only source of on-the-ground accomplishment in recent years.

A grant from REI (Recreational Equipment Incorporated) has been the main source of
funding for developing a volunteer base to meet both visitor education and recent site
impact monitoring work.
Contact Information:
Name: Steve Hendricks
Position: Planner/Landscape Architect/Rivers/Wilderness/Trails/Special Projects
Email: shendricks@fs.fed.us
Phone: 828-257-4873
3