Wilderness and Protected Area Management
Wilderness and Protected Area Management CSS 490
Popular in Course
Popular in Computational Social Science
This 48 page Class Notes was uploaded by Burnice Wilkinson on Friday October 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to CSS 490 at University of Idaho taught by Edwin Krumpe in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 9 views. For similar materials see /class/227797/css-490-university-of-idaho in Computational Social Science at University of Idaho.
Reviews for Wilderness and Protected Area Management
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/23/15
Wildland Fire Use A Wilderness Paradox FS Fire Mgmt Objectives Allow re to achieve its natural goal Use re to accomplish desired resource management objectives Protect life property amp resources from e Avoid unacceptable effect of re amp re suppression Wildland Fire Use minimumquot mm mmquot mu 9 gs Historical Perspective For centuries lightning caused res have created vegetative diversity such as a mixture of wildlife habitats while eliminating heavy fuel mulation Wildland re use can be managed to burn in a way 0 provide bene ts to the resources until fall rain or snow storms put it out Wildland res are afact ofwestern f nalural component ofthe ecosyslem in which we live miwnnm Wildland Fire Any nonstructure re that occurs in the wildland Three distinct types ofwildland re have been de ned and include Wild re Wildland Fire Use Prescribed Fire Wild re 2 2 Lo r m N m d a other wildland res where the objective to putt e re out is Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific prestated resource management objectives in predefined 39 r reas orJt39linegl jngt Fire Wildland Fire Use is the management of naturally ignited fires to achieve resource benefits where fire is a major component of theecosystem Many natural resource t b Prescribed Fire Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives A written ap proved prescribed fire plan mUst exist and NE 39 t h Prescribed Fires are any fires ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives A written line officer approved urn39 plan must exist and Wildland Fire Use The application of the appropriate management response to naturally ignited Wildland fires to accom lish s 39ecific FIGURE 2 Decision Tree for Management Response Io Wildland Fire Cannh om39 cm of prescrip m Frayed Fire er en r gquot Gummy Wildland Fire Use Nildlnnd Fire Ignition cp aroved auditions include loa onwindstemperamrelire perimeler Appropriate Management Response Under appropriate conditions a suppression fire may be converted to a WFU fire Under inappropriate conditions a WFU fire may be converted to full suppression One fire may be under full suppression at one boundary and allowed to burn under WFU on the opposite boundary mini 3 Management Responses to Wildlund Fire MONlTORlNG CONRNE comm run 0va n usr SUPPRESSlON m We iiills ules the tantrumin or the homes nvuiiubie lo Fir manageh ranging From monitoring to lull we uppressmn WFU can save money NIFC fed gov t spent 1 6 billion fighting fires on 69 million acres Average 231acre WFU cost avg 43acre to manage Suppression cost avg 150250acre ClearwaterNez Perce saved 25 million by employing less than full suppression Reduced fuel loading small fires in future Treatment Costs Avoided Mechanical thinning amp prescribed fire to treat fuel loading is expensive 1 200acre GAO estimates 90200 million acres need treatment After allocated suppression is spent USFS borrows from other programs Challenges to Implementing WFU A Fire Management Plan FMP must be in place for every burnable acre Only 88 of the 596 designated wilderness areas excluding AK had approved re plans at a low natural ignitions to burn 1998 WFU no longer counts as treated acres Damage from WFU is ineligible for federal Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation BAER Public demands private property be protected USFS history39has focused on ghting res Recreation Carryin Capacity Fact or Fiction shabe preserved for Me use amp enjoymenth ican peqo 1 manner as w17 leave ven mimpaired liar ture genera 39 cssAsu n PrufessurEd Kmmpe The Roots of Carrying I Capacity The maximum number amp den ity of animals a given unit of land can support on a sustained basis without destruction of the resource base 19461947 The Roots of Carrying gt Capacity Assumes a selfregulating system Consequence of exceeding carrying capacity is dieoff tes o zen manipulated to I Resource attribu increase39capacity for desired species Major Assumptions of 1 Recreation Carrying Capacity The amount of impact is related to the amount of use Decreasing the amount of use will decrease the impacts Researchers can calculate the magic umber of users below which impacts e n will be acceptabl e 1 l i n o The Problem with Recreation g Carrying Capacity CC focuses on the wrong question H w many are m many Implies a magical numerical x Reducing numbers ofvisitors may not reduce impacts We want to manage for desired resource amp social conditions g Recreation Carrying Capacity The amount and type of use that an area can sustain overa gi n time period given goals to maintain the physical environment experience of the visitor 4 Different Kinds of Capacities in Recreation 4 Kinds of Capacities mcapacitis pakmgm Phxsical Capacities landscape tommphy Tris75 L 0dng Roads Canyons Elils WaDer Shore he g 4 Kinds of Capacities E53169 canyneemaea39pm quot 52quot e39i39pfquot 35 s 4 Kinds of Capacities Social Capacities Evcoun Different Kinds of Capacities gt are Interrelated Critical Limiting Factors s Capacities Density independent factors Parking Iols Trailheads Lodging Roads Things which affect a population but which are not rela to populatio Physical Capacities n ensity The w Ilnkquot or anomaly which limits how a site is used for recreatio Canyons Cliffs Water Shorelines Ecological Capacities In Wil ernesssometim social factors TampE Species Riparian areas Soils are mqre quotmung than Phys39r quot or eoologlral actors SocIal CapacItIes Encounters Crowding Behavior I Ch Ical Limiting Factors Why do we want to determine g Recreation Carrying Capacity Because of legal mandates amp Because we want to control Recreation Impacts 4132 I Recreation Impacts are Variable Vaw with the t1pe of use Vaw with the m of use Vaw with the distribution of use Vaw with the environmental setting Vaw with mitigating actions taken by managers Vaw with people39s expectations amp norms l5 gt Type of Use I Timing of Use SI Distribution of Use easy MW m my mum D m Wimp am Wimp g Environmental Setting iess More Maw Ifnpt sct 39 Drysoilsiles 4 Wetsoilsites Moderate mnfaii Minimalmmfall Sandy luams mm s m nan may 19 g Mitigating Actions by Managers Less M9 Imam Irhp ct A r Limit Parking 4 Increase Padang Paved Trails Gravel urWuud Chips om Trals Trad Bridges 4 Radlngs Furd stxearn Erussmgs Nu Faeiiity Closures 4 Rest amp Rntatannquot Nu Clusures Staf ng Present 4 Staf ng Absent Smet Enfurcement gt Little Enfurcement 2n giRecreation Carrying Capacity The amount and Iue of use that an area can sustain over a given time period given goals to maintain the physical environment and the experience of the visitor 539 Carrying Capacities Differ if writ ll l 51 2 Elvininems n Numberanenple ver n 5 1n 2n an in an znn 1mm Enmumug Unsatis ed Prerequisites for Defining g Recreation Carrying Capacity Clear statement of Desired Future Conditions that include Goals defining the experience that is to be sustained over time Goals describing the resource conditions that are to be sustained over time Definition of appropriate amount and type of E Managing within carrying capacity You donot manage to maintain a carrying capacity number You do manage to stay within a prescription of desired resource amp social conditions In other words by managing to stay within desired resource amp social conditions you Q managing within the carrying capacity 2 Influence of Classical Greek Philosophy on Our Concept of Wilderness In uence of Classical Greek Philosophy by Professor Ed Krumpe Study or the elements as perceived through the senses ms orno ignirrcance only reason could reveal truth The World has Rational structure This structure is Knowahle R edu By engaging in rational thought man could uncover the secrets of a rational world By identifying a single fundamental principle of nature all knowledge would fol ow Complexity ms highly rrustrating ctionist method emerged W parts are isolated st studied out or context or Gave birth to the Scienti c Method Resulted in the rift between the sciences and the ani 39es not Ed Klumuearms of wleemess mlosowv not Ed Klumuearms of Mdaness mlosowv In uence of Classical Greek Philosophy The Judeinhristlan In uence Biased against observation or the Me ME abm mama 1 interaction or comp lex systems absence of God Incapable of observing damage to natural systems 7 Nhnifest Destiny and Utilitanansm Consistently failed to provide a 3 roundation ror environmental thougit Man has a Gwyn g Mm Has persismd irom Galileo39s time to well my m mm quotmquot 39 into the 20th century Natursl resources exist to serve mankind Becane the dominant philosophy the has ed America39s use or naural res oes Plcf Ed KlumuerRDms Bf Wl lnzs WllDSDF W 3 Plcf Ed KlumuerRDms Bf Wldanzs WllDSDFW The JudeoChristian In uence The Judemchris m In uence Economic Ltilitarianism Anthropocentric Philosophy 39 Mimi Plf d 39 m df wd 03 0quot It is man39s destiny to manifest his will over it mausm m can envtronm Mum ismes It is rigit to change namre in the 39 De ned oonsu vaim to be the quotwise usequot oi semi quotf maquot mm m quotmam me am manrcenmred philosophy should 30 W 9 mm 0 PM be applied to natural resource decision making 39 Aesthen39c Values were de ned onlyin ms of economic Plcf Ed KlumuerRDms Bf Wl lnzs WllDSDF W 5 not Ed Klumuearms of Mdaness mlosowv Prof Ed KrumpeRoots of Wilderness Philosophy on he beginningquot 39 39 Cdun39lJus and the Pilgims mind too midi wildn39nesi seen as the cm or the pimeer snlisu39ies abarier o progvss prosperity d Since the 160039s wehave taken pride in our 39er spirit wrstwa39d cxpalsim amp our pimeeringhuimge not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldemess HTllDSUFW l Historical Origins of Animdes Towards Wilderness Map ct Mdaness lrl USA lrl 1492 Historical Origins of Attitudes Towards ilderness Wilderness Tamed The colonists populated the East coast with towns and cities Gradually the constant fear ol39wilderness subsided People no longer had to fight the wilderness or survival People began to sense the ethical and aesthetic values oiwilderness Deism Sublimity 8t Primitivism Deism associated namre with religion Wilderness was pure nature untouched b vii umans Sublime beauty seen in wild namre 39 contrast urban senings where man39s works were superimposed on those of God Primitivisu believed man39s ha piness wellebeing decreased in direct proportion to his degree of civilization not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldemess HTllDSUFW Historical Origins of Attitudes Towards Wilderness Historical Origins ofAt tudes Towards Wilderness The Roots of Appreciation Nationalism 7 it ms in the nildnm or naorre th our yvms unmatched Writes Wm en Bryant Ralph Waldo Emerson James Fenimore Cooper Henry D avid Thoreau John Muir Arlis st Photographers Albat Bierstadt Thomas Moran Wm Henry Jackson not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldemess HTllDSUFW Prof Ed KrumpeRoots of Wilderness Philosophy not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldaness HTllDSUFW Historical Origins ofAt tudes Towards Wilderness Exploitation amp Scarcity The remarkable exploitation ufthe easmm e le realize wilderness ms Scarcity was a necessary precondition ior recogrizrn wil d ness as a source or man values and evenmally i preservation not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldaness HTllDSUFW Historical Origins ofAt tudes Towards Wilderness Calls for Preservation George Catlin Thomas Cole Horace Greeley ampH o eau e e preserve their wildness or the sake oi civilization George Perkins Marsh argued that preserving wilderness ms compatible vvithprogress and economic welrare not Ed Klumuerilnms ot wldaness HTllDSUFW Towards a N onranthr opocentric PhllosoPhy Towards a Nonramhropocemric A Land Ethic Philosophy o AldoLeopold 39 a thing is rightwhen it tends to preserve the integrity stability st beauty 39 Barry Cnnimnner orthe biotic conununity It is wron The durd law when it tends otherwisequot Nature Knows Best Philosophy Any examining d39man39s relationship to nature must be done quotintenns orwhat is ahica y and aesthetically righ e change likely to be detrimental to that systemquot Doing nothing is t as well as thoughttn h e better what is economically expet mtquot than rlnlng snm ething because The ouutanding scim c discovery oiteh may 323112 wm ryis o TV quot I had eonsequeneeswhether or not it succeedsi rather the oomplexlty39 or the land mgam39sm solving the initial problem Piaf Ed KiumuerRDms Bf Wi mzs FWDSDFW not Ed Kiumuearms ot wideness missowv Towards a Nonranthropocentric Philosophy Towards a Nonranthropocemrlc Philosophy Respecting the Authenticity of Nature 7 Complexity is a distinguishing ieamre or natural beauty that sets it apart from artistic beauty Respecting the Authenticity of Nature e make plans to help or improve nature the plans are not nature39s but our own We mm an art ob39ectto be ori 39 al the mzlmmnunhelzmmc mi The result is the stifling oinatural creativity p 39 and the tr stormation or namral objects into Litewise we mm the beauty of nature to human mm be authentic the result or natural rocesses an p No matter how natural they may look they 3quot are no longer original no longer authentic not Ed Kiumuearms ot widemess missowv not Ed Kiumuearms ot wideness missowv Towards a Noniamhmp Mannie Biocentric Versus the Anthropocentric Philosophy 1 Phi osophy The Anthropocentric Perspective Both provide human bene ts from The primary v u of wilderness is that it exisu Wquotd quotquot 55 be used or recreational purposes thus yeilding human values and benefits The distinction is from what are the primary benefits derived The Biocentric Perspective AnLhrupnc tric Jor goal Beneriu are derived from a wilderness recreationaluse and enjoyment IS to permit na ra ecologicalproces t o osslble ses operate as reely as p in perpetuity because wilderness values to society Biocentric 7 Benefits are derived irom d timately depend upon the retention of and ep endent up on the unmodified mmmnms or the wilderness ecosystems ul namrzlnam Ed KiumuerRDms Bf Wi mzs FWDSDFW not Ed Kiumuearms ot wideness missowv Prof Ed KrumpeRoots of Wilderness Philosophy Resource Conservationists believe Natural systems are no more than a collection ofparts mo sap eins is related externally to the ecomachine The market obiectively determines the worth and value of all things cultural and natural National and per capita income are a easure of societal wellrh eing Prngress can be determined according to the utilitarian formula of the greatest test numb er not Ed KlumuerRDms ot widemess FWDSDFHV 19 believe that natural systems are Sell39rcrezting evolutionary wholes with synergetic characteristics that preclude plete reduction and analysis Homo sapeins is related internally to the envirnnm ent Human actions can impair the ability of naturalsystems to maintain themselves or to evolve further Human values go beyond those measured by the national income and include the preservation of wildlands and life Plcf Ed KlumuerRDms Bf Wldanzs FWDSDFW 2D Ecocentrists believe that Natural systems are the basis of all organic existence and therefore possess intrinsic value I mankind is an element within rather than the reason to be of natural systems and is hence dependent upon intrinsic value Ethical human actions actions which promote the good life for humankind diversity stability and beauty not Ed KlumuerRDms ot widemess FWDSDFHV 21 Deep Ecologists believe that All life on earth has intrinsic value The richness and diversity nl39 life iuell39 has value Human life is priviledged only to the extent of satisfying vital needs Maintainence of the richness and diversity of life mandates a decrease in human population Humankind39s relations to the natural umrld presently endanger the richness and diverstiy of life Plcf Ed KlumuerRDms Bf Wldanzs FWDSDFW 22 Deep Emlogists also believe that Changes are necessary quotGreen societiesquot value the quality of life eg beauty more than the quantity of life eg GNP E E 39viduals subsm39bing to these fundamentals of deep ecology are obligated to promote sociocultural change not Ed KlumuerRDms ot widemess FWDSDFHV 23 Prof Ed KrumpeRoots of Wilderness Philosophy leemnlsls believe tlut er rsamrrorringhtureforalllifeandshoddbe revered and loved as in prmloda39n sodeies oosysuxnic nuslaise and ablse is rooted in androoamic moqm values and institutitms Relations ofeturpleneuarityrather than supaiority betwee adore andnaorre thelounan and and male and female are fishable The many problem ofluumn relatitms st relatiom betwee the lumen st nuhnmnwa39lds will not be resolved until mdrocmoic inm39tlm39ons values amp ideoloav an radiated not Ed KlumuerRDms ot Wldaness FWDSDFHV 24 I Values for wilderness Act ecological values processes Act experiential values wilderness as wild erness rm Ed Kvumuearms of winemzs missuqu Preservation of natural conditions amp lack of interference with free play of natural Administered for the use amp enjoyment as Left unimpaired for future use amp enjoyment Prof Ed KrumpeRoots of Wilderness Philosophy Monitoring Encounters in Wilderness V Overview E F Indicat0rs amp standards for experience quality Data Collection issues amp techniques Analyzing and interpreting encounter data FEVisitors as a source of information Wilderness Experience Solitude or a primitive and uncon ned type of recreation RMNP BackcountryWilderness Plan Visitors shOuld have the opportunity for a variety of personal outdoor experiences ranging from solitary to social The visitor experience should relate intimately to the splendor of the Wilderness resOurce ofRMN39P Can you monitor this Indicators Something we can measure that tells us if desired conditions or visitor experiences are changing because of human use Criteria for Indicator Selection 4 Signi cant 0 Meaningful amp relevant Efficient 0 Easily measured 0 Minimal training 0 Cost effective Reliable 0 Different observers arrive at same conclusion Low impact Responsive to management Gifford Pinchot NF Indicators WROS Class RVDAcreYear Mean Encounters per Day Pristine 025 10 Primitive 10 20 SemiPrimitive 50 50 Transition 150 80 Mt Rainier National Park Indicators Mean number of encountershour for peak hours of peak use months OPristine 0 OPrirnitive 3 OSerniprimitive 75 OTransition 125 White River PRISTINE Opportunities for NF solitude and selfreliance are excellent 55 No more than two other parties encountered uquot and what u rquot 2m awn and fall m an an en White River PRJSTINE PRIMITIVE Opportunities for NF Mod ate to hi solitude and selfreliance 0593510 01 5011mm llent whiletrav ling and are exce No more than two other parties encountered during crosscountIy travel per day on 80 of Moderatetohigh level ofrisk an the days during each use 5 No more man 12 season 39es encountered per No other party Within E day on trail 80 ofthe sight or sound of land In I ouul mmmm quotquot6 pm mm mm 3 No more than 6 campsites should be campsites in encountered on 80 of the days in the summer Ziggujusound 80 0mm and fall White River NF Plan SEMIPRIMITIVE Encounters with other users may be frequen quot lowtomoderate opportunities for solitude No more than 20 other arties encountered on trail 80 of the time No standard for camps in sights ound N M 1 t Mt Rogers Standards Fifi Trail encounters Number of groups of 1 or more encountered in 1 day 6 hours minimum as recorder moves along trails gEncounters at destination points Number of groups and total individuals at destination points recorded every 15 minutes over a period of at least 2 hours for various low and high use periods What do you notice do these approaches differ What do you notice do these approaches differ Variation across zones Variation across place trail destination camp Clarity about duration of a day Focal time period peak vs all Mean vs percent of days Er Q F 3 4 Are there other possible indicators r77quotPercent of time in sight vs number of encounters 7i Visitor reports of solitude attainment E 0 Collecting Data How would you determine whether Standards are being met for trail and camp encounters of time party What counts as an encounter Decide WhereWhen to collect data Develop a systematic wmwmsmmmm approach 3 Standardize de nitions and measurements Document your protocol Decide whereWhen to collect data Sampling Eliminating known or unknown systematic bias ODo you need a truly random sample Take enough time For background reSearoh For consultation With others Appendix a 4km Farms Protocols for monitoring encOunters Sadw ildemeSs rtet toalbwces Nmummwkmudvmwmmmsmlmmlvm WillarnetteDeschutes NFs Monitoring of encounters Source of data Sampling o Timing I Duration oLocations Trainingstandardization 0 De nitions oAdditional data Concurrent data on use levels WillarnetteDeschutes NFs Monitoring of encounters Occupied sites 0 Need for accurate map 0 Consideration 39ofwhen to Example Shenandoah encounter monitoring iReViewed management guidance EiDeveloped sampling schedule Created sampling protocol Collected data 7 Shenandoah National Park Convert observations to standardized daily data Cedar Run Shenandoah 7 Ranger Data on Encounters n Cederun 1 Jones Run I Upper Hal e1 Nurnber Houn Weekday Group We ekend Groups Shenandoah a Ranger Data on Encounters El CedarRun El Jones Run I Upper Haz e1 Numbera Hours Weekend Groups Weekday Gmups Shenandoah a Ranger Data on Encounters Numb ers Hmu39x 1 Cedar Run 1 June Run I Upper Harel Weekday Grnnps Weekend Grnnps Shenandoah 7 Ranger Data on Encounters El Cedar Run D Jones Run IUpper Haul Ml Percent quotn 39 me gt Std Weekday Time gt Std Weekend Gifford Pinchot NF Data 5 yrs Table 278 Gifford Pinchot NF Data 5 yrs Tzhle 28 Encounter Rates Mt Hood Encounters with other groups shall be limited to no more than ten groups per day in semiprimitive areas an no more than six groups per day in primitive areas uring 80 percent of the primary recreational use seasonquot Percent of Tlme gt10 Encounters Ramona EurntLake Timberline Elk Cloud Cap Top Spur Falls Meadow What about campsite encounters Mt Jefferson Wilderness W Collected data over 3 years E z n39Observed which sites were used each night Site occupancy Scout Lake 48 nights of observation 31 campsites Site occupancy Scout Lake groups camped Number of days 1 12 2 12 3 7 4 7 5 6 6 2 7 1 8 1 9 0 Site occupancy Scout Lake How can you use this information In this case designated campsites Visitors as a sourCe of encounter data iLess common as a form of monitoring Often used to help in setting standards Shenandoah Visitor Responses Encounters Per 8 Hours Cedar Run 275 Jones Run 92 Upper Hazel 286 Shenandoah Visitor Responses Encounters Per Felt Time In 8 Hours Solitude Solitude Cedar Run 275 87 845 Jones Run 92 100 904 Upper Hazel 286 100 934 Talking to Visitors Issues a Obtaining Visitor input 0 OMB clearance 0 What conditions to ask about 0 How to ask speci c questions 0 Which people to survey 1 Identifying proper indicators 0 For many visitors there s a weak correlation between encounters and solitude Conclusions Select indicators on This is dif cult There are no perfect indicators it Be specific 355i Develop a monitoring system and schedule 0 Consider spatial and temporal scope necessary 3 Plan for data entry and analysis E Dr Troy Hall Associate Professor Dept of Conservation Social Sciences College of Natural Resources University of Idaho Moscow ID 83844 1 1 39 troyhuidahoedu 208 885 791 l 24 Overview Strategies amp Tactics for Managing Social Impacts in Wilderness Common concerns related to experience quality Illustrations from interviews with visitors OverVIew of strategies and tactics 0 Case studies of ways tactics have been combined Dr Troy E Hall University ofldaho April 14 2009 Wilderness Experiences Types of mpacts quotOutstanding opportunities for solitude ora primitive and u con ned type of Crowding 39 quot i Loss of privacy Conflict v Stress r l quotRigm wnen we mi waiiea in ie where lheres all those mmpsiee there was a crowdmere and we Joni wan to be like next to everybody you know Camp ugh next to all mem Impacts to experiences are determined by several factors AmountFrequency of Use There are far too many people up here It s beautiful pristine but at this point there are too many people It s early and there39s already a on ofpeople up herequot There s a zillion cars and we passed a lot of people Persona characteristics Environmental Characteristics Environmental characteristics i 7 Visitor EnVIronment affects the numberand g Use level gt Encounters gt duration of encounters Expenence Trailhead 1 mile Obsidian Falls E Three Sisters Wilderness Encounters amp experience I 1 Spatial Distribution of Use r Distribution of Use Mt Jefferson 2006 Many factors influence the i use experience relationship Major cimerences seem to occur between no encounters 39 a a lt a a x lt a V and a few encounters up aeiz qbQyamp j yigamp fgf a 65 l Mq s cwwqugwq 3 owxf 3 Number nrvisimrs Spatial Distribution of Use Spat39al Dlstr39butlpn Of use Day Use Destinations Often management concern is for areas Everyplace hams found that of concentrated use 7 was kind ofan inlet was occu iedb a cam rou 39 0 that was kind of disappointing quot Spatial Distribution of Use Behaviorand Type of Use Campsite Clusters g quotBeing camped neai the otherpeope m dellaclfrom 4 o Impact is often due to more than just the experience cu have people Chopping incessanty and then were a couple of rovesaid kids lharwere r nning around and num her of encounters keptr Qmng up to us and talking to us Thevre kids rm that39s not Why Major facto rs Group size Mode of travel Behavior lmme out here ldidn rwam to meet any nearads BehaVior and Type Of Use Behavior and Type of Use quotWe ran into a few people on top of Horton Pass and that was the first people we had seen so that was XX COOL We talked about going up and how it was we Between our near neighbors who were noisy and not son ofenjoyed that particularly interested in abiding by the regulations and so forth ourcamp expe 39 nce was pro ably less than optimal Somebody abandoned the camp and just left the fire going Leaving a fire burning it s criminal stupidity Then we came down and there were more people just huge groups ofpeople We ran into a group of like 8 people We really d 39 n39t intemct with them but it is sort of negative You think man that s a huge group Personal Characteristics V Strategies amp Tactics to Manage Social Impacts Nature ofthe group and motivations Strategies for managing impacts Modify user expectations t Modify type of use andor visitor f behavior Modify location of use Limitreduce use Modify timing of use N U lbb Considerations in selecting a strategy r Know the problem lts causes lts extent Trends Select a strategy Consider factors that affect magnitude of impact Select tactics Speci c tools Eac srategy has multiple possible tactics gt i Tactics Indirect Education Site manipulation Q E a o H Regulations Use limitation Each factor can be influenced by management distribution of use Considerations in selecting a strategy o Select tactics based on Effectiveness Cost Visitor burden Side effects Modify User Expectations Tactics are mostly indirect Ihlrlng mm Print materials x m in Oneonone MLm t i l 3 MM i Often limited utility for some impacts Modify Type of Use andor Behavior Modify Type of Use andor Behavior 3 1 t l Tactics range from indirect 2 e l dillquot i g 0 Sometimes can Mandatory brie ngs be accompllShed I Restrictions f V Can be highly effective for 39 some impacts no for y by other indirect means Modify the Location of Use Tactics for LimitingReducing Use a I i l 3 Designated campsites Education Site manipulation On site Off site Site changes Reduce trailhead parking v Fees LimitReduce Use Quotas Limit the number of visitors Limit length of stay Sometimes the only effective way to reduce encounters However not well acce ted as a strategy for promoting solitude 0 Potential for displacement Tactics for LimitingReducing Use Modify the Timing of Use 0 Effectiveness varies Abiity or desire to change the site may below i I Fees may affect certain populations adversely Education is often not effective to reduce use 39 i t o Modifying timing of use is the same as reducing use during certain periods Therefore tactics are same as for limitingreducing use Mt Jefferson Wilderness Jefferson Park Collected data over 3 years Collected trail amp camp encounter data Documented ecological impacts at sites Two Case Studies Jefferson Park Obsidian Falls Three Sisters Wilderness Encounters approaching standard Large proportion of overnight use i 0 Many campsites heavily impacted Campsites highly visible around lakeshores Desire for tactics that accomplish multiple objectives Obsidian Falls Three Sisters Wilderness prerregulatiun Obsidian Falls Campsites Many sites near trails and water Many good sites away from trailswater Limitreduce use Decision not to limit gt use through regulation quota Avoid promoting Jeff ark l Identify high use area on map Obsidian Falls Same monitoring data as Mt Jefferson Encounters gt standard Often but not by a large margin Use Increasing Large proportion of use is day trips What strategies might be appropriate Modify user expectations 2 Modify type of use andor visitor behavior Modify location of use Limitreduce use Modify timing of use Modify visitor behavior Campfire ban Trailhead information Enforcement Site occupancy Scout Lake Modify location of use v Designated campsites If lt 250 ftfrom lake Else at large camping Evaluation Educational tactics to reduce use Costs Low Burden Low Effective Can people comply Yes Will people comply No Improves conditions Yes Side effects Little concern Overall Assessment Worth the cost Evaluation Campfire Ban Costs Moderate enforcement Burden Initial visitor objections but acceptance today Effective Can people comply Yes Will people comply At this site mostly yes Improves conditions Modest e ect on solitude Side effect Positive bene t for resource conditions little displacement Overall Assessment E ective Evaluation DeSIgnated Sites i i ObSIdlan Falls Costs Moderate Burden Preserved 39eedomquot option initial visitor ree objections but acceptance today M f Effective 7 Can people comply Depends here yes Will people comply Generally if easy to nd Improves conditions Yes improves solitude oppo uni ies Side effect Low There are enough sites Positive bene t for resource con ii ns Overall Assessment E ective Same monitoring data as Mt Jefferson Encounters gt standard Often but not by a large margin Campsites Many sites near trails and water Many good sites away from trailswater Obsidian Falls Obsidian Falls E Use increasing 1 1 o Large proportion of use is day trips What strategies might be i appropriate Tactics to modify location of use 1 MOdify user EXPECtatlonS v Campsite closurerestoration 2 Modify type of use andor visitor 7 r 7 7 i behavior 7 3 Modify location of use a 7 4 Limitreduce use x c AE39LWAT39ON quotmam quotIn wimin m 5 Modify timing of use i Wm m quot whim lo um u m usmuh u x Tactics to modify location of use Tactics to limitreduce use Camping setback regulation 39 Educational efforts Training office staff Trailhead information Wilderness information 1 specialists at trailhead Tactics to limitreduce use Limited entry area Use Limits 1 Evaluation Infoeducation to reduce use Costs Low Limited clay and overnight use Burden Low f i 20 groupsday through trailhead I Effective i Why 20 i All available for reservation f Available only at two ranger stations i Possible due to access Maximized convenience Can people comply Yes Will people comply No Improves conditions Not really Side effects Few because not highly effective Overall Assessment Marginal Evaluation camping setback to i improve solitude i Costs Moderate enforcement Burden Minimal i Effective Can people comply lfthey can judge distance Will people comply Not enou n Will social conditions improve Yes for campers Side effects Site proliferation Overall assessment Immediate adverse effects on sites good improvement in solitude Obsidian Falls Three Sisters Wilderness prerregulatiuri lrnile Evaluation Use Limits to protect solitude i Costs High Burden Least desirable Effective Can people comply Depends Will people comply Usually overnight Will conditions improve Solitude yes Side effects Moderate Displaced those who don t like regulations l Modi ed the timing ofuse l Overall Assessment Modest improvements in solitude adverse effect on freedom Obsidian Falls Three Sisters Wilderness pustrregulatiuri i mile Conclusions 5 Considerthe magnitude of the problems and the causes Consider a mix of strategies be creative 5 Be clear what problem each action is intended to address Think about unintended consequences Displacement Campsite impacts Monitorthe outcomes vaHau CunservauunSuma smences a n Unwevs vu a ma Enema hwhmdahu edu
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'