Table Of Content

t' ^ '7 i I I i document Historic, archived Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. High-Use Destinations uepartment in ofAgriculture Wilderness: Social and Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Biophysical Impacts, Research Paper INT-RP-496 Responses, and Visitor October 1997 Management Options David N. Cole Alan E. Watson PACIFIC SOUTHWEST Troy E. Hall RESEARCH STATION David R. Spildie my 04 a 1997 LIBRARYAND INFORMATION CENTER COPY The Authors Troy E. Hall is an Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- David N. Cole is a Research Biologist for tlie Aldo sity, Blacksburg.ShereceivedaB.A.degreeinanthropol- Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. ogyfrom PomonaCollege,CA, in 1985,anM.A.degreein He received his B.A. degree in geography from the anthropology from Duke University, NC, in 1990, and a UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley, in 1972, and his Ph.D. Ph.D. degree in forest recreation from Oregon State degree,alsoingeography,fromtheUniversityofOregon University in 1996. She has conducted research on both in 1977. He has written many papers on wilderness wildernessvisitorsandtheecologicalimpactstheycause. management, particularlytheecologicaleffectsofrecre- David R. Spildie is a Biologist for the Aldo Leopold ation use. Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. He re- Alan E. Watson is a Research Social Scientist for the ceived a B.S. degree in zoology from the University of Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Wisconsin in 1975 and an M.S. degree, also in zoology, MT. He attended the School of Forestry and Wildlife from the University of Wyoming in 1994. His interests Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni- include human impact on wilderness ecosystems, eco- versity, Blacksburg, receiving a B.S. an M.S., and in logical relationships offire, small mammals andvegeta- 1983, a Ph.D. degree. His research interests are prima- tion, and the use ofthe Geographic Information System rily in wilderness experience quality, including the influ- in wilderness management. ences of conflict, solitude, and visitor impacts. You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing informationinlabelformthroughoneofthefollowingmedia. Pleasespecifythe publication title and Research Paper number. Telephone (801)625-5437 DG message Pubs:S22A FAX (801) 625-5129, Attn: Publications E-mail /s=pubs/[email protected] Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station-Ogden (formerly) Intermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT84401 Rocky Mountain Research Station-Ogden (formerly) Intermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 24955 1 Research Summary Contents Page To better understand how high-use destination areas Introduction 1 ashortdistancefromtrailheadsandclosetourbanareas studv Sites and Methods mightbestbe managed,westudiedsixsuchareasinthe Recreation Impacts 2 Alpine Lakes, Mount Jefferson, and Three Sisters Wil- Social Impacts 3 dernesses in Washington and Oregon. We quantified Visitor Survey recreation impacts on system trails, social trails, campsites, andlakeshores. Wealsoquantifiedvisitorencoun- DeSscnroipwtiLoankseof Destination Areas""l":r.;":y.":"":::""44 ter rates between groups, during the day and in the Rachel Lake evening, on the trail, and at the destination. We con- Rampart Lakes ducted exit interviews with visitors to explore who they Marion Lake 7 were, what they encountered, their responses to what Sunshine-Obsidian'Sls Area^.^'Il^'l'iiiil'i^ii.^^^'l'.".'? they encountered, and their management preferences. Green Lakes 7 Encounter rates in these destination areas were ex- ^j^j^^^ Encounter Levels tremely high, clearly exceeding those preferred by most Recreation Impacts 1 visitors. Most visitors expected to have numerous en- Des\\natior^fi^e^'IZIZZIIlA5 visitors to counters, and most were not bothered by the high en- visitor Characteristics 15 counter levels they experienced. Only 1 to 23 percent Visitor Expectations and Responses'to supported reducing use levels. Conditions 17 Recreationusehascausedsubstantialimpactinthese Preferences for Management " 20 destinationareas, althoughgenerallynotmore than has Summarv 21 been reported in manyotherwildernesses. Mostvisitors Discussion and Management mplicati^^^^^ noticed these impacts and reported that impacts de- I Encounters, Visitor Evaluations, and tracted from their expenence. Visitors were highly sup- Management Preferences 22 portive of site management approaches such as trail or j^^, ,^ ^-^^^^ Evaluations, and site closure programs and revegetation programs. Management Preferences 23 Potential rrianagement approaches for dealing with Likely Effects of Alternative Management problemsintheseareasare:(1) increasingvisitoreduca- Approaches 24 tion, (2) reducing amountofuse (bydayusers, overnight y^^^^^ Education Programs users, or both), and (3) increasing site management. Reductions in Amount of Use 25 Intensifying site management programswould havethe Uenswe Site Management 27 highest ratio of benefits to costs. Combinations of Management Approaches 28 Methodological Suggestions 28 Conclusions 28 References 29 High-Use Destinations in Wilderness: Social and Biophysical Impacts, Responses, and Management Visitor Options David N. Cole Alan E. Watson Troy E. Hall David R. Spildie Introduction Management responses to problems at high-use destinationsaredeterminedtoagreatextentbyagency Theprimaryobjectivesofwildernessrecreationman- policy and tradition (Fish and Bury 1981). National agement are to protect natural conditions and to Park Service wilderness managers are much more provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and likely to adopt a regulatory management program unconfined recreational experiences. In wilderness, thanmanagersofotheragencies Considerablevaria- . managementpresenceandhumanimpactsonnatural tioninresponse appearstoresultfrompersonalopin- ecosystemswill,ideally,benegligible,andencounters ion and,inalmostallcases, actions aretakenwithout between different groups ofpeople will be infrequent muchpre-existingdataonthenatureandextentofthe (Hendee and others 1990). This ideal is difficult to problems being attacked. achieve anywhere, but particularly at popular desti- Decisions about management ofhigh-use destina- nation areas within wilderness. Attractive destinations shouldbebasedon athoroughunderstandingof tionsshortdistancesfromtrailheads,tendtobeheavily levels ofhuman impact in the area and the effects on used by recreationists, particularly ifthe trailheads visitorsofconditionsandofmanagementresponsesto are close to large metropolitan areas. Recreation im- thoseconditions.Variousmanagementoptionsshould pacts are often severe and widespread, encounters beconsideredregardingtheimprovementstheymight — with other groups occur frequently, and the evidence bring about and the costs of those actions denied ofmanagement is readily apparent. access, displacementofuse and impact, and manage- Managers of high-use destination areas have ment obtrusiveness. Managers need to answer such struggled for years over how best to manage these questions as: mlaeramensa.ys (MplHaaencneydse,aetrheaenrydehloautcvhteearndsto1nt9eo90lr;ietgtSlunelyatdoteedreua1sl9e6;w6i)tt,hheaypnrdfoebie-nl ter21..lHHevooelwwsdcoorrovaiwsbdioetudotrasmrfeaeentlhaaegbseoemuptelncautcrersae?tnttemvipstistotroenrceoduunc-e they cannot afford to administer and enforce regula- them? tions. As a result, such areas continue to provide 3. How severe are recreation impacts? recreationalopportunitiesforlargenumbersofpeople, 4 Howdovisitorsfeelaboutcurrentimpactlevelsor but they may not meet visitor's definitions of high- abo.ut management attempts to reduce impacts? quality wilderness. 5. How is the severity of problems changing over In other places, managers have decided that condi- time? tions areunacceptableandhavedirectlyattackedone cause ofthe problem—too many people—by reducing 6. Whichmanagementapproachesarevisitorsmost likely to support? or limiting amount ofuse (Hendee and others 1990; Stankey 1979). Many of the destinations where this 7. Which management approaches are most likely to benefit visitors and resources ofthese destination action has been taken have benefited; for example, areas and surroundingwilderness lands? impactshavebeenlimited,ashaveencountersbetween groupsofvisitors.Thisapproach,however,hasseveral To develop further insight into these questions, we costs. First, accessis deniedto manypeoplewhowant studiedsixhigh-usedestinationareasinthreewilder- to visit the area. Second, many ofthe people who are nessesonNationalForestsinOregonandWashington. denied accessgoelsewhereandcontributetoproblems Our objectives wereto use acase study approachto: in other wildernesses oron nonwildemess lands. 1 1. Describe the current resource and social conditions ofhigh-use destinations. 2. Better understand thevisitors to high-use desti- — nations who they are, their response to what they encounter, and their management preferences. 3. Onthebasis ofthisinformation, explorethepros and cons of some of the divergent management approaches that might be taken. Study Sites and Methods During 1991 and 1992, we studied six high-use destinations within wildernesses located in the Cas- cade Mountains ofwestern Oregon and Washington: the Snow Lake, Rachel Lake, and Rampart Lakes areasintheAlpineLakesWilderness;MarionLakein the Mount Jefferson Wilderness; and Green Lakes and the Sunshine-Obsidian Falls area in the Three Sisters Wilderness (fig. 1 and 2). All three of these wildernesses are relatively large; Mount Jefferson is about 43,000 ha. Three Sisters is 115,000 ha, and Alpine Lakes is 159,000 ha. The Alpine Lakes is the most heavily used wilderness in Washington; Mount JeffersonandThreeSistersareamongthemostheavily used wildernesses in Oregon. In each area, we conducted three related studies. First,wequantifiedphysicalrecreationimpactsinthe area. Second, we quantified encounter rates as an — Figure 2 Location of the Marion Lake destination area within the Mount Jefferson Wilderness and the Sunshine-Obsidian Falls and Green Lakes destination areas within the Three Sisters Wilderness, OR. indicator ofpotential social impact problems. Third, we conducted exit interviews with visitors to understand their responses to conditions in these areas. Recreation Impacts Methodsweredesignedtorapidlyquantifytheareal extent anddegree ofimpactcausedbyrecreation. We inatchee evaluated system trails maintained by the Forest Service, social trails (user-created), campsites, and disturbed lakeshore. We also quantified the extent of restoration activities on trails and campsites. The totallength ofsystemtrailswas measured and — five potential types oftrail problems were identified: Figure 1 LocationoftheSnow Lakeand rootexposure,incision,braiding,excessivewidth,and Rachel-Rampart Lakes destination areas muddiness Whenevertrailsegmentswithanyofthese within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, WA. . 2 problems were encountered, the length of that seg- morethanthreebadlyscarredorfelled trees. Catego- mentwas measured. Root exposure was considered a ries for camp area were: (1) less than 50 m^, (2) 50 to problemiftherootswerelooseonthesurface,hadsoil 100 m2, and (3) more than 100 m2. Categories for bare excavated from beneath them, or ifthe likelihood of areawere:(l)lessthan30m2,(2)30to60m2,and(3)more stumbling over them was great. Trails were consid- than60m^.Categoriesforfireringsandscarswere:(1)no ered to be incisedifthe tread was greaterthan 25 cm fireringandnomorethanonefirescar,(2)onefirering belowtheoutslopeedgeofthetrail.Trailswerebraided butnomorethantwofirescars, and(3)morethanone ifthere was more than one adjacent, parallel tread. fire ring or more than two fire scars. Trailswereconsideredexcessivelywideifthewidthof Campsites were assigned a conditionclass of1 (low the tread exceeded 1.5 m. Finally, trails were consid- impact) ifthe mean rating for these four parameters ered muddy if they remained muddy through mid- was 1.5 or less, a class of2 (moderate impact) ifthe summer dry spells. From these data, the length and meanwasbetween 1.5 and2.25, and aclassof3 (high proportionofsystemtrailswith"problems"werecalcu- impact) if the mean was greater than 2.25. These lated. Using an estimate ofmean trail width, it was classes, while reflecting subjective decisions about also possible to estimate the disturbed and bare area which impacts to include and their relative impor- associated with system trails. tance, provide a simple, integrative means ofdistin- All social trails were mapped and classified accord- guishingbetween more and less impacted campsites. ingto level ofdisturbance. Thelengthoftrailsegments Thesedataprovideaquantificationofthetotal area ineachofthreeconditionclasseswasmeasured.Class 1 disturbedbycamping,totalbarrenarea,totalnumber trails are disturbed but retain at least 20 percent of damaged and felled trees, and total number of vegetation cover. Class 2 trails have less than 20 campfire scars, as well as mean campsite condition m percentvegetationcoverbutarelessthan0.5 wide. and the proportion of sites with different levels of Class 3 trails have less than 20 percent vegetation impact. We also noted whether sites were currently m coverandaremorethan0.5 wide.Usinganestimate availableforcampingorclosedtofurtheruse.Forsites ofmean trail width, we estimated the disturbed and that were closed, we noted the actions that had been bare area associated with the social trail system. taken to keep people off the site and to promote In some places, system trails and social trails have revegetation. been closed to use. We measured the length ofthese Bysummingtheareadisturbedalongsystemtrails, closed trail segments and described the actions that social trails, and at campsites, a total area ofdistur- had been takentokeep use offthetrails and promote bance was calculated. A total barren area was calcu- recovery. lated in a similar manner. Both disturbed area and All places obviously disturbed by camping were barrenareawerethenexpressedasaproportionofthe located, regardless of whether camping is currently totallandareaofthedestination.Thedestinationarea allowed orwhethertheyhave been closedto camping was generally defined as the basin within which the andthenrevegetated. Ateachcampsiteweestimated destination lakes sit. In the case of the Sunshine- thedisturbed areaandthebarrenarea. Incontrastto Obsidianarea,thedestinationwasdefinedasthearea the barren area, disturbed portions of the campsite within and immediatelyupslope ofthetrail loop. The retain some vegetation cover. Area was estimated by surface area of the lakes was subtracted from total consideringthesitetoapproximatesomecombination area to obtain the total land area ofthe destination. ofgeometric shapes (rectangles, triangles, or circles) Finally, we walked the accessible portions of andpacingtheappropriatedimensions.Withincamp- lakeshores and measured the linear length ofshore- site boundaries, all trees greaterthan 1.5 m tallwere line obviously disturbed by human activities. The counted and notedto be eitherdamaged ornot. Dam- primaryevidenceofshorelinedisturbancewasvegeta- agedtreeswerethosethathadbeenfelledorthathad tionimpact(reduceddensityorstature)andshoreline obviousscarsorlargecutbranches. Finally,thenum- erosion caused by human or stock trampling. Total ber offire scars (fire rings or places where fires have shorelinelengthwasestimatedfromtopographicmaps, obviously been built) were counted. which allowed us to express shoreline disturbance Aconditionclasswascalculatedforeachcampsiteto causedbyrecreationalactivitiesasaproportionofthe provide a single indicator ofoverall campsite impact. total shoreline. Three categories were defined for each offourimpact parameters: tree damage, camp area, bare area, and Social Impacts number of fire rings and scars. Categories for tree damagewere:(1)nomorethanbrokenbranches,(2)one Various methods were used to assess encounter to eight scarred trees orone to three badly scarred or levels. In all areas, exitingvisitors were given a brief felled trees, and (3) more than eight scarred trees or questionnairetofillout. Detailson samplingmethod- ology are given in the following section on the visitor 3 survey. At Alpine Lakes, visitors were asked how to 15 total sampling days in each location. At Green manyothergroups they encountered on the trail and Lakes andthe Sunshine-Obsidian area, samplingwas at the lake. Visitors were asked how many other conducted on randomly selected days, stratified by groupstheycamewithinspeakingdistanceof, aswell weekdays and weekends or holidays. There were a as how many othergroups they saw but did not come total of 23 sampling days at Green Lakes and 29 withinspeakingdistanceof.Thesetwoestimateshave sampling days at Sunshine-Obsidian. The Marion beencombinedintoadefinitionofanencounter,which Lake samplewas a convenience sample, consistingof impliesseeingtheothergroups,regardlessofwhether 6 weekday and 9 weekend days. The usable sample theywere within speaking distance. size was 591 visitors at Snow Lake, 144 visitors at Estimates were for encounters during the entire Rachel Lake, 60 visitors at Rampart Lakes, 465 visi- trip, which occurredin 1 dayfordayvisitors and over torsatGreenLakes, 361 visitors atMarionLake, and multiple days for overnight visitors. In the Oregon 334 visitors at the Sunshine-Obsidian Falls area. areas,visitorswerealsoaskedhowmanyothergroups Althoughtheproportionvariedsubstantiallybetween they saw. Here, however, estimates were for encoun- destination areas, 68 percentofthe visitors surveyed — ters during a single day a round trip for day users were day visitors. and an exiting day for overnighters. Consequently, reported encounters are usuallymuch lowerforover- Descriptions of Destination Areas nightvisitorsthanfordayvisitorsintheOregonareas. In all areas, overnightvisitors were askedhow many Snow Lal<e other groups were camped within sight or sound of their camp. The Snow Lake trailhead is at the end of a paved Independentestimatesofencountersweremadeby roadlessthan2kmoffInterstate90, closetothecrest trained observers at Alpine Lakes. The trained ob- ofthe Cascade Mountains at Snoqualmie Pass. It is servers followed selected groups ata comfortable dis- abouta1-hourdrivefortheiVimillionpeoplelivingin tance alongthetrail and aroundthedestinationlake, the Seattle metropolitan area. Snow Lake (fig. 3) is without intruding or making themselves obvious to about 5 km from the trailhead on a well-graded trail the groups they were following. They recorded the with an elevation gain ofabout 350 m. In 1994, more numberofgroupsthatwereencounteredbythegroup than8,000groupsusedtheSnow Laketrail; about90 beingobserved. Observations atthelakelastedfor30 percentwere dayvisitors. Mostuse andthe resultant minutes. Campsite encounters were assessed by re- impact was focused on the system trail that accesses cording(1)theintervisibilityofsites,(2)theabilityfor thelakeandthesoutheasternportionofthelake(fig.4). groups in adjacent sites that were not intervisible to Rugged topography makes much of the lakeshore hear each other, and (3) which campsites were occu- relatively inaccessible. pied each night. The number ofcampsite encounters Snow Lake has been a focus ofwilderness manage- recorded for a group was the number of occupied ment activitiesfor decades. Problems withheavy use campsitesthatwerevisibleorwithinhearingdistance have been dealt with through education, regulation, from their site. ranger patrol, and an intensive site restoration pro- Independentestimates ofencountersweremade by gram. Bulletinboards areposted atthetrailhead and wildernessrangersintheOregonwildernesses.Rang- close to the lake. The primary regulation in effect in erskeptrecords ofthenumberofgroupstheyencoun- 1991and1992wasaprohibitiononcampfires.Visitors tered while hiking the trails during 1 day. Campsite were encouraged to use certain trails and to camp on encounterswererecordedusingthesameapproachas one ofthree designated campsites, although camping in the Alpine Lakes. was allowed almost anywhere, including 47 other campsites aroundthelakebasin. Preferredtrails and Visitor Survey campsites were noted on the lakeside bulletin board, as was the location of a toilet (table 1). Since our Visitors were surveyed onsite. This was considered studies were conducted, permits have been required preferable to mailback surveys because of the large forallvisitors,butthenumberofpermitsissuedisnot numbers of day users and our interest in accurate limited. recall. Consequently, interviewers contactedthefirst Twenty trail segments were closed, although only two members of each group as they exited at the twosegmentswerebeingactivelyrevegetated(table2). trailheadandaskedthemtofilloutashort, 10-minute Eleven campsites were closed, of which seven were questionnaire. Almost all individuals agreed. being revegetated. Sixty signs and 150 m of string, At Alpine Lakes, sampling was conducted on one usedtokeeppeopleoffclosedsites,providedabundant weekend and one 3-day sequence of weekdays each evidence ofintensive management at the southeast- monthfrommid-Julytomid-September.Thisamounted ern end ofthe lake (fig. 5). 4