monitoring recreation impacts in vermont and the northern forest

62
Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest Kelly Goonan Robert Manning Carena van Riper Rubenstien School of Environment and Natural Resources University of Vermont Chris Monz College of Natural Resources Utah State University Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Upload: aurek

Post on 24-Feb-2016

58 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont. Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest. Kelly Goonan Robert Manning Carena van Riper Rubenstien School of Environment and Natural Resources University of Vermont Chris Monz College of Natural Resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Kelly GoonanRobert ManningCarena van Riper

Rubenstien School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Vermont

Chris MonzCollege of Natural Resources

Utah State University

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 2: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Isolated & Confined

Page 3: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Rare & Fragile

Page 4: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Valuable & Popular

Page 5: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Management Objectives

• Facilitate public access

• Protect natural resources

• Preserve experiential quality

Page 6: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Objective

Indicators Monitoring

Standards

Management by Objectives

Page 7: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

The Northern Forest• Nearly 30 million acres• Mosaic of

public/private ownership

• Variety of recreational uses

• 1.5 million permanent residents

• 10 million visitors each year www.northernforest.org

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 8: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Research Sites

• Cascade Mountain, NY

• Camel’s Hump, VT

• Cadillac Mountain, ME

http://www.ncfcnfr.net/demo.html

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 9: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods• Mapped summit area using

GPS– Cadillac : 71,020 m2

– Cascade: 7,606 m2

– Camel’s Hump: 5,336 m2

• All trails mapped and assessed

• Transect sampling and digital image analysis of 1m2 quadrats to assess resource conditions and quantify land cover typesCascade, Adirondack State Park, NY

Page 10: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

Page 11: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

•Adapted methods used in campsite impact analysis (Marion 1991) and range management (Booth and Cox 2008)•Grid transect method•Grid created using Hawth’s Analysis Tools in ArcGIS•Digital images of 1m2 quadrats•Images analyzed using SamplePoint•13 land cover classes measured

Page 12: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

Page 13: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Ecological Assessment:Land Cover Analysis

Land Cover Class Cascade Camel’s

Hump Cadillac F-value p-value

Vegetation 20.40a,c 44.25a 44.29c 32.879 < .001Lichens 3.14a,c 32.70a 36.25c 116.557 < .001Organic Soil 1.78a,c 0.52a 0.39c 11.047 < .001Mineral Soil 4.72a 0.59a,b 6.73b 20.703 < .001Bare Rock 68.45a,c 20.11a,b 11.27b,c 369.198 < .001Any two summits that share a superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Bonferroni’s least significant difference test

Page 14: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Cascade Camel’s Hump

Cadillac Mountain

Percent Percent PercentVegetation Cover Present 20.4 44.3 44.3

Visitors said they typically saw… 61.7 67.0 72.0

Acceptability 44.3 42.9 46.7

Page 15: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 16: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 17: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Visitor Awareness of Ecological Impacts

•About 45% of visitors noticed impacts

– Cascade: 56%– Camel’s Hump: 37%– Cadillac Mountain: 45%

•Visitors tended to rate impacts as “slight” or “moderate”•Ecological assessments would describe impacts as severe on Cascade and moderate to severe on Camel’s Hump and Cadillac Mountain

Cascade, Adirondack State Park, NY

Page 18: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Visitor Awareness of Ecological Impacts

•About 45% of visitors noticed impacts

– Cascade: 56%– Camel’s Hump: 37%– Cadillac Mountain: 45%

•Visitors tended to rate impacts as “slight” or “moderate”•Ecological assessments would describe impacts as severe on Cascade and moderate to severe on Camel’s Hump and Cadillac Mountain

Cascade, Adirondack State Park, NY

Page 19: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Special Thanks

Laura Anderson

Lauren Chicote Carena van Riper

& Pete PettengillBill Valliere

New York State DEC Green Mountain ClubVermont NongameNatural Heritage

Program

Vermont Dept. of Forests, Parks &

Recreation

Acadia NP

The VT Crew

Northeastern States

Research Cooperative

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 20: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 21: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 22: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 23: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

90% vegetated 75% vegetated 50% vegetated 25% vegetated 10% vegetated-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Summit Impacts

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Percentage Vegetation Cover

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 24: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 25: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 26: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 27: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 28: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 29: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Impacts to Trail Corridor

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Level of Impact

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 30: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 31: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 32: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 33: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Survey Research Methods• On-site visitor survey conducted during summer

and fall 2008 (n = 476; 82.9% response)– Cascade: n=126, 92% response– Camel’s Hump: n=157, 92.4% response– Cadillac: n=193, 72.3% response

• Objectives:– Identify indicators of quality – Identify standards of quality for selected indicator

variables

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 34: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 35: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 36: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 37: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 38: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 39: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

0 people 9 people 18 people 27 people 36 people-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Use Level On-Trail

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Number of People On-Trail

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 40: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 41: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Summary of Respondent Ratings of On-trail Use Level Photographs

Cascade(n = 117-124)

Camel’s Hump(n = 143-156)

Cadillac(n = 177-192) ANOVA

Use Level Mean Mean Mean F-value p-value0 people 3.56 3.67 3.38 1.722 .1809 people 2.68a 2.14a,b 3.10b 13.474 < .00118 people 1.08c 0.63b 1.85b,c 13.051 < .00127 people -0.73c -0.93b 0.13b,c 9.479 < .00136 people -2.38c -2.47b -1.51b,c 8.918 < .001Acceptability 23.37 21.63 27.71

Typically Seen 13.59a,c 10.71a,b 19.08b,c 43.367 < .001

Any two summits that share a superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Bonferroni’s least significant difference test

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 42: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 43: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 44: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 45: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

0 people 9 people 18 people 27 people 36 people-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Use Level Off-Trail

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Number of People Off-Trail

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 46: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 47: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

No management Stepping stones Pavement-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Trail Management Techniques

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Management Technique

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 48: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 49: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 50: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 51: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 52: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 53: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Cairns a

nd blazes

Plus sign

Plus inter

mittent sc

ree

Plus conti

nuous scr

ee

Plus rope f

ence

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Acceptability of Visitor Management Techniques

CascadeCamel's HumpCadillac

Management Techniques

Acc

epta

bilit

yPark Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 54: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Conclusions

• Cascade visitors sensitive to• Off trail summit use• Impacts from off trail summit use• “Obtrusive” management instillations

• Cascade visitors NOT sensitive to• Trail impacts• “Natural” management instillations

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont

Page 55: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods• Mapped summit area using

GPS– Cadillac : 71,020 m2

– Cascade: 7,606 m2

– Camel’s Hump: 5,336 m2

• All trails mapped and assessed

• Transect sampling and digital image analysis of 1m2 quadrats to assess resource conditions and quantify land cover typesCascade, Adirondack State Park, NY

Page 56: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

Page 57: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

•Adapted methods used in campsite impact analysis (Marion 1991) and range management (Booth and Cox 2008)•Grid transect method•Grid created using Hawth’s Analysis Tools in ArcGIS•Digital images of 1m2 quadrats•Images analyzed using SamplePoint•13 land cover classes measured

Page 58: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Recreation Ecology Methods:Land Cover Analysis

Page 59: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Ecological Assessment: Trail Analysis - Cascade

Number of Segments 45Linear Extent (miles) 0.26Average Trail Width (inches): Minimum 8 Maximum 30 Mean 15.3Condition Class: CC1 6.7% CC2 26.7% CC3 33.3% CC4 24.4%

Page 60: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Ecological Assessment:Land Cover Analysis

Land Cover Class Cascade Camel’s

Hump Cadillac F-value p-value

Vegetation 20.40a,c 44.25a 44.29c 32.879 < .001Lichens 3.14a,c 32.70a 36.25c 116.557 < .001Organic Soil 1.78a,c 0.52a 0.39c 11.047 < .001Mineral Soil 4.72a 0.59a,b 6.73b 20.703 < .001Bare Rock 68.45a,c 20.11a,b 11.27b,c 369.198 < .001Any two summits that share a superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Bonferroni’s least significant difference test

Page 61: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

Cascade Camel’s Hump

Cadillac Mountain

Percent Percent PercentVegetation Cover Present 20.4 44.3 44.3

Visitors said they typically saw… 61.7 67.0 72.0

Acceptability 44.3 42.9 46.7

Page 62: Monitoring Recreation Impacts in Vermont and the Northern Forest

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTPARK STUDIES LABORATORY

http://www.uvm.edu/parkstudies/

View of the Great Range from summit of Cascade, Adirondack State Park, NY

Park Studies Laboratory University of Vermont