Committee. Dr. Dyckman, chair Professor Sperry

Transcription

1 A PLAN FOR DESIGNATING PRIMITIVE CAMPING AREAS IN THE ESCALANTE CANYONS SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT Benjamin Fields

2 Committee 2 Dr. Dyckman, chair Professor Sperry

3 Outline 3 Introduction Problem Statement Background Research Objective Literature Review Methodology Conclusion References

4 4 INTRODUCTION

5 PROBLEM STATEMENT 5 In the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Management Plan of 2001, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is directed to designate primitive camping areas. While the Management Plan defines the designation of primitive camping areas as an Immediate Action to be completed within one year of the Management Plan s release (BLM, 2001, p. 68), to this date none have been designated.

6 BACKGROUND 6 GSENM was designated by Presidential Proclamation in 1996 as the BLM s first National Monument 1.87 Million Acres in Southern Utah Purpose is to protect the area s vast scientific and historic resources Monument lands are to remain in an undeveloped frontier state (BLM, 2001) GSENM Management Plan has been in use since February, 2001 Source: New York Times

7 Management Zones 7 Determine the range of permitted activities and facilities Four Management Zones Frontcountry Passage Outback Primitive Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)

8 Special Recreation Management Areas 8 Seven Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) were identified by the Management Plan as needing more intensive recreation management

9 Escalante Canyons SRMA 9 Easternmost quarter of the Monument 470,000 acres 222,000 acres are Wilderness Study Areas Several important archaeological, historic, and prehistoric sites SRMA that sees the most use High demand for designated camping areas

10 Landscapes of ECSRMA 10 Source: Ben Fields

11 Camping in GSENM 11 Three developed campgrounds Frontcountry and Passage Zones Allowed only in designated camping areas Outback and Primitive Zones Dispersed camping Designated camping areas can be added if needed Currently, campers are choosing campsites on an ad hoc basis regardless of Management Zone

12 What are designated primitive 12 camping areas? Undeveloped areas designated by the BLM as appropriate for overnight use by individuals or groups Large enough to accommodate 2-5 vehicles, with a few areas large enough for groups Designated by a small sign and barriers Facilities and amenities are not provided Must be in place for Frontcountry and Passage Zones Allowed, but not required, for Outback and Primitive Zones (BLM, 2001)

13 Research Objective 13 This objective of this Terminal Project is to create a plan for locating designated primitive camping areas in ECSRMA in a manner that will properly protect scientific and historic resources.

14 14 LITERATURE REVIEW

15 GSENM Management Plan Directives 15 Define many aspects of designated camping areas Location and access factors Management Zones Roads open to the public Areas of existing use Facilities Number and size NEPA considerations Source: Ben Fields

16 Planning and Managing Multiple Uses 16 Public land managers and planners operating under multiple-use guidelines must: Protect natural resources Manage traditional uses (mining, grazing, etc.) Provide recreation opportunities Debate over public land and resource uses has led to a systems approach (Wilson, 2008) Resources are treated as individual systems Stakeholder groups are segmented into resource use spheres Demand certain uses based on their own unique social values, expectations, and preferences (Mann and Absher, 2007)

17 Multiple-Use Recreation Planning 17 The most common approach to multiple-use recreation planning is the zoning approach (Nilsen and Tyler, 1997) First developed for the US Forest Service as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) by Clark and Stankey (1979) ROS basic tenets Individuals engage in recreational activities to fulfill a desired outcome Recreation managers should provide settings to deliver desired recreational outcomes Regional, agency, or landscape scale

18 ROS Framework 18 Recreational opportunity setting classes Modern, semimodern, semiprimitive, primitive Setting indicators Access (system and level of difficulty) Other non-recreational uses Site management (extent, complexity, facilities) Number of social encounters Visitor impacts (degree and prevalence of impacts) Acceptable regimentation (permitted uses) Managers should try and provide as many recreational settings and opportunities as possible

19 ROS Recreational Settings and ECSRMA 19 Modern Fully developed campgrounds with facilities and amenities in the towns of Escalante and Boulder Semimodern GSENM developed campgrounds with minimal facilities and no amenities Semiprimitive Designated camping areas Primitive Outback and Primitive Management Zones allow dispersed backcountry camping

20 Camping Impacts 20 Usually localized to a small percentage of the protected area (Leung and Marion, 2000) The most commonly cited impacts are related to soils, vegetation, water, and wildlife (Cole and Landres, 1995; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Cole, 2004; Leung and Marion, 2000) Significant impacts occur with initial and low levels of use, then level off use increases (Cole, 1987; Marion and Cole, 1996; Leung and Marion, 2000) Source: Ben Fields

21 Impact Management 21 Campsite containment strategies (ie., designated camping areas) are highly successful in minimizing the overall extent of impacts by restricting the number and size of campsites to as few as possible to fill demand Shenandoah National Park (Reid and Marion, 2004) Isle Royale National Park (Marion and Farrell, 2004)

22 GIS Land-Use Suitability Analysis 22 Aims to identify the most appropriate spatial pattern, area, or site for a particular land use according to specific inputs (Collins et al., 2001) Allows for multiple factors to be analyzed simultaneously using different scenarios (Steiner et al., 2000) Inputs are defined, manipulated, arranged, and weighted according to their suitability and relative importance for a certain activity (Malczewski, 2004) Type and number of inputs are determined by the situation and desired outcome (Basnet and Apan, 2007)

23 GIS-based Recreation Suitability Analysis 23 Used extensively by public land managers and recreation planners to locate the most appropriate areas for certain types of recreation Location factors are to include: Landscape features (water features, topography, ground cover, hazards, etc.) Accessibility features (facilities, infrastructure, travel distance) Site management features (permitted uses) Visitor behaviors and demands Positive and negative (prohibited) factors (Levinsohn et al., 1987; Brandli and Ulmer, 2001; Gul et al., 2006)

24 Research Objective 24 This objective of this Terminal Project s is to create a plan for locating designated primitive camping areas in ECSRMA in a manner that will properly protect scientific and historic resources.

25 25 METHODOLOGY

26 Steps of the Methodology Define and weigh camping area location factors using GSENM Management Plan directives and Literature Review findings Land classification GSENM Management Zone WSAs (negative factor) Physical landscape Floodplain, riparian areas (negative factor) Ground cover Slope Access Open public roads Distance from road Visitor behavior and demands Existing camping areas given priority Proximity to popular recreation destinations

27 Steps of the Methodology, contd Perform a GIS suitability analysis to determine the most appropriate camping area locations 3. Recommend implementation procedures

28 Conclusion 28 Designated camping areas are needed for GSENM ECSRMA is the area in most need of designated camping areas This project will provide a solid foundation for designating camping areas in ECSRMA The process used in this Terminal Project can then be applied to other designating camping areas in other GSENM SRMAs

29 References 29 Basnet, B.B., & Apan, A.A. (2007). Degree of site suitability measurement in a GIS: The effect of standardization method. MODSIM Conference, December 2007, Christchurch, new Zealand. Brandli, U.B., & Ulmer, U. (2001). Recreational function. In P. Brassel, H. Lischke (eds.), Swiss National Forest inventory: Methods and models of the second assessment. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, pp Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Approved Management Plan and Record of Decision. Cedar City, UT: USDI Bureau of Land Management. Clark, R.N., & Stankey, G. (1979).The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, management and research ( Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PNW-98). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. Cole, D.N. (1987). Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review (General Technical Report INT-220). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Collins, M.G., Steiner, F.R., & Rushman, M.J. (2001) Land-use suitability analysis in the United States: Historical development and promising technological achievements. Environmental Management, 28(5),

30 References, contd. 30 Gul, A., Orucu, K.M., & Karaca, O.Z. (2006). An approach for recreation suitability analysis to recreation planning in Golcuk Nature Park. Environmental Management, 37(5), Leung, Y.F., & Marion, J.L. (2000a). Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O Loughlin, Jennifer, comps Wilderness science in a time of change conference Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Levinsohn, A., Langford, G., Rayner, M., Rintoul, J., & Eccles, R. (1987). A micro-computer based GIS for assessing recreation suitability. In: Proceedings of GIS 87, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Falls Church, VA, pp Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in Planning, 62, Mann, C., & Absher, J.D. (2007). A two stage analysis of recreation conflict as a basis for management strategies in the Black Forest: A methodological contribution. Forest and Snow Landscape Research, 81 ½, Marion, J.L., & Cole, D.N. (1996). Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecological Applications, 6,

31 References, contd. 31 Marion, J.L., & Farrell, T.A. (2002). Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: Camping impact management at Isle Royale National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 66, Nilsen, P., & Tayler, G A Comparative Analysis of Protected Area Planning and Management Frameworks (General Technical Report INT-GTR-371). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Reid, S. E., & Marion, J.L. (2004). Effectiveness of a confinement strategy for reducing campsite impacts in Shenandoah National Park. Environmental Conservation, 31(4), Steiner, F., McSherry, L., & Cohen, J. (2000). Land suitability analysis for the Upper Gila River watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, Wilson, P.I. (2008). Preservation versus motorized recreation: Institutions, history, and public lands management. The Social Science Journal, 45,