Alpine Lakes, Henry M. Jackson, and Glacier Peak Wildernesses
Wenatchee River Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest
Matrix Problem Categories:
- Campsite Management
Matrix Strategy Categories:
- Modify Location of Use Within Problem Areas
- Increase Resistance of the Resource
- Maintain or Rehabilitate the Resource
Recreation Impact Type:
The overall intent has been to reduce the social impacts resulting from campsite use. This has been mainly in the context of addressing standards and guidelines mandated by the Alpine Lakes Management Plan and the Wenatchee National Forest Plan, both involving an EIS level of analysis through the NEPA process and following a Limits of Acceptable Change approach to setting standards.
Management Objectives:
The overall objective is to bring campsites and social trails associated with sites in line with FLMP standards, with an emphasis on meeting standards for both campsite size and the impact of sites on the greater foreground view of visitors at destinations.
Actions Taken:
Actions discussed were divided into the two broad categories of (1) regulations and (2) engineering. Other management actions were mentioned (such as LNT posters at all trailheads) that dove-tail into the overall program, but these were not discussed in detail.
Action 1: Regulations
A whole host of regulations are now in place, some applying to a broad area (up to the level of multi-Forest) while others are more site-specific. All of these are backed by enforceable special orders. Examples of regulations used include:
Prohibiting campfires above a specified elevation level.
Prohibiting campfires are specific lakes.
200’ setback prohibiting stock at lakeshores.
Limiting use to designated sites in specific basins or destination points.
Establishing day-use only sites at the most visible sites at lakes.
Limiting group size to 12 total people/ stock in all areas.
Requiring non-limiting permits in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.
Requiring limited-use permits in a specific high-use area.
Limiting group size to 8 in a specific high-use area.
Rationale:
These regulations were developed into special orders based in large part on public input through the NEPA process, which indicated that the majority of users in these areas preferred regulations restricting the type of use rather than limits on levels of use. It is also felt that attempts at less intrusive, indirect management during the late 1970s and early 1980s were simply not successful.
Action 2: Engineering
The second category of actions taken is that of engineering. This entails a variety of actions meant to restrict, concentrate, or encourage use on specific sites and trails, as well as actions taken to repair or harden those sites. Examples of such actions are:
Brushing-out or otherwise improving sites and trails where use is to be encouraged.
Delineating sites and trails to be used with stepping stones, ditches.
Controlling erosion on desirable social trails with check-dams and steps.
Signing of designated camping sites, day-use only sites, and sites closed to use.
Signing no campfire areas.
Blocking-off undesirable sites and trails with rocks, brush, signing.
Using “iceberg” rocks or logs to make sites or portions of sites unusable.
Providing “Wallow” style toilets in high-use areas.
Active restoration efforts with native plants, mostly grown off-site.
Rationale:
The overall rationale is to limit where people go, concentrating use on sites which are more durable and have less social impact. Prohibiting campfires not only reduces the direct impact of wood collecting and fire-building, but eliminates the need for people to roam around destination areas searching for wood. Likewise, providing toilets not only addresses direct impacts of human waste disposal, but eliminates a major reason for the development of social trails. Part of the rationale here is also that these decisions to regulate use are a long-term commitment; sites and trails closed are meant to be closed on a permanent basis, which in turn establishes both a need and a reason for definitive actions.
Implementation Details:
How well did the actions work?
- All of these actions have required a certain amount of maintenance and adjustment. All of the regulations and engineering solutions have worked well in places, but most have not worked well in at least a few locations. Over a period of years, these actions have brought the resource “closer” to meeting visual objectives and some sites are seen as “vastly improved,” but it is an on-going process. Even on successful sites, many of the engineered solutions, while blending into the environment over time, still lack a “natural” appearance.
How is the success of these actions monitored?
- While there are some structured monitoring of sites, the results of these have not been subjected to any truly quantitative evaluation. Success has been judged in a qualitative way from public comment, manager observation, and a review of the on-going need for maintenance of sites (replacing vandalized signs, cleaning up fire rings where fires are prohibited, etc.)
What aspects of implementation worked to help attain desired conditions?
- Limiting group size and prohibiting campfires have had the most dramatic success in reducing campsite impacts.
- Regulations are easiest to implement when applied over larger areas.
- Designating sites where camping is allowed has worked better than designating sites where camping is not allowed; the incentive to destroy the “camping ok sign” is not there, while many see destroying a “camping prohibited sign” as an easy way to get around the rules.
What aspects did not work?
- Active restoration efforts have failed on the drier sites; plants simply haven’t survived.
- Designated sites have been problematic at some destinations due to a large number of snags; liability issues make designating a site with such hazards unworkable, and in these places designating closed sites has been the alternative method.
- What were difficulties in implementation?
- Site-hardening and restoration work are very expensive. Volunteer labor is more or less necessary for a substantial program with these actions.
- Overall public support and cooperation with regulations has been very good, but there are the usual problems with law enforcement in individual cases or with certain user-groups.
Public Acceptance:
- Overall public acceptance has been very good. Positive feedback from visitors is frequent, usually along the lines of comments that areas look better than they did in past years. Problems with vandalism or violations are infrequent.
Unexpected results:
- It is not necessarily obvious which trails or sites can be successfully closed or designated for use. Understanding use patterns must be an on-going process.
Lessons Learned and Tips for Others:
- More aggressive regulation and engineering should have been implemented sooner. It’s the only way to get ahead of the impacts.
- All of these actions require trouble-shooting and maintenance; you can’t just do something and walk away.
- There may be other places where recovery is quick and closures can occur with indirect methods or by rotating site use, but this is not true in the environments of the North Cascades.
Estimated Costs to Implement:
- Special projects such as restoration at a lake/destination camp area have required about 4-8 weeks for a crew of 5-6 person, usually spread out over several years.
- On-going law enforcement and ranger patrols are infrequent, but in recent years the District has had about 3 seasonal rangers per 350,000 acres of wilderness.
- Volunteer individuals and work groups have been a major source of both work and grant attainment, averaging about 3,000 volunteer hours per year.
- Special grant monies for restoration projects and the like have come 5 times over the past 15 years, with grants averaging about $40,000 each.
Contact for more information:
Name: Lisa D. Therrrell
Position: (Wilderness Manager)
Unit: Wenatchee River Ranger District
509-548-6877 ext 233
1