Visitor Capacity Analysis and Outfitter-Guide Allocation

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 214 January Visitor Capacity Analysis and Outfitter-Guide Allocation

2 Table of Contents Introduction... Capacity Analysis Objectives... Process for Estimating Numerical Visitor Capacity... Process Overview... 4 Phase 1 - Define Analysis Areas and Determine Need to Address Capacity... 4 Phase 2 - Establish Desired Conditions and Social Capacity Management Zones... 5 Social Capacity Management Zones and Thresholds... 5 Wheeler Peak Wilderness... 7 Phase 3 Estimate Capacity for each Compartment and Allocate Use... 9 Other Considerations Capacity Analysis by Compartment Jicarilla West Side GFA Trout Lakes East Side GFA Habitat Protection... Valle Vidal Latir Peak Columbine Wheeler Peak... Cruces Basin Pecos Wilderness Monitoring Plan Conclusions Using this O-G Program Analysis

3 Executive Summary This document assigns outfitter-guide allocations by geographic area, or compartment, on the Carson National Forest. Visitor capacity was determined by mapping out desired encounters/group size and other desired conditions to determine a range of social capacity management zones representing differing social experiences. Each compartment was further analyzed to determine limiting factors to visitor capacity. Management recommendations for stipulations/restrictions on outfitter-guide authorizations were included for each compartment. Allocation of outfitter-guide service days per compartment were determined after consideration of the desired interaction between guided and unguided visitors and are displayed as a percentage of the total capacity. Introduction Resource and social impacts of recreation use constitute long-standing issues in the field of recreation and wilderness management, and these issues are often addressed within the context of visitor capacity. Social capacity is the level of use beyond which social impacts such as crowding and conflict exceed desired conditions. Environmental or resource capacity occurs when biophysical factors cannot withstand a level of use, thereby creating unacceptable changes to resources such as soils and vegetation. These biophysical and social desired conditions are judgments that managers must make, with appropriate input from stakeholders. Capacity Analysis and Allocation Objectives The objective of this analysis is to establish numerical visitor capacity estimates that can be used to support how much use will be allocated to outfitter and guides. The intent is to establish a baseline for estimating a current level of use appropriate for outfitter and guides with the understanding that subsequent monitoring will help refine visitor capacity estimates and appropriate allocations for both commercial and non-commercial use over time (as new information becomes available). 3

4 Process for Determining Numerical Visitor Capacity The numerical visitor capacity estimates for the are based on the guidance found in "A Guide to Numerical Visitor Capacity in Wilderness, David Cole and Tom Carlson, 21". Although this guide is written for use in wilderness, with examples taken from wilderness, it is equally applicable on lands outside wilderness. This guide identifies various numerical capacity methodologies including capacity estimation based on ROS coefficients as well as establishing capacity estimates based on freezing current use levels. Based on recent experience, the Guide suggests that numerical visitor capacity estimation can be applied most effectively through formulation of thresholds and indicators for biophysical conditions (resource capacity) and for the visitor experience (social capacity) (Graefe et al. 199; National Park Service 1997; Stankey et al. 1985; Stankey and Manning 1986; Manning 1999; Manning 21). There is no perfect approach to determining visitor capacity. For small, linear features such as a river corridor, managers may choose to use available campsites and parking spaces. Some capacity analyses have considered "useable acres", though this can be problematic as visitors tend to concentrate in favorite areas. This analysis considered available data, visitor use patterns, known resource and social issues, and desired conditions from both the Forest Plan and from the interdisciplinary team. Process Overview This capacity analysis considered both biophysical conditions and visitor experience in making numerical visitor capacity estimates within the context of three phases: Define Analysis Areas and Determine Need to Address Capacity Establish Desired Conditions for Social Capacity Management Zones Estimate Capacity for each Compartment and Allocate Use Phase 1 - Define Analysis Areas and Determine Need to Address Capacity The capacity analysis began by mapping analysis areas or compartments where the current visitor use or demand is below, meeting, or exceeding social and/or resource capability. Compartments for this analysis were based on how visitors use the forest. The purpose of this phase is to determine which compartments have a low, moderate or high need to address capacity based on a broad overview of social, managerial and/or resource issues and concerns within the compartment. 4

5 Capacity mapping resulted in three situations: (a) areas where visitor use or demand is not an issue (low need to address capacity), (b) areas where visitor use or demand is moderate and/or resource concerns exist (moderate need to address capacity), (c) areas where visitor use or demand is high and/or resource concerns exist (high need to address capacity). In this phase, 1 compartments were considered by an interdisciplinary team. The team identified the need to address capacity based on a series of questions related to social, environmental and/or managerial concerns. Phase 2 - Establish Desired Conditions and Social Capacity Management Zones This phase established desired conditions and quantified a maximum amount of acceptable use based on the desired visitor experience for various landscape-level management zones across the Forest (referred to as Social Capacity Management Zones). 1 Desired conditions, as well as thresholds, can sometimes be found in existing plans but in many cases they will need to be developed. Even thresholds in existing plans may need to be adapted or supplemented. The Carson Forest Plan provides standards that form the specific thresholds for one wilderness (Wheeler Peak); however explicit thresholds for all wilderness and non-wilderness areas were not established. ROS definitions and norms as well as professional, informed judgment was used to establish desired conditions and thresholds for various Social Capacity Management Zones in non-wilderness and wilderness (see Table 1). Desired conditions for visitor experience are based on social indicators. Indicators are specific quantitative variables that define the resource and social conditions to be managed (Cole and Carlson 21,) Encounters are a commonly used indicator of visitor experience used to reveal levels of unacceptable social impacts such as crowding and user conflicts. Encounters occur when individuals or groups of people recreating see each other on a trail, road, campsite or other location within the landscape. Group size is also commonly used, since some visitors prefer encounters with smaller groups rather than large ones, although research suggests tolerance can also be tied to behavior (Stankey 1973, Manning 1985). Other indicators sometimes used include perceived crowding, opportunities for solitude and the amount of human presence that can be expected in an area, though these are largely dependent on individual preference and tolerance. The social indicators used to establish visitor capacity analysis were: encounters per day group size 1 A Social Capacity Management Zone is a descriptor based on desired conditions, typically encounters and group size that is applied to a compartment. Zones range from the more primitive to the urban interface, and can be derived from Forest Plan standards, ROS class standards, and a desired range of visitor social experience. 5

6 Existing maximum capacity numbers for the Wheeler Peak wilderness were carried forward into this analysis (Table 2). The formula for determining the maximum amount of visitor use for each Social Capacity Management Zone is: Group size x desired encounters x the length of season (365 days) for theoretical maximum capacity. It is important to realize that the maximum capacities listed below are determined before considering environmental or social limiting factors and opportunities for dispersal. Estimated capacity of individual compartments was adjusted after considering these factors.. Desired Conditions Social Capacity Management Zone Opportunities for Solitude Human Presence *Limit of Acceptable Social Impact Encounters Table 1: Desired Social Capacity Management Zones and Capacity for the CNF ROS Class > > > > Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (Wilderness) Semi-Primitive Non-motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Roaded Modified Remote Backcountry Front Country Urban Interface Sights and sounds of humans are rare in all but popular destinations and portals Little to no contact with other visitors and no evidence of use except in popular destinations and portals Perceived crowding is non-existent except at portal areas and popular destinations (Wheeler Peak) 6** encounters/day No more than 3 camps in sight except for popular destinations Sights and sounds of humans are minimal contact with other visitors; enhanced by those that engage in the same activity or activity type to moderate evidence of use. Perceived crowding is low; more frequent on popular trails but not at dispersed campsites 1 encounters/day 3-5 camps within sight Group Size Annual Threshold Sights and sounds of humans are moderate Moderate contact with other visitors; especially enhanced by those that engage in the same activity or activity type Moderate evidence of use. Perceived crowding is moderate and generally occurs on trails; may occur at dispersed campsites; generally tolerated more on trails than at campsites 2 encounters/day 6 or more camps within sight Rural Sights and sounds of humans are dominant contact with other visitors; regardless of the activity. Use is highly evident. Perceived crowding may be expected at all sites Encounters and camps within sight not regulated Group size not regulated 26,28 91,25 219, No Limit 6

7 *Given the substantial demand for outdoor recreation, some decline or change in the quality of the visitor experience (e.g., some perceived crowding) is inevitable. How much decline or change is appropriate or acceptable is often referred to as the limits of acceptable change and is fundamental to social carrying capacity determination (Crowding and Carrying Capacity in Outdoor Recreation: from Normative Standards to Standards of Quality.pdf (pg 1) **Except for Wheeler Peak Wilderness. See Table 2 below for WROS standards for Wheeler Peak Wilderness. Wheeler Peak Wilderness In 21 outfitter/guide service days were capped at 15 service days in summer and up to 3 additional service days for hunting (maximum two guides) in fall. This decision also instituted a policy of no overnight commercial use or hunts in Opportunity Class IV, the portion of the wilderness west of Taos ski valley, with the exception of bighorn hunts. LAC standards set in 1995 for this wilderness are shown in Table 3. Due to the high level of unguided use in this wilderness, the existing outfitter-guide allocation was adopted for this analysis. WOS Class Table 2: Wheeler Peak Wilderness Opportunity Spectrum Class Capacity Estimates I II III IV West of TSV & Lake Fork East Quarter to All trails but Williams Lake Peak Old Mike Peak Williams Lake Basin and Trail Desired human encounters 2 max 7 max 2 max 3 max Desired equestrian encounters 5 max 5 max 5 max Desired camps in sight 1 max 3 max 6 max 6 max Potential Capacity (before adjustments) 1,95 38,325 19,5 164,25 Jicarilla Ranger District O-G Limitations The Plan Amendment (199) set limitations for hunting-related outfitter-guide activities in an effort to reduce conflicts in that area. Table 3: Outfitter-Guide Limitations on the Jicarilla Ranger District Species Outfitters-Guides Service Days Mule deer 1 5 Elk 7 3 Mountain lion 7 35 Barbary sheep Not limited Not limited 7

8 Species Outfitters-Guides Service Days Total= 115 Other Forest-Wide Hunting Capacity Decisions Guided hunting is treated differently in this capacity analysis for two reasons. One, all hunters, guided or not, are given tags that correlate to state-determined game unit areas that are often larger than the compartments drawn by the team. Outfitter-guides would then be authorized for a larger area than one compartment. In addition, the Fish and Game Proclamation states that 1% of available tags for a unit should be given to outfitters. In order to align with this Proclamation, a large number of service days (based on a 7 day hunt) would be available for outfitters. While the capacities and allocation recommendations below include hunting, when authorizing guided hunting, managers need to determine 1% of the total tag numbers allowed for each game management unit. In most cases the service days available (based on a seven day hunt each) will far exceed the current actual use by existing outfitters. For example, 1% of tags based on a seven day hunt each could equal over 2, service days in one game management unit and the existing outfitters may have only utilized 3 days consistently over the past five years. Other considerations would include other, non-guided use of the compartment in which the game management unit falls and limiting factors identified by the team when deciding how many hunting service days to authorize. The figure below shows the overlap between compartments and GMUs. 8

9 Phase 3 Estimate Capacity for each Compartment and Allocate Use During Phase 3, further consideration of Forest Plan direction as well as social and resource values and issues related to visitor capacity is given to the compartments which were mapped during Phase 1. As described in A Guide to Numerical Visitor Capacity in Wilderness, David Cole and Tom Carlson, 21, an entire compartment must be allocated to just one Social Capacity Management Zone in order to establish an initial desired social experience for each compartment. The maximum level of capacity for the Social Capacity Management Zone is then adjusted to reflect the specific issues at the compartment level. For example, in one compartment the concern might be disturbance to wildlife; in another it might be crowding. Consequently, the optimum social capacity amount established in Phase 2 would need to be reduced in order to address resource issues and concerns at the compartment level. The maximum compartment capacity will be determined by the 9

10 most limiting of the thresholds. A look at opportunities may also result in reduction of the social capacity threshold. For example, a compartment may have only one or two access points and very few trails. Terrain may funnel visitors into one main area. All of these factors affected capacity. The steps for this Phase are summarized as follows: 1. Identify Social Capacity Management Zone a. Identify maximum capacity based on season of use. 2. Identify issues, indicators and thresholds for the compartment. a. Use additional management direction and results from Phase Determine the estimated visitor capacity for the compartment. a. Identify the limiting social and/or resource factor for the compartment. i. Adjust capacity based on the limiting factor. b. Determine the limiting opportunity factor for the compartment. i. Adjust capacity based on the opportunity factor. 4. Allocate O-G Use a. Use Social Capacity Management Zone to determine desired interaction with O-Gs b. Allocate use based on established O-G allocation factor (see table 6). Adjustment Factors This framework emphasizes consideration of limiting factors as the basis for estimating capacity at the compartment level. A determination of the most limiting factor or critical issue, as well as the severity of the factor is used as the primary driver for adjusting/reducing capacity. Adjustments are made in a two-step process which involves a reduction for the most limiting social or environmental factor followed by a reduction that accounts for the opportunity to disperse. Tables 4 and 5 describe the factors and criteria used to reduce desired condition Social Capacity Management Zone maximum capacities where needed: 1

11 Resource Severity Table 4: Social and/or Resource Limiting Factors and Percent Reduction Definition (Wilderness & Non-Wilderness) potential exists for an environmental or social factor to limit capacity and occasional instances may occur (e.g. conflicts, crowding, and impacts to environmental resources); however, instances are very limited. Moderate potential exists for an environmental or social factor to limit capacity; documented instances have occurred (e.g. conflicts, crowding, impacts to environmental resources); instances occur on a site-specific and occasional basis. potential exists for an environmental or social factor to limit capacity; there are ongoing instances of impacts to the limiting factor from visitor use (e.g. conflicts, crowding, impacts to environmental resources); instances occur regularly and over a large part of the compartment. Percent Reduction from Capacity None 25% 5% Opportunity to Disperse Table 5: Opportunity to Disperse Limiting Factors and Percent Reduction Definition (Wilderness & Non-Wilderness) Opportunities for visitors to disperse are limited due to small compartment size (less than 5, acres), terrain, a low number of trails/roads; few desired destinations with high scenic/recreational qualities, length of season and/or few access points and parking. Opportunities for visitors to disperse are moderate due to moderate compartment size (5, to 1, acres), terrain and moderate number of trails/roads, a moderate number of desired destinations with high scenic/recreational qualities, length of season and/or a moderate number of access points and parking. Opportunities for visitors to disperse are high due to large compartment size (more than 1, acres), terrain, a high number of trails/roads, a high number of desired destinations, length of season and/or a high number of access points and parking. Percent Reduction from Limiting Factor 5% 25% None Allocation of Use Once visitor capacity is established, the next step involves allocating use to the commercial/non-commercial sectors. Allocation can best be supported by collaborating with stakeholders and focusing monitoring on data needed to determine which group (i.e., commercial vs non-commercial) may be causing the greatest social and/or resource impacts and at what specific locations. Thus, allocation between guided and unguided visitors utilizes an allocation factor based on the desired interaction of visitors with O-Gs (as displayed in Table 6). 11

12 Desired Interaction with O-Gs Table 6: Outfitter and Guide Allocation Factors Definition (Wilderness & Non-Wilderness) Interaction with O-Gs is low due to activities that primarily emphasize self-reliance, challenge, opportunities for solitude, personal skill development and risk and/or settings where a desired interaction with other visitors is low. Size, terrain, destinations, access and/or trails may limit the ability to disperse use and/or accommodate large groups. The need for O-Gs to help with management goals is low due to adequate FS presence, management and/or permit administration, CE/LNT programs, and/or for reasons based in policy (e.g. extent necessary in Wilderness). Interaction with O-Gs is occasional due to a moderate amount of guided activities (e.g. rock climbing, white water boating) and/or settings where interaction with other visitors is expected to be moderate. Compartment size, terrain, destinations, access and/or trails provide a moderate ability to disperse use and/or accommodate larger groups. The need for O-Gs to help with management goals is moderate. Interaction with O-Gs is expected due to multiple opportunities for guided activities and/or settings where interaction with other visitors is expected to be high (e.g. bus tours). Compartment size may be large and terrain, destinations, access and/or trails provide a high ability to disperse use and/or accommodate larger groups. The need for O-Gs to help with management goals is high due to high use and lack of FS presence. Percent Allocation 1 % 15% 2% Other Considerations Numerical capacity estimates are not meant to be static. Changing conditions and application of new information can cause managers to revise capacity numbers. For example, construction of new trails, or conversely, lack of maintenance on existing trails, can either increase or decrease capacity in an area. Listing of an endangered species, designation of special areas and increases in visitor use can contribute to a change in capacity. Managers should revisit numerical capacity on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the most current research, monitoring and information. 12

13 Capacity Analysis by Compartment Figure 1. Compartments (February 213) 13

14 Jicarilla Acres: 153,437 Operating Season: Year-round Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions to moderate contact with other visitors Desired Social Thresholds 1 encounters/day Group size = 25 Values Quota in place ensuring harmony between o-gs Large road system provides opportunities O-G Activities Hunting, photography Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Issues Severity (H,M,L) Indicators Impacts to visitor experience from crowding L perceived crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use L L reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 91,25 visitor days None identified X 91,25 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Compartment Capacity Opportunity Factor Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 91,25 Opportunity to disperse X 68,437 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Threshold 68,437 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) X (1%) O-G Allocation 1,265 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: 14

15 The need to address capacity was identified as low in this compartment. Consider monitoring thresholds and involving stakeholders before relying only on numerical capacity. Due to limiting factors being rated low by the team, the maximum outfitter-guide allocation for this compartment listed here is high. Caution is recommended when considering allocating new use. A modest amount of outfitter-guide service days in a low range (1,5-3,) for activities other than hunting could be allocated while indicators are monitored. Should conditions change, the need to determine capacity should be revisited. Since visitor use is heaviest during hunting season, consider not authorizing additional outfitter-guide use during this time. The quota for hunting guide service days appears to be working and should be left in place. Monitor thresholds and adjust if impacts are above the desired condition. When the five-year service day analysis occurs for priority permits, determine if a pool of days could be made available from unused service days to meet additional demand. 15

16 West Side GFA Acres: 73,896 Operating Season: Year-round Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities Moderate contact with 1 encounters/day level of varied Current: fly fishing, other visitors Group size = 25 opportunities hunting, mountain draw for hunting biking, hiking, photography Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues (H,M,L) Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use L L L Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 91,25 visitor days None identified X 91,25 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 91,25 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 91,25 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor 16 O-G Allocation (2%) (15%) (1%) 91,25 visitor days Opportunity for X 18,25

17 Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor O-G Allocation Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: The need to address capacity was identified as low in this compartment. Consider monitoring thresholds and involving stakeholders before relying only on numerical capacity. Due to limiting factors being rated low by the team, the maximum outfitter-guide allocation for this compartment listed here is high. Caution is recommended when considering allocating new use. A modest amount of outfitter-guide service days in a low range (1,5-3,) could be allocated while indicators are monitored. Should conditions change, the need to determine capacity should be revisited. Since visitor use is heaviest during hunting season, consider not authorizing additional outfitter-guide use during this time. 17

18 18

19 Trout Lakes Acres: 34,7 Operating Season: Year-round Need to Address Capacity: Moderate Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities to moderate contact 1 encounters/day Attractive lake Current: Fishing, with other visitors Group size = 25 destinations hunting, hiking, Campgrounds and facilities photography Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Issues Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use Severity (H,M,L) H L M Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding at campsites and lake area; minimal elsewhere No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife Minimal increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling at established campsites; no new sites; no new OHV routes Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 91,25 visitor days Social X 45,625 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 45,625 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 22,812 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor 19 O-G Allocation (2%) (15%) (1%) 22,812 visitor days Opportunity for X 2,812 service days

20 Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor O-G Allocation Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: Only permit 1% or another low, reasonable number of campsites in developed campgrounds to outfitters to alleviate the problem of them taking over the entire campground. Since hunting season is the time period with the most visitor use, do not allocate additional service days then. Consider staying well below the maximum allocation in this compartment year round due to small compartment size and high use. Impacts to vegetation from camping at Trout Lakes were identified by the team; consider assigning sites to outfitters and closing/revegetating/hardening others. OHV off road use is causing impacts in this area, according to the team. Ensure that outfitters are not contributing to this problem. Consider adding OHV education to those permits that use this type of transport. 2

21 East Side GFA Acres: 156,34 Operating Season: Year-round Need to Address Capacity: Moderate Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values to moderate contact 15 encounters/day Diversity of terrain and with other visitors Group size = 25 opportunities Large area with room to spread out O-G Activities Current: Hunting Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Issues Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use Severity (H,M,L) H L M Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding in popular locations; minimal elsewhere; encounter standard not exceeded No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No new OHV routes Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Threshold Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 91,25 visitor days Social X 45,625 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 45,625 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 34,219 visitor days O-G Allocation Desired Interaction Compartment Capacity with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor 21 O-G Allocation

22 Compartment Capacity 34,219 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) X (1%) O-G Allocation 5,133 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: Due to intensive, concentrated motorized use in the north (Questa/Red River) consider permitting no more motorized outfitter-guide use than already exists. Include permit stipulations forbidding camping in historic cabins. No outfitter-guides on 4 th of July canyon road due to soils and watershed problems. 22

23 Camino Real GFA Acres: 21,45 Operating Season: Year-round Need to Address Capacity: Moderate Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities to moderate contact 1 encounters/day Scenic vistas Current: with other visitors Group size = 25 Offers a variety of opportunities and experiences Hunting, OHV Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues Indicators (H,M,L) Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use M L M perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding at destinations; minimal elsewhere; encounter standards not exceeded No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife Minimal increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling at concentrated use sites; none elsewhere; no new OHV routes Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity 91,25 visitor days Compartment Limiting Factor Impacts to soils and vegetation Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 68,437 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 68,437 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 51,328 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor 23 O-G Allocation (2%) (15%) (1%) 51,328 visitor days Opportunity for X 5,132 service days

24 Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor O-G Allocation Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: The team anticipated that conflicts would be expected in this area with large increases in outfitter-guide use due to the heavy use and ownership by locals. When permitting new use, consider low levels and for activities that do not conflict with existing uses. The team indicated that concentrated uses would impact resources in this compartment. Consider permitting only those services that do not cause ground disturbance. The team identified that due to trail condition, the sustainability of OHV outfitters is low. Consider permitting these uses outside of this compartment. 24

25 Valle Vidal Acres: 1,526 Operating Season: Spring, summer, fall (24 days) Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Backcountry Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities to moderate contact 1 encounters/day historic and scenic Fishing, hiking, with other visitors Group size = 25 value Scouts Premier elk viewing and hunting Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Issues Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use Severity (H,M,L) M L L Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding on roads and preferred destinations; minimal elsewhere No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Threshold Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 6,* 2 None identified X visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Opportunity Compartment Capacity Factor 6, Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 45, visitor days O-G Allocation Desired Compartment Capacity Interaction with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) (1%) O-G Allocation 2 136,875 is the maximum social capacity management zone threshold; here it was reduced by the length of the season (24 days) 25

26 Compartment Capacity 45, visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor X O-G Allocation 6,75 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: The need to address capacity was identified as low in this compartment. Consider monitoring thresholds and involving stakeholders before relying only on numerical capacity. Due to limiting factors being rated low by the team, the maximum outfitter-guide allocation for this compartment listed here is high. Caution is recommended when considering allocating new use. A modest amount of outfitter-guide service days in a low range (1,5-3,) could be allocated while indicators are monitored. Should conditions change, the need to determine capacity should be revisited. The team identified that this is a compartment that is known for its solitude and natural integrity. Carefully consider these values when permitting additional outfitter-guide use. The team identified congestion at fishing areas; consider not permitting any additional outfitter-guide use there. Due to the temptation of closed roads and lack of available opportunities, consider no additional OHV permitted use. 26

27 Latir Peak Acres: 2, 91 Operating Season: Spring, summer, fall (24 days) Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Remote (Wilderness) Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities contact with other 6 encounters/day Peaks over 12, feet, Current: hunting visitors Group size = 12 alpine meadows and lakes Abundance of wildlife Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues (H,M,L) Indicators Impacts to visitor experience from crowding L perceived crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use L L reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than moderate perceived crowding No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 17,28 visitor days* 3 None identified X 17,28 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Capacity 17,28 visitor days Opportunity Factor Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 8,64 visitor days O-G Allocation Desired Interaction Compartment Capacity with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) (1%) O-G Allocation 3 38, 325 visitor days was the maximum management zone social capacity thresholds; here it was reduced for the length of the season. 27

28 Compartment Capacity 8,64 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor X O-G Allocation 864 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: The need to address capacity was identified as low in this compartment. Consider monitoring thresholds and involving stakeholders before relying only on numerical capacity. Due to limiting factors being rated low by the team, the maximum outfitter-guide allocation for this compartment listed here is high. Caution is recommended when considering allocating new use. A modest amount of outfitter-guide service days in a low range (2-5) could be allocated while indicators are monitored. Should conditions change, the need to determine capacity should be revisited. The team identified a value of this compartment as opportunities for solitude. Carefully consider the impacts of authorizing additional outfitter-guide use here; smaller groups and less crowded seasons of use would be factors to consider. 28

29 Columbine Acres: 43,549 Operating Season: Spring, summer, fall (24 days) Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Remote (Wilderness) Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities contact with other 6 encounters/day Easy access from town Current: hiking, visitors Group size = 12 Scenery and terrain features hunting Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues (H,M,L) Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use L L L Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than minimal perceived crowding No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife No increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetative trampling Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 17,28 visitor days 4 Not identified X 17,28 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 17,28 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 8,64 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Capacity 8,64 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) (1%) X O-G Allocation 864 service days 4 38, 325 visitor days was the maximum management social capacity zone threshold; here it was reduced for length of season. 29

30 Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor O-G Allocation Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: Consider monitoring thresholds and involving stakeholders before relying only on numerical capacity. Due to limiting factors being rated low by the team, the maximum outfitter-guide allocation for this compartment listed here is high. Caution is recommended when considering allocating new use. A modest amount of outfitter-guide service days in a low range (2-5) could be allocated while indicators are monitored. Should conditions change, the need to determine capacity should be revisited. The team identified this compartment as one that is used heavily by locals. When authorizing new outfitterguide use, consider impacts to local residents. 3

31 Cruces Basin Acres: 18, 866 Operating Season: Spring, summer, fall (24 days) Need to Address Capacity: Moderate Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: Remote (Wilderness) Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities contact with other 6 encounters/day Opportunities for Current: hunting visitors Group size = 12 solitude Scenic vistas Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues (H,M,L) Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use Indicators Threshold L perceived crowding perceived crowding L M reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife Minimal increase in soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling(less than acre/season; able to revegetate naturally; visitors use established sites) Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor 17,28 visitor days 5 Impacts to soils and vegetation Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 12,96 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Capacity Opportunity Factor Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 12,96 visitor days Opportunity to disperse X 6,48 visitor days O-G Allocation Compartment Capacity Desired Interaction with O-Gs Interaction Adjustment Factor O-G Allocation 5 38,325 was the maximum management zone social capacity threshold; it was reduced here for the length of season. 31

32 Compartment Capacity 6,48 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) (1%) X O-G Allocation 648 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: The majority of visitor use occurs during hunting season. Consider not authorizing any additional outfitterguide use during that time. Visitor use is low in this compartment. When authorizing additional outfitter-guide use, consider impacts to opportunities for solitude. 32

33 Pecos Wilderness Acres: Operating Season: Need to Address Capacity: Dominant Social Capacity Mgmt Zone: 24, 736 (Carson) Spring, summer, fall (24 days) Moderate Remote (Wilderness) Desired Social Conditions/Thresholds, Values and O-G Activities Desired Social Conditions Desired Social Thresholds Values O-G Activities contact with other 6 encounters/day Spectacular Current: hunting. visitors Group size = 12 topography Request for Opportunities for long backpack trips backpacking Compartment Issues, Indicators and Thresholds Severity Issues (H,M,L) Impacts to visitor experience from crowding Impacts to wildlife from visitor use Impacts to other resources (soils, heritage, vegetation) from visitor use H L M Indicators perceived crowding reduction in wildlife populations attributable to recreation use amount of soil erosion, disturbance and/or vegetation trampling Threshold No more than minimal perceived crowding along river bottom; none elsewhere; encounter standards not exceeded No adverse effect from recreation use to wildlife Minimal increase in soil erosion and vegetation loss from camping (less than acre/season; able to revegetate naturally; visitors use established sites) Limiting Factor Reduction Mgmt Zone Capacity Compartment Limiting Factor Severity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity 17,28 6 visitor days Social X 8,64 visitor days Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Compartment Opportunity Capacity Factor 8,64 visitor days Opportunity to disperse Opportunity Factor Reduction Adjusted Capacity X 4,32 visitor days O-G Allocation 6 38,325 was the maximum management zone social capacity threshold; it was reduced here for length of season 33

34 Compartment Capacity 4,32 visitor days Desired Interaction with O-Gs Opportunity for encounters, management goals Interaction Adjustment Factor (2%) (15%) (1%) X O-G Allocation 432 service days Site Specific Management Adjustments/Recommendations: Assign reserved sites to outfitters to avoid long-term claiming of multiple sites. Require takedown of equipment and property unless back-to-back trips are planned. Consider multi-forest permits with the Santa Fe NF so that outfitters can travel out of the riparian corridor where crowding exists and offer other experiences to their clients. Consider reducing maximum party size for all visitors including outfitters to reduce impacts to vegetation from camping (a concern listed by the team). Monitoring Plan Guidelines for monitoring indicators and standards are listed below. Frequency of monitoring will depend on severity of the limiting factor. Once-yearly inspections of outfitter permits, based on potential impacts and locations. Interdisciplinary review of limiting factors and capacity numbers on a five year basis. Analysis of utilization of service days by activity on a yearly basis; five year review and adjustments as directed by policy Encounters/group size monitored as practical by field employees, particularly in those compartments with limited capacity Conclusions The Needs Assessment showed that there is a need for commercial services for some activities in both wilderness and non-wilderness settings. Rock climbing, fishing, hiking and mountain biking showed a higher need in non-wilderness, while hiking and horseback riding ranked as higher needs in wilderness areas. This analysis shows that the visitor social experience is occasionally a limiting factor, though rarely at all times and in all seasons. Hunting season, in particular, is the most popular and limiting. More information is needed on types of activities and use levels that cause direct, long-term impacts to wildlife. Should specific information become available, capacity may increase if effective visitor management can be accomplished to avoid these impacts. 34

35 Capacity is rarely static; the numbers listed above are estimates which could fluctuate depending on visitor behavior, outside influences that change distribution of wildlife, and many other factors. Limiting factors may change in severity and others can emerge. Using this O-G Program Analysis The Needs Assessment provides a framework in which to evaluate current services and future requests. When considering authorizing additional service days to existing operators or to authorize a new commercial service, the ranking lists generated by the Needs Assessment by activity should be consulted. If an activity was rated as having a lower need, there may not be a compelling reason to authorize it. If an activity has been shown to meet a demonstrated need, consideration should be made of the area in which the activity is proposed. If that compartment has a high limiting factor and few opportunities for dispersal available, and existing visitor use is close to the capacity, care should be taken before authorizing additional services. Managers may wish to allocate outfitter-guide use at the low end of the capacity available in any compartment in order to evaluate the sustainability of that enterprise and its effect on the compartment s values and resources. Managerial capacity must be considered when evaluating need and capacity for additional commercial services. Some activities due to their location and type may be more difficult to monitor and administer to standard than others. In other cases, the presence of outfitter-guides may be assist managers in monitoring visitor use and impacts. New outfitter-guide permits and renewals of existing permits will need to authorize outfitter-guides by compartment instead of blanket forest or district-wide authorizations. The exception is hunting, which due to state-defined units may range over several compartments. Hunting actual use records should be evaluated at the end of each season to determine how this use is affecting capacity. Thresholds are meant to be adaptive. This does not mean that unacceptable impacts to resources can occur, but as new information becomes available or new regulations are proposed, thresholds may change. This document should be updated if this occurs. Capacity may need to be revised if conditions change. When new permits are issued, the NEPA to authorize them should reference the Needs Assessment and Capacity Analysis. For commercial services in wilderness, the NEPA document must include a discussion of any impacts to wilderness character and how this activity meets the public purposes of wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of