National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Recreation Impact Monitoring Analysis and Protocol 

Development

Glacier Bay National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/GLBA/NRR—2015/957
ON THIS PAGE

Camper-placed rock rings and vegetation loss in Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve 

Photograph courtesy of Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

ON THE COVER

Campsite in Reid Inlet (Survey Area 7), Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve

Photograph by Kelly Goonan, Utah State University
Recreation Impact Monitoring Analysis and Protocol 

Development

Glacier Bay National Park

Natural Resource Report NPS/GLBA/NRR—2015/957

Kelly Goonan, MS1,, Christopher Monz, Ph.D.2, Barbara M. Bruno3, Tania Lewis4

1Ph.D. Candidate

Utah State University

Department of Environment and Society

Logan, UT 84322

2Associate Professor

Utah State University

Department of Environment and Society

Logan, UT 84322

3Wilderness Coordinator

National Park Service

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Gustavus, AK 99826

4Wildlife Biologist

National Park Service

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Gustavus, AK 99826

May 2015

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved 

in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government.

This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized 

for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

Goonan, K., C. Monz, B. Bruno, and T. Lewis. 2015. Recreation impact monitoring analysis and 

protocol development: Glacier Bay National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/GLBA/NRR—

2015/957. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 132/128528, May 2015
iii

Contents

Page

Contents ................................................................................................................................................iii

Tables.....................................................................................................................................................v

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose & Goals............................................................................................................................. 1

Scientific Background .................................................................................................................... 1

Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Methods, Results, and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 5

Historical Summary of Glacier Bay Campsite Assessments.......................................................... 5

Summary of 2012 Campsite Assessment ....................................................................................... 9

Comparisons to Historic Data ...................................................................................................... 15

Testing the 2012 Assessment Protocol.........................................................................................18

Test Results ............................................................................................................................. 18

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 21

Implementation Recommendations.........................................................................................22

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix I. GLBA Survey Areas........................................................................................................ 27

Appendix II. Historical Campsite Assessment Summary.................................................................... 45

Appendix III. Number of full assessments completed per survey area each year ............................... 49

Appendix IV. Summary of Historical Assessments by Data Source ...................................................54

Appendix V. GLBA Data Collection and Handling Recommendations.............................................. 61

Appendix VI. Glacier Bay National Park Recreation Impact Assessment Protocol v.5......................62

Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 62

Goal of the Procedural Manual................................................................................................ 62

Application to Park Management............................................................................................ 62

Staff Training........................................................................................................................... 62

Materials for Collecting Field Data.........................................................................................63

Description of Procedures ....................................................................................................... 63
iv

Contents

Page

Types of Assessments.............................................................................................................. 63

Rapid Assessment Backcountry Campsite Assessment Procedures.............................................65

Survey Area ............................................................................................................................. 65

Campsite.................................................................................................................................. 66

Suspected Campsite................................................................................................................. 71

Sensitive Species.....................................................................................................................72

Vis Created Trail .....................................................................................................................72

Interstadial Wood ....................................................................................................................73

Taking Campsite Reference Photos Using the Trimble Nomad GPS .......................................... 73

Vegetation Reference Photos ....................................................................................................... 74

Cover On Site ..........................................................................................................................74

Cover Off Site..........................................................................................................................75

Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................................ 76
v

Tables

Page

Table 1. Historical summary of campsite assessments by year. Data sources: National 

Park Service. ..........................................................................................................................................6

Table 2. Summary of campsite conditions in GLBA 2002/03 (Lewis and Drumheller 

2004). .....................................................................................................................................................7

Table 3. 2012 site attributes, assessment methods, and measurement scale..........................................9

Table 4. Summary of 2012 GLBA Survey Area analysis....................................................................10

Table 5. Summary of 2012 Survey Area analysis by survey area. ......................................................10

Table 6. Summary of campsite conditions in GLBA in 2012..............................................................12

Table 7. Summary of campsite conditions by survey area in 2012. ....................................................13

Table 8. Summary of campsite conditions by survey area in 2012. ....................................................14

Table 9. Number and percentages of impacts found at campsites by survey area during 

2002/03 and 2012 surveys. ..................................................................................................................17

Table 10. Summary of 2012 team surveys by area. .............................................................................18

Table 11. Variability test for continuous measures: summary of campsite conditions by 

survey area as surveyed by different field teams in 2012. ...................................................................19

Table 12. Variability test for ordinal measures: summary of campsite conditions by 

survey area as surveyed by different field teams in 2012. ...................................................................20

Table 13. Variability test for campsite substrate: summary of campsites detected in 

different mineral substrates as surveyed by different field teams in 2012...........................................20

Table 14. Variability test for campsite substrate: summary of campsites detected in 

different vegetation types as surveyed by different field teams in 2012..............................................21
vi

Abstract

This report describes a revised and updated recreation impact assessment protocol developed for 

Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA). It includes an analysis of historical campsite assessment data, a 

summary of data collected during development of the revised protocol, recommendations for 

implementation and all procedures necessary to conduct a baseline recreation impact assessment in 

coastal areas of Glacier Bay National Park.
1

Introduction

Purpose & Goals

This recreation impact assessment protocol is designed to measure backcountry campsite conditions 

in coastal areas of Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA). It will be the foundation of an ongoing 

monitoring program, should the park choose to establish a long-term inventory and assessment 

program for recreation impacts along the shores of Glacier Bay proper.

Specific objectives for an inventory and assessment program would be:

1. Provide initial recreational campsite condition information (current location, number, and 

condition of campsites and other recreation impacts) in a format conducive to the 

formation and the evaluation of decisions regarding the management of backcountry 

camping resources.

2. Provide cumulative and ongoing campsite information that monitors changes in campsite 

location, number, and condition over time.

Scientific Background

Recent trends in outdoor recreation participation in the United States suggest that public demand for 

nature-based recreation opportunities and appreciation of natural areas continues to be prevalent in 

our society (Cordell 2012). Associated with increasing visitation are human disturbances and impacts 

to the natural resources of national parks, forests, and wilderness areas (Cole 2004; Monz et al., 

2010). Understanding these impacts and tolerance thresholds of ecosystems to human use are key 

components of contemporary park capacity management.

Given these trends and concerns about wildland use, managers of protected areas often examine 

resource change due to wilderness/backcountry camping. Backcountry camping activities have the 

potential to affect resource conditions both intensively at the on-site scale and extensively due to site 

expansion and proliferation (Leung and Marion 1999, Cole 2004). Campsites are important from a 

managerial and visitor perspective as they serve as destinations and focal points for visitor activities, 

thereby creating nodes of concentrated use. While numerous studies of campsites in parks and 

protected areas have examined the degree to which visitor use can affect change on site conditions 

(e.g., Frissell 1978, Cole, 1983, Monz and Twardock 2010) repeated examinations of trends of 

change over long periods are more rare (Cole and Hall 1992, Marion and Cole 1996, Cole et al. 2008, 

Twardock et al., 2010). 

Campsite assessment studies are useful to managers as they often seek to minimize undesirable 

resource impacts and the associated aesthetic degradation of sites in order to maintain high quality 

wildland experiences for visitors. Although less common, other types of campsite studies have used 

experimental designs to examine functional relationships such as use-impact (Cole 1995, Cole and 

Monz 2004a) and spatial patterns of impact (Cole and Monz 2004b). Several generalizations about 

campsite conditions can be drawn from this literature. First, over time on established sites, changes in 
2

the number and areal extent of impact tend to be more pronounced than changes in intensity of 

impact. For example, Cole and Hall (1992) studied campsites over an 11-year period in the Eagle 

Cap Wilderness in Oregon, USA and found campsite size increased substantially but mean 

vegetation cover was relatively stable. Similar results were found over a 20-year period in Grand 

Canyon National Park (Cole et al. 2008). Second, total impact (increased number of sites and total 

area of disturbance) tends to increase over time and may be more of a management concern than the 

level of degradation at individual sites. An assessment of three wilderness areas in the western U.S. 

found that over a 12-16 year period, the total number of sites increased substantially in each area, but 

degraded in resource condition quality in only one area (Cole 1993). A final generalization is that on 

a given site, most impact occurs at low use levels and subsequent increases in use do not tend to 

result in proportional increases in impact (Leung and Marion 2000, Cole and Monz 2004a, Cole et al. 

2008). Overall, these findings support the importance of campsite assessment studies in informing 

management actions to maintain resource condition quality.

This research examined the important issue of resource impact as a consequence of at-large camping 

in Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA). Glacier Bay National Park encompasses a vast wilderness of 

3.2 million acres, but the majority of backcountry use occurs along the shoreline within Glacier Bay 

proper. Glacier Bay National Park currently has approximately 3500 annual wilderness visitor use 

nights occurring in Glacier Bay proper. This visitation level is about two/thirds of that experienced in 

the late 90s when wilderness visitation was at its peak. All wilderness visitors to Glacier Bay proper 

are required to acquire permits and receive an orientation, but there is no quota, nor are routes or 

campsites prescribed. Wilderness visitors choose their campsites on an “at-large” basis. Most visitors 

to Glacier Bay’s backcountry travel by sea kayak and do most of their camping, cooking, and hiking 

in the relatively narrow belt of terrain between the ocean and dense upland vegetation. Some of these 

areas receive more use than others due to proximity to drop off locations and destinations such as 

tidewater glaciers, ease of access for kayaks, flat areas for camping and often a readily available 

stream or other freshwater source. There are unique geologic and biotic aspects of the Glacier Bay 

shoreline that affect how long human impacts persist. Isostatic rebound causes new land to emerge 

from the intertidal zone while old beach meadows become shrub covered, erasing old campsites and 

trails. Vast differences in ecosystems across the length of the bay based on the number of years since 

deglaciation have relevance to soil type and depth, vegetation type, and human impacts. Additionally, 

the shoreline of Glacier Bay also supports important biophysical park resources. The same wide 

beaches and flat open meadows that are most attractive to campers are also prime foraging and travel 

habitat for many animals and birds. It is important for park planning efforts to understand the 

location, number and condition of campsites and to be able to assess trends in resource conditions 

and ecological impacts that occur from recreation in Glacier Bay’s backcountry in relationship to 

areas of critical resource concern. 

The ecological issues, visitor use patterns, and managerial challenges in GLBA are similar to other 

areas of the south central and southeast Alaska coast where campsite and visitor use assessment 

studies have been conducted. For example, an extensive study in Prince William Sound, AK, 

concluded that impacts such as multiple trailing, tree and shrub damage and large sites were 

prevalent (Twardock et al., 2010). The intensity and extent of impact tended to vary by environment,
3

with campsites on soil substrates in upland forests exhibiting less vegetation cover loss, but also 

being more sensitive to continued disturbance, compared to sites on beach gravel. Impact trends over 

time showed increases in areal extent of impact, including the development of new sites, but 

decreases in impact intensity. The study findings suggest that an at-large camping strategy may not 

be effective at containing site spread and proliferation, impacts often considered the most important 

to limit.

In addition, another context for this work is that campsite assessments conducted in previous years in 

GLBA utilized protocol parameters and impact definitions that proved difficult to duplicate and 

resulted in significant variation between observers (Unertl 2011). This project was initiated in an 

effort to develop and test a campsite condition assessment protocol that reduces variation between 

observers and provides a rapid and accurate assessment of campsite locations, numbers and impact 

parameters. GLBA staff favored a rapid assessment protocol, as it requires less time to assess any 

given campsite when compared to more intensive measurement-based methods and is a way to 

quickly acquire baseline inventories. Rapid assessments maximize staff and resource efficiency while 

yielding accurate assessments of campsite condition, whereas intensive measurement-based methods 

yield more precise information and require more staff time and resources to conduct. To forward this 

goal, we reviewed the existing campsite assessment protocol and suggested new and more effective 

protocols based on previous work on the Alaskan coast (Twardock et al., 2010; Monz and Twardock 

2010). In addition we conducted an on-site workshop with park staff to refine the protocol in a field 

setting. We present an analysis of the protocol developed and data collected by field staff during the 

2012 summer season in this report.

The discussion of findings will cover continued protocol development and refinement; it does not 

consider the effect of existing conditions on the visitor experience nor the ecological or managerial 

significance of current conditions. This report summarizes the development of a protocol that can be 

used to inventory baseline conditions. This baseline would serve as a foundation of a possible longer 

term and perhaps more intensive monitoring effort. Additional studies that could use this information 

could include aspects of visitor use monitoring, visitor survey research examining standards of 

resource and social conditions, visitor impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and spatial modeling of 

the locations of campsite occurrence.

Approach

As mentioned previously, considerable work has been conducted on the development of campsite 

assessment and monitoring protocols. Historically, protocol development can be traced back to the 

early work of Frissell and Duncan in the 1960’s (Frisell and Duncan 1965) with more recent 

advancements contributed by Cole (1989) and Marion (1995). These methods, along with some areaspecific modifications have been used extensively in wilderness and backcountry areas, including 

several long-term studies in coastal Alaska (Twardock et al., 2010; Monz and Twardock 2010; 

Klasner et al., 2011). Moreover, a significant literature also exists on “ecological parameter” 

selection (e.g., Belnap 1998) and these approaches have been applied to visitor impact assessment 

approaches, including in Alaska (Monz and D’Luhosch 2005). The review of the protocol integrated 
4

the above approaches with GLBA’s current experience and findings with the existing protocol and 

the PI’s experience with long-term studies in Alaska.

In this effort the authors first reviewed each specific impact parameter in the current protocol in light 

of the aforementioned developed protocols. This review developed a comprehensive list of possible 

parameters that could be included. A second step was to take the existing and suggested protocols in 

the field and examine them critically in collaboration with field staff. This process was iterative and 

resulted in “on the fly” modifications to the protocol with both experienced and new seasonal staff 

alike. Third, protocol suggestions were presented to GLBA staff in a workshop format in June 2012 

and suggestions incorporated as needed. Last, the protocol was tested during the summer 2012 field 

season and included an examination of inter-rater variability, where different groups of evaluators 

examine campsites in the same survey areas for a comparison of impact parameters.
5

Methods, Results, and Discussion

Historical Summary of Glacier Bay Campsite Assessments

Campsite assessments have been conducted at GLBA for the past four decades, and the methods used 

have evolved substantially (See Appendix II). Assessments began in the 1970s, with backcountry 

rangers focusing attention on structures in the backcountry and recording general descriptive 

information about site conditions and locations on survey sheets and on paper maps. In the early 

1980s, rangers began to turn their attention away from structures and began recording evidence of 

human use (e.g. number of tent sites, fire rings) and recording descriptive information about the 

condition of vegetation within the vicinity of the site. A more formal assessment protocol was 

instituted and utilized in 1986 and 1987. Specific indicators of disturbance were measured, and each 

site was assigned a “pass/fail” rating based on the observer’s judgment of site conditions. Survey 

sheets and paper maps were used for field data collection through the 1980s. While these early 

campsite assessments were fairly limited in terms of the areas surveyed, new protocols developed in 

the early 2000s were intended to measure camping impacts throughout GLBA’s extensive coastal 

backcountry (see Lewis and Drumheller 2004). These protocols utilized modern GPS and GIS 

methodologies to more accurately map the location of campsites and areas of potential camping 

activity, while information about sites was recorded on paper survey sheets. Survey Areas – locations 

where camping activities where known, suspected, or likely to take place – were established to help 

organize field sampling efforts and data management (see maps in Appendix I). These areas were 

defined by creating 100 m buffers surrounding 8000 campsite locations from 1996 – 2000 

backcountry visitor surveys and identifying sections of beach known to contain 10 or more camping 

visits. The GPS-based protocol was administered in 2002 and 2003, and a revised version of this 

protocol was used to assess campsites in 2011. The survey area numbers and boundaries established 

in 2002-2003 remain constant to provide the ability to compare future survey data when possible. 

Data presented in the following discussion of historical campsite assessments at GLBA is limited to 

the 2002/03 survey. Assessments conducted in the 1970s and 1980s are excluded from the summary 

of historical data due to the limited ability to identify the locations of sites surveyed in the 1970s and 

1980s within the modern survey Areas. The 2011 campsite survey is also excluded from the

following analyses due to the poor condition of the data (Table 1). Where appropriate, the 2011 data 

and assessment protocol are referenced in the discussion to highlight the evolution of the methods 

used to measure campsites and provide context for the work completed in 2012 when the protocol 

was reconsidered and updated.
6

Table 1. Historical summary of campsite assessments by year. Data sources: National Park Service.

2002/03a 2011 2012

Number of Complete Campsite Assessments 257b 76c 265

Number of Survey Areas Represented 134 20d 50e

a 142 sites measured in 2002; 133 sites measured in 2003, 18 sites measured in both years (not included in analysis)

b Measured sites using 1 assessment per site only.

c 6 sites not measured in 2011

d Survey Area was not specified for 47 sites

e 56 survey areas were assessed as part of the 2012 assessment (see Table 5). Campsites were located in 50 survey areas.

While at first glance the data in Table 1 appear to show that the number of campsites has remained 

relatively constant over the past decade, it is important to note that campsite assessments took place 

in different locations in the park each year. The 2002/03 assessments covered 133 survey areas;

whereas the 2012 assessment covered 50 survey areas (see Appendix III). The 2002/03 and 2012 

assessments have 34 survey areas in common. However, the 2002/03 assessments measured a main 

core site and its associated satellite sites: a main core site with multiple satellite sites was considered 

one campsite under this procedure. New definitions and protocols tested in 2012 specify that each 

individual site (including previously defined satellite sites) be counted and measured. In addition, in 

2002/03, field crews measured human impacts in at least one campsite per survey area. If no 

evidence of camping was found within a survey area, a campsite was chosen that seemed the most 

likely to be used by campers within the survey area. In 2012 campsites were only measured if there 

was evidence of camping. It is reasonable to hypothesize that a campsite assessment effort utilizing 

the 2012 protocol in the 133 survey areas represented by the 2002/03 assessments would result in a 

much larger number of campsites being detected. Thus we cannot draw reliable inferences 

concerning trends or changes in the number of backcountry campsites at GLBA. 

Due to differences in assessment parameters and the variety of methods used, statistical comparisons 

of the condition of campsites over time are difficult. In 2002/03, human impacts were measured only 

in presence or absence at each campsite with no attempts to quantify amounts. Campsite size was 

categorical (small or large including satellite sites), and were not consistently measured. Campsites 

were given observer ratings which were then used combined with presence/absence of short and 

long-term impacts to calculate a Final Impact Rating. Descriptive summaries of the 2002/03 

campsite assessments are presented in Table 2.
7

Table 2. Summary of campsite conditions in GLBA 2002/03 (Lewis and Drumheller 2004).

2002/03

(N = 257)

Site Attribute Frequency Percent

Trailing 41 16

Supratidal fire 22 9

Intertidal fire 14 5

Rock ring 191 74

Trash 57 22

Human waste 12 5

Firewood 8 3

Structures 11 4

1 Size – small 208 81

1 Size – large 49 19

2 Observer rating – 0 123 48

2 Observer rating – 1 64 25

2 Observer rating – 2 47 18

2 Observer rating – 3 23 9

2 Observer rating – 4 0 0

2 Observer rating - 5 0 0

3

Impact rating – None 36 14

3

Impact rating – Low 152 59

3

Impact rating – Med 60 23

3

Impact rating - High 9 4

1 Campsite areas were measured and categorized as small or large. A small site is less than 250 square meters in size with 

two or less satellites. A large campsite is  250 square meters and/or has three or more satellites. The area of the campsite 

included all satellites.

2 Impacts to vegetation were rated by observers on a scale of 0-5 using comparisons between vegetation in the campsite 

versus vegetation outside the campsite. Off-site vegetation was considered to be natural and thus the control. These ratings, 

called “observer ratings,” were assigned in the field while observing the campsite. The observer rating classification was:

0 = Campsite barely distinguishable: none or minimal disturbance of vegetation and/or organic litter. May be a 

possible/likely camping location, an old campsite that has not seen recent use, or a location of recent one-time use with 

no signs of permanent damage. May find evidence of a rock tent ring.

1 = Obvious vegetation difference between campsite and “control” areas indicate impacts of repeated use. Impacts may 

be subtle such as smaller, more durable species growing within site while taller more sensitive species growing outside of 

site. Campsite shape may indicate the cause of this difference in vegetation to be from human use instead of natural 

causes. May find evidence of a rock tent ring.

2 = Ground vegetation worn away from around center of activity. If vegetation is sparse or non-existent in campsite and 

control area, soil is compressed at center of activity.

3 = Ground vegetation lost (compared to control) on greater than half of the campsite, but humus and litter (if applicable) 

still present in all but a few areas.

4 = Bare mineral soil obvious (if control is vegetated). Tree roots exposed on the surface.

5 = Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigor or dead.

3 A final social impact rating was determined for each measured site by calculating an additive score of these impacts, 

including the site’s observer (vegetation) rating, size, long-lived impacts, and short-lived impacts. Ecological impacts such as 

plant species and sensitive animal species were not included in final impact ratings. Refer to the 2004 Camper Impact Report

(Lewis and Drumheller) for details.
8

It should be noted that substantial differences among data sources for these years was observed 

(Appendix IV); several data sources were incomplete or lacking attribute information. Most of the 

pertinent information on individual campsites was recorded in the “comments” field. Comments were 

read and, where possible, information was extracted and coded into new variables or attributes. 

However, lack of specificity within the comments did not enable us to reliably extract new variables. 

For example, some comments would specify that a campsite had 3 (or any given number of) satellite 

sites, while other comments would merely indicate that a campsite had “several satellite sites.” These 

inconsistencies limit analyses to descriptive summaries in the current analysis. Quantitative 

summaries in Table 2 were derived from the 2004 Camper Impact Report (Lewis and Drumheller).

Overall, social impacts found in the in the 2002/03 survey were low, with rock rings, footprints and 

trash reported as the leading indicator of human use at campsites (Lewis and Drumheller 2004). The 

highest levels of impacts were found to be generally near tidewater glaciers and camper drop-off 

locations, between camper drop-off locations and glaciers, and/or in areas of steep terrain that 

concentrate camping. Organic soil was found to conceal impacts seasonally with lush vegetation, 

while loose mineral substrates were more prone to visible disturbance and tent rocks are more 

prevalent. Lewis and Drumheller (2004) recommended continuing to evaluate human impacts while 

initiating new studies examining the effects of human disturbance on sensitive species, using 

seasonal closures in areas of concern, and increasing education to backcountry users on ways to 

minimize disturbance. 
9

Summary of 2012 Campsite Assessment

The revised campsite assessment protocol was field tested during the 2012 summer field season. 

Variables and attributes measured are summarized in Table 3. Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of 

survey area conditions. Campsite conditions are summarized in Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 3. 2012 site attributes, assessment methods, and measurement scale.

Site Attribute Method Used Measurement Scale

Survey Area

Fire sign Counts Number of supratidal fire signs

Litter and trash Ocular estimation

Five level trash quantity scale (1 = None; 2 

= Handful or less; 3 = Handful to gallon; 4 = 

Gallon to 5 gal; 5 = >5 gallons)

Human waste Counts Number of individual upland/supratidal 

human waste sites 

Structures Counts Number of human-made structures 

encountered

Campsite

Landing substrate type Observation Cobble, sand, soil, boulder, cobble/sand

Campsite substrate type Observation Boulder, cobble, sand, cobble/sand, soil, 

compacted gravel

Campsite size Ocular estimation

Four level campsite size scale (1 = small –

1 tent pad; 2 = med – 2-3 tents; 3 = large –

4-5 tents; 4 = x-large - >5 tents)

Tent rocks Counts Number of rocks placed within the site

Campfire in site Counts Number of campfire signs within site

a Vegetation cover on-site and in 

control areas Ocular estimation Six level cover scale (0-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-95%, 96-100%)

Vegetation types on-site and in 

control areas Observation

Sparse herbaceous; dense herbaceous; 

open scrub; dense scrub; graminoid; Dryas 

mat; moss; lichen; other

Damage to live trees/shrubs Counts

Number of separate events of humancaused damage to trees or shrubs within 2 

meter radius of site

Litter and trash Ocular estimation

Five level trash quantity scale (1 = None; 2 

= Handful or less; 3 = Handful to gallon; 4 = 

Gallon to 5 gal; 5 = >5 gallons)

a Ocular estimates of on-site and off-site vegetation cover are used to calculate a metric of relative 

vegetation cover loss. Control areas are relatively “undisturbed” areas adjacent to campsites. The 

control site should be similar to the campsite in slope, tree canopy cover (amount of sunlight 

penetrating to the forest floor), and other environmental conditions. The intent is to locate an area 

which would closely resemble the campsite area had the campsite never been used. Please refer to 

the revised campsite monitoring protocol included at the end of this document for more information

(Appendix VI).
10

Table 4. Summary of 2012 GLBA Survey Area analysis. Values are means +/- SD for continuous 

measures and medians +/- range for ordinal measures (N = 265).

Site Attribute GLBA 2012 Study Area Na

Continuous Measures

Fire signs (#) .52  .91 56

Human waste (#) .07  .26 56

Structures (#) .79  2.06 56

Ordinal Measures

Litter/trash 1  2 56

a 56 survey areas were included in the 2012 Survey Area assessment. However, campsites were 

recorded in survey areas not represented in the Survey Area assessment (see Table 6 – dashes 

indicate no data for a particular field). Survey areas not included in this assessment are 1, 11, 12, 13, 

16, 43, 58, 63, 176, and 202. The unique identifier for one survey area assessed in 2012 is missing 

from the data.

Table 5. Summary of 2012 Survey Area analysis by survey area. Values reported are countsa. Values 

reported represent data from both the Survey Area analysis and Campsite assessmentb.

Survey Area Fire Signs Trasha Human 

Waste Structures No. Campsites

No. 

Suspected 

Campsites

1 - - - - 10 20

3 0 1 0 0 2 2

4 1 2 0 1 5 13

5 2 3 1 4 23 22

9 3 3 1 5 47 13

10 1 1 0 0 32 6

11 - - - - 4 7

12 - - - - 4 5

13 - - - - 1 1

15 0 2 0 0 0 0

16 - - - - 4 2

21 1 1 0 0 6 3

22 1 1 0 1 2 1

23 3 2 0 0 3 5

24 0 1 0 0 1 0

25 0 1 0 0 2 1

26 0 3 0 0 3 1

27 0 2 0 0 1 2

31 0 1 0 0 1 0

32 4 2 0 0 2 3

33 0 1 0 0 0 0

34 2 1 1 0 5 7

35 0 1 0 0 1 0

36 0 1 0 0 5 1

38 1 2 0 0 7 2

39 0 2 0 3 15 4

41 1 2 0 0 0 1

43 - - - - 1 -

50 0 3 0 0 0 0
11

Survey Area Fire Signs Trasha Human 

Waste Structures No. Campsites

No. 

Suspected 

Campsites

52 0 1 0 0 0 0

53 0 1 0 0 2 3

54 0 1 0 0 0 0

55 0 1 0 0 1 0

57 0 1 0 1 0 2

58 - - - - 2 0

59 0 1 0 0 1 0

63 - - - - 2 0

68 0 1 0 0 1 -

72 0 2 0 0 0 0

74 1 1 0 0 0 2

75 0 1 0 0 0 0

76 1 3 0 0 1 9

77 0 1 0 0 0 0

78 0 2 1 0 1 -

119 0 2 0 0 6 8

120 2 1 0 0 4 3

121 0 1 0 0 0 1

160 0 2 0 2 2 4

161 0 1 0 11 11 0

162 0 2 0 3 3 3

165 0 1 0 4 4 1

166 0 1 0 8 8 4

173 0 2 0 1 2 3

176 - - - - 1 1

181 0 1 0 0 1 -

182 0 1 0 0 1 -

183 0 2 0 0 2 -

184 0 1 0 0 0 -

185 2 1 0 0 1 -

186 1 1 0 0 5 -

200 1 2 0 0 12 -

201 0 2 0 0 1 -

202 - - - - 3 -

a 1 = None; 2 = Handful or less; 3 = Handful to gallon; 4 = Gallon to 5 gal; 5 = >5 gallons

b Dashes indicate no data for a given field. Some survey areas may have campsites or suspected 

sites recorded (e.g. Survey Area 1) but no formal Survey Area assessment was conducted, resulting 

in missing values for survey area-level impacts (i.e. fire signs, trash, human waste, structures). 

Campsites are locations of known camping activity, whereas suspected campsites are locations 

where camping is likely to have occurred and use is suspected, but no clear evidence is present. See 

protocol (Appendix VI) for more information and definitions/criteria for identifying campsites and 

suspected campsites.
12

Overall, camping areas in the backcountry of Glacier Bay National Park appear lightly impacted. 

Campfire signs are uncommon, with most areas having no sign of fire present and a maximum of 4 

fire signs observed (Survey Area 32). Very little trash was present at camping areas, and evidence of 

improperly disposed of human waste was only present at four survey areas (areas 5, 9, 34, and 78). 

Survey Area 9 has the most campsites, with the maximum of 47.

A total of 265 backcountry campsites were assessed in the summer of 2012. Tent rocks are 

commonplace at campsites, with a mean of 10.5 tent rocks per campsite observed during field 

assessments and 232 sites having more than 3 tent rocks present. Campfires were rarely observed 

within campsites (n = 13, Table 8), and very little damage to trees and shrubs was noted. Campsites 

exhibit a moderate amount of vegetation cover loss relative to undisturbed areas (mean = 27.9). 

Relative vegetation cover loss of greater than 50% was observed at approximately forty percent of 

campsites assessed (Table 8). Sites tend to be small in size, accommodating one tent on average. Ten 

sites were considered to be larger than a “medium” on the campsite size scale. Litter occurred at 

approximately ten percent of sites. Conditions are also presented by survey area (Table 7, Table 8).

Table 6. Summary of campsite conditions in GLBA in 2012. Values are means +/- SD for continuous 

measures and medians +/- range for ordinal measures (N = 265).

Site Attribute GLBA 2012 Study Area N

Continuous Measures

Tent rocks (#) 10.51  10.02 265

Campfire in site (#) 0.05  0.22 265

Tree/shrub damage (#) 0.09  0.57 265

aVegetation cover loss (%) 27.90  64.23 265

Ordinal Measures

Campsite size 1  3 258

Litter/trash 1  1 265

a Relative vegetation cover loss is calculated using the following formula: 

Cover loss = 1 -

% cover in campsites x 

% cover in control plots 100

To complete the calculation, the median value of the six-category ocular estimate scale for vegetation cover (see Table 3) is 

used for the % cover in campsite and % cover in control plot fields.
13

Table 7. Summary of campsite conditions by survey area in 2012. Values are means +/- SD for 

continuous measures and medians +/- range for ordinal measures (N = 265).

Survey 

Area N Tent Rocks Fire Tree Damage Veg. Loss Site Size Trash

1 10 10.4  4.65 0  0 0  0 15.82  18.46 (n = 8) 1  1 1  1

3 2 5.50  0.71 0  0 0  0 55.29  0 1  0 1  0

4 5 5.20  1.79 0  0 0  0 28.62  40.14 1  0 1  0

5 23 9.13  4.16 .04  .21 0  0 50.63  38.25 1  1 1  1

9 47 12.83 

11.36

.04  .20 .06  .25 23.33  46.74 1  3 1  1

10 32 17.72 

19.05

.03  .18 0  0 -4.84  140.74 (n = 30)

1.5  3

1  0

11 4 15.50  9.26 0  0 0  0 54.11  40.40 1.5  1 1  0

12 4 8.75  2.75 0  0 0  0 45.69  35.42 1.5  1 1  0

13 1 9 0 0 -15.29 2 1

16 4

10.75 

11.93 0  0 .25  .50 9.79  12.42 1.5  1 1  1

21 6 7.33  2.66 .17  .41 0  0 50.05  31.30 1  1 1  1

22 2 6.50  3.54 0  0 0  0 41.94  59.31 1.5  1 1  0

23 3 11.17  6.43 0  0 0  0 0  0 2  1 1  0

24 1 4 0 0 93.42 2 1

25 2 6.50  3.54 0  0 0  0 0  0 1  0 1  0

26 3 9.67  1.53 .33  .58 .33  .58 40.30  36.46 1  1 1  0

27 1 10 0 0 0 1 1

31 1 6 0 0 0 2 1

32 2 5.50  4.95 .50  .71 0  0 41.94  59.31 1  0 1  0

34 5 5.80  1.10 .20  .45 0  0 16.35  36.57 1  0 1  0

35 1 13 1 0 0 1 1

36 5 6.60  5.37 0  0 0  0 0  0 1  1 1  0

38 7 14.0 12.56 .14  .37 0  0 28.55  86.80 1  2 1  1

39 15 9.0  3.70 0  0 .47  .83 54.06  54.37 1  1 1  1

43 1 17 0 0 -15.29 2 1

53 2 3.50  4.95 0  0 0  0 6.63  9.38 1.5  1 1  0

55 1 4 0 0 0 1 1

58 2 2.0  0 0  0 4.0  5.66 0  0 1  0 1  0

59 1 13 0 0 0 3 1

63 2 15.50  .71 0  0 0  0 40.59  20.80 1.5  1 1  0

68 1 7 0 0 0 2 2

76 1 10 0 0 0 2 1

78 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

119 6 2.67  1.51 0  0 0  0 0  0 (n = 5) 1  1 1  1

120 4 1.75  2.06 .50  .58 0  0 33.65  39.42 1  0 1  0

160 2 6.50  .71 0  0 0  0 40.88  57.82 1.5  1 2  0

161 11 10.0  5.66 0  0 0  0 68.62  33.93 (n = 10) 1 

2

1  0

162 3 6.33  1.53 0  0 0  0 27.96  48.42 1  1 1  0

165 4 6.50  3.70 0  0 0  0 54.62  37.82 1  1 1  0

166 8 12.0  5.53 0  0 .25  .71 26.16  47.57 1.5  1 1  0
14

Table 7. Summary of campsite conditions by survey area in 2012. Values are means +/- SD for 

continuous measures and medians +/- range for ordinal measures (N = 265) (continued).

Survey 

Area N Tent Rocks Fire Tree Damage Veg. Loss Site Size Trash

173 2 6.50  3.54 0  0 0  0 48.02  67.90 1  0 1  0

176 1 0 0 0 13.27 1 2

181 1 8 0 1 0 1 1

182 1 5 0 0 93.42 1 1

183 2 8.0  2.83 0  0 0  0 46.71  66.06 1  0 1.5  1

185 1 4 0 0 0 1 1

186 5 6.20  11.76 0  0 0  0 50.32  45.94 1  3 1  0

200 12 11.50  6.19 .08  .29 0  0 30.13  37.98 1.5  1 1  1

201 1 28 0 0 0 2 2

202 3 9.67  8.62 0  0 0  0 69.14  25.51 1  1 1  1

Table 8. Summary of campsite conditions by survey area in 2012. Values are frequencies of observed 

impact parameters (N = 265).

Survey 

Area

No. 

Sites

>3 Tent 

Rocks a

Fire Sites 

Present b

>1 

Damaged 

Trees c

>50% Veg. 

Loss d

Site Size

>Medium e

Trash

Present f

1 10 10 0 0 0 0 2

3 2 2 0 0 2 0 0

4 5 4 0 0 2 0 0

5 23 21 1 0 13 0 6

9 47 44 2 0 14 4 5

10 32 26 1 0 10 2 0

11 4 4 0 0 2 0 0

12 4 4 0 0 2 0 0

13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

16 4 3 0 0 0 0 1

21 6 6 1 0 3 0 1

22 2 2 0 0 1 0 0

23 3 3 0 0 0 0 0

24 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

25 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

26 3 3 1 0 1 0 0

27 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

31 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

32 2 1 1 0 1 0 0

34 5 5 1 0 1 0 0

35 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

36 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

38 7 7 1 0 4 1 2

39 15 15 0 3 13 0 2

43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
15

Survey 

Area

No. 

Sites

>3 Tent 

Rocks a

Fire Sites 

Present b

>1 

Damaged 

Trees c

>50% Veg. 

Loss d

Site Size

>Medium e

Trash

Present f

53 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

55 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

58 2 0 0 1 0 0 0

59 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

63 2 2 0 0 1 0 0

68 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

76 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

78 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

119 6 2 0 0 0 0 1

120 4 1 2 0 2 0 0

160 2 2 0 0 1 0 2

161 11 11 0 0 9 1 0

162 3 3 0 0 1 0 0

165 4 3 0 0 3 0 0

166 8 8 0 1 3 0 0

173 2 2 0 0 1 0 0

176 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

181 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

182 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

183 2 2 0 0 1 0 1

185 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

186 5 2 0 0 3 1 0

200 12 11 1 0 5 0 1

201 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

202 3 2 0 0 2 0 1

Total 265 232 13 5 103 10 28

a Number of campsites with more than 3 tent rocks observed

b Number of campsites with 1 or more fire sites present

c Number of campsites with more than 1 tree or shrub exhibiting human-caused damage

d Number of campsites with relative vegetation loss greater than 50%

e Number of campsites larger than 2 (medium – 2-3 tent pads) on the site size scale

f Number of campsites with trash present (category 2 or greater on trash quantity scale)

Comparisons to Historic Data

In reviewing the campsite assessment data from the last decade, several observations lead us to 

caution against attempting to compare campsite conditions over time. First and foremost is the 

definition of a campsite. For the 2002/03 assessment, the term “campsite” is defined as a location 

where people are known or suspected to have camped, with sites showing evidence of human use 

considered as “established” sites, and sites showing no evidence of human use considered “not 

established.” In some cases, campsites were divided into main sites and “satellites,” or smaller camp 
16

areas associated with a main site. In 2011, a “site not measured” feature was added, defined as a site 

with only one short-lived impact (in contrast, a measured site had two or more short-lived impacts or 

at least one long-lived impact). Site not measured areas were often those that looked like they could 

be camped at, but it was difficult to discern whether impacts were caused by human use or natural 

phenomena (i.e. wildlife, storms, tidal, natural patchy vegetation, other disturbance, etc.). The 2012 

revised assessment protocol defines a campsite as a location containing clear evidence of recent 

(within last 2-3 years) camping activity. Evidence of camping includes: vegetation loss or flattened 

vegetation clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, framed by tent rocks, etc.), 

compressed gravel clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, framed by tent rocks, 

etc.), recently placed tent rocks, camp trash, recent tree or shrub damage, campfire in site. Each 

individual location of camping activity is considered a campsite: there are no satellite sites. The 2012 

protocol also includes a suspected campsite feature, defined as a backcountry area where overnight 

camping activities are suspected but no clear evidence of such activities is present. At these sites only 

a location point is measured. 

Second, differences in the inventory and measurement of campsites exist among protocols and 

between survey years. In 2002, field crews measured human impacts in at least one campsite per 

survey area. In 2003, crews attempted to measure impacts on all established campsites within each 

survey area. If no evidence of camping was found within a survey area, a campsite was chosen that 

seemed the most likely to be used by campers within the survey area. In addition, main sites were 

differentiated from satellite sites, and satellite sites were not measured. The “most likely camping 

spot” procedure was dropped from the 2011 protocol. The revised 2012 protocol specifies that all 

individual campsites within a survey area be measured.

Third, variables were inconsistently measured. This was most apparent in the campsite size variable 

included in the 2002/03 survey. Length and width dimensions for each site were measured. In some 

cases, the dimensions given were for individually impacted sites (e.g. 4 x 5 meters), whereas in other 

cases dimensions for a very large area able to accommodate camping activity and containing several 

individually impacted areas were given (e.g. 30 x 40 meters). 

In an effort to compare impact parameters between years, we eliminated campsites from the 2003/03 

data that had no discernable impacts (to align with 2012 definition of a campsite as having evidence 

of camping) and only evaluated parameters that were consistently measured between years within the 

same survey areas (n=34), including the number of sites within each survey area containing: tent rock 

rings, evidence of fire, and trash (Table 9). While the number of sites within each survey area varies 

substantially for reasons discussed previously, it is interesting to note that tent rocks were equally 

prevalent (found at 91-92% of sites) between surveys. Many survey areas containing impacts were 

consistent between years (ex. # 1, 5, 9, 10, etc) while others contained impacts in one year but not the 

other (ex. # 11, 23, 120, etc). These patterns may be informative and helpful in choosing survey 

areas for long-term monitoring.
17

Table 9. Number and percentages of impacts found at campsites by survey area during 2002/03 and 

2012 surveys.

2002/03 2012

Survey AreaNo. SitesNo. Sites Tent Rocks% Sites RocksNo. Sites Fire% Sites FireNo. Sites Trash% Sites TrashNo. SitesNo. Sites Tent Rocks% Sites RocksNo. Sites Fire% Sites FireNo. Sites Trash% Sites Trash

1 8 8 100 2 25 0 0 10 10 100 0 0 2 20

3 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 2 2 100 0 0 0 0

4 6 6 100 0 0 3 50 5 4 80 0 0 0 0

5 4 4 100 2 50 2 50 23 21 91 1 4 6 26

9 3 3 100 1 33 2 67 47 44 94 2 4 5 11

10 3 3 100 0 0 1 33 32 26 81 1 3 0 0

11 6 6 100 1 17 2 33 4 4 100 0 0 0 0

16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 75 0 0 1 25

21 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 6 6 100 1 17 1 17

22 4 4 100 0 0 0 0 2 2 100 0 0 0 0

23 4 4 100 2 50 2 50 3 3 100 0 0 0 0

24 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

25 6 5 83 0 0 0 0 2 2 100 0 0 0 0

26 1 1 100 0 0 1 100 3 3 100 1 33 0 0

27 2 2 100 1 50 1 50 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

31 2 1 50 0 0 1 50 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

32 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 2 1 50 1 50 0 0

34 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 5 5 100 1 20 0 0

35 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 1 100 1 100 0 0

36 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 5 4 80 0 0 0 0

38 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 7 7 100 1 14 2 29

39 2 2 100 0 0 1 50 15 15 100 0 0 2 13

43 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

53 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 2 1 50 0 0 0 0

55 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

59 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

68 2 2 100 1 50 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 1 100

76 1 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 1 100 0 0 0 0

120 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 25 2 50 0 0

161 3 2 67 0 0 1 33 11 11 100 0 0 0 0

162 6 6 100 0 0 1 17 3 3 100 0 0 0 0

165 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 4 3 75 0 0 0 0

166 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 8 8 100 0 0 0 0

173 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 2 2 100 0 0 0 0

Total 87 80 92 10 11 21 24 220 200 91 12 5 20 9
18

Testing the 2012 Assessment Protocol

To evaluate the reliability of the revised protocol, three field teams of two or three individuals 

independently applied the protocol in five survey areas: areas 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 in August 2012. 

These sites include Ptarmigan (survey area 9), Reid Inlet (survey area 5) and the beaches south of 

Reid Inlet (survey areas 4 and 3). This area was selected because of the complexity of terrain, high 

levels of use and varying size of the survey areas. Surveyors consisted of three seasoned assessors 

who had been working on campsite assessments for several previous months. The remaining 

surveyors had much less experience with the new protocol. Inexperienced members were placed with 

seasoned members and training consisted of a half-hour refresher prior to the start (which was 

interrupted by a boat maintenance issue), and on the job training for the remaining three days. In 

retrospect, this training was likely insufficient and contributed to some of the variability found during 

the test.

Test Results

Substantial differences can be observed in the number of campsites identified in survey areas 4, 5, 9, 

and 10 (Table 10). One complication was the creation of new campsites by visitors, as occurred in 

survey area 4 during the variability test sampling period. But this one-time occurrence does not 

explain all the differences in campsite identification. The data suggests that most variability occurs in

survey areas consisting of cobble/sand and compacted gravel as a mineral substrate and dense scrub 

or moss as vegetation types. Some modifications were made to the campsite definitions and an 

additional field was created to require surveyors to provide their rationale for selecting an area as a 

campsite. Further recommendations to reduce variability amongst observers are made in the 

conclusion of this document. 

Table 10. Summary of 2012 team surveys by area.

Survey Area Feature Team KNK Team KC Team TB

3 Campsites (#) 3 2 3

Suspected campsites (#) 0 2 0

4 Campsites (#) 7 5 2

Suspected campsites (#) 5 13 22

5 Campsites (#) 30 23 13

Suspected campsites (#) 9 22 30

9 Campsites (#) 37 47 22

Suspected campsites (#) 22 13 40

10 Campsites (#) 20 32 15

Suspected campsites (#) 3 6 7

Overall, few differences were observed between the impact assessments conducted by the three 

teams. Exceptions were the assessment of off-site vegetation cover in Survey Area 5 (F = 4.151, pvalue = .020) and Survey Area 10 (F – 3.335, p-value = .042), the number of tent rocks counted in 

Survey Area 9 (F = 3.535, p-value = .033), and the amount of trash observed in Survey Area 10 (F = 

26.480, p-value = .000). Differences in the estimation of site size were observed between groups for 

Survey Areas 4 (F = 7.984, p-value = .007), 5 (F = 3.342, p-value = .042), and 10 (F = 26.480, pvalue = .000). However the overall differences in estimated campsite size were substantively small.
19

Table 11. Variability test for continuous measures: summary of campsite conditions by survey area as 

surveyed by different field teams in 2012.

Survey 

Area Attribute

Team KNK Team KC Team TB

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Fvalue

pvalue

3 Tent rocks (#) 5.33a 1.155 5.50a.707 5.00a 1.732 .091 .915

Fire signs (#) .00a.000 .00a.000 .33a.577 .781 .507

Tree/shrub 

damage (#) .00a

.000 .00a.000 .00a.000 - -

Veg. cover on site 46.167a 35.462 38.00a.000 58.833a 41.408 .234 .800

Veg. cover off site 77.667a 12.702 85.0a.000 98.0a.000 4.898 .066

4 Tent rocks (#) 13.57a 28.512 5.20a 1.789 3.00a 4.243 .325 .729

Fire signs (#) .00a.000 .00a.000 .00a.000 - -

Tree/shrub 

damage (#) .00a

.000 .00a.000 .00a.000 - -

Veg. cover on site 45.00a 34.719 29.40a 38.760 50.250a 67.529 .292 .752

Veg. cover off site 57.214a 28.812 36.50a 35.733 80.50a 24.749 1.541 .257

5 Tent rocks (#) 7.20a 4.318 9.13a 4.159 7.92a 3.201 1.468 .238

Fire signs (#) .10a.305 .04a.209 .08a.277 .286 .752

Tree/shrub 

damage (#) .00a

.000 .00a.000 .00a.000 - -

Veg. cover on site 36.883a 35.435 27.565a 31.191 23.00a 22.629 1.054 .354

Veg. cover off site 42.767a 33.011 49.587a,b 26.312 70.904b 25.904 4.151 .020

9 Tent rocks (#) 8.24a 5.387 12.83b 11.360 8.91a,b 3.650 3.535 .033

Fire signs (#) .00a.000 .04a.204 .00a.000 1.274 .284

Tree/shrub 

damage (#) .00a

.000 .06a.247 .00a.000 1.954 .147

Veg. cover on site 11.203a 25.644 12.947a 26.437 7.432a 20.417 .363 .696

Veg. cover off site 19.162a 28.610 22.766a 31.283 27.023a 31.838 .465 .630

10 Tent rocks (#) 11.30a 5.723 17.72a 19.047 9.47a 6.468 2.303 .108

Fire signs (#) .00a.000 .03a.177 .00a.000 .539 .586

Tree/shrub 

damage (#) .00a

.000 .00a.000 .00a.000 - -

Veg. cover on site 2.50a.000 6.047a 7.770 6.833a 6.343 2.742 .072

Veg. cover off site 13.550a,b 4.763 13.266a 16.957 25.400b 22.068 3.335 .042

Any two teams that share a superscript are not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) according to 

Bonferroni’s least significant difference test.
20

Table 12. Variability test for ordinal measures: summary of campsite conditions by survey area as 

surveyed by different field teams in 2012.

Survey 

Area Attribute Team KNK Team KC Team TB F-value p-value

3 Site size 1.33a 1.00a 2.50a.986 .449

Trash 1.00a 1.00a 1.33a.781 .507

4 Site size 1.43a 1.00a 2.50b 7.984 .007

Trash 1.00a 1.00a 1.00a- -

5 Site size 1.37a,b 1.17a 1.69b 3.342 .042

Trash 1.07a 1.26a 1.23a 2.040 .139

9 Site size 1.30a 1.48a 1.14a 2.233 .112

Trash 1.03a 1.11a 1.00a 2.076 .131

10 Site size 1.30a,b 1.60a 1.00b 5.974 .004

Trash 1.60a 1.00b 1.07b 26.480 .000

Any two teams that share a superscript are not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) according to 

Bonferroni’s least significant difference test. Measurement scales are: five level trash quantity scale 

(1 = None; 2 = Handful or less; 3 = Handful to gallon; 4 = Gallon to 5 gal; 5 = >5 gallons); and four 

level campsite size scale (1 = small – 1 tent pad; 2 = med – 2-3 tents; 3 = large – 4-5 tents; 4 = xlarge - >5 tents). Both measurements based on ocular estimates (refer to Table 4).

Some differences were observed in the proportion of campsites detected in various mineral 

substrates, particularly sites on cobble/sand and compacted gravel substrates (Table 12) (Pearson 

Chi-Square = 31.131, p-value = .000). Differences in the proportion of campsites detected in various 

vegetation types were observed for campsites located in areas where dominant vegetation was listed 

as dense scrub or moss (Table 13) (Pearson Chi-Square = 56.057, p-value = .000). The data suggests 

that more care should be taken in searching survey areas for campsites in locations where visual 

detection may be difficult (i.e. areas of dense scrub vegetation) or natural patchiness of vegetation 

and substrate may make detecting campsites difficult. Sufficient time should be spent training staff to 

detect and identify campsites in the various vegetation and substrates to decrease variability

Table 13. Variability test for campsite substrate: summary of campsites detected in different mineral 

substrates as surveyed by different field teams in 2012 (Pearson Chi-Square 31.131, p-value = .000; 

Cramer's V = .248, p-value = .000).

Campsite 

Substrate

Team KNK

(n = 97)

Team KC

(n = 109)

Team TB

(n = 55)

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Cobble 58a 59.8 71a 65.1 33a 60.0

Cobble/Sand 29a 29.9 15b 13.8 18a,b 32.7

Compacted 

Gravel 0

a 0 15b 13.8 0a 0

Sand 3

a 3.1 3a 2.8 3a 5.5

Soil 7

a 7.2 5a 4.6 1a 1.8

Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA. Each superscript letter denotes a subset of Survey Teams 

whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.
21

Table 14. Variability test for campsite substrate: summary of campsites detected in different vegetation 

types as surveyed by different field teams in 2012 (Pearson Chi-Square 56.057, p-value = .000; Cramer's 

V = .328, p=value = .000).

Vegetation 

Type

Team KNK

(n = 97)

Team KC

(n = 109)

Team TB

(n = 55)

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Dense 

Herbaceous 6

a 6.2 5a 4.6 1a 1.8

Dense Scrub 0

a 0 0a 0 3b 5.5

Dryas Mat 30a 30.9 20a 18.3 18b 32.7

Graminoid 4

a 4.1 2a 1.8 2a 3.6

Lichen 1

a 1.0 1a

.9 1

a 1.8

Moss 1

a 1.0 22b 20.2 3a 5.5

Open Scrub 5

a 5.2 13a 11.9 9a 16.4

Sparse 

Herbaceous 30a 30.9 40a 36.7 14a 25.5

Other 0

a 0 0a 0 0a 0

Not Specified 20a 20.6 6

b 5.5 4a,b 7.3

Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA. Each superscript letter denotes a subset of Survey Teams 

whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.

Conclusions

In light of the analysis of the existing data and the PI’s past experience with campsite assessment 

work on the Alaskan coast, several conclusions can be made:

First, it currently remains difficult to identify any substantive trends in campsite conditions in Glacier 

Bay’s coastal areas, due to clear differences in protocols used and the highly descriptive nature of 

early assessment work. Hence, the existing historical data at GLBA may provide an important 

qualitative basis for future quantitative monitoring established by this protocol, but few quantitative 

comparisons can be made at present.

Second, while substantial variation was observed in discovering and classifying sites as “established 

sites” or “suspect sites”, less variation was observed in the site condition ratings and other 

parameters. This suggests that the protocol can benefit from refinements of the campsite definition

and that the field crews must receive adequate training to locate sites and to classify them in a 

consistent manner. Some of this can be accomplished by narrowing the number of staff involved in 

conducting the baseline inventory, increasing the amount of staff training, and ensuring ongoing 

improvement to existing procedures and definitions in the standing protocol. For example, the Staff 

Training procedures outlined in the recreation impact assessment protocol have been expanded to 

include additional time in the field to allow staff to gain experience locating and identifying 

recreation impacts in a variety of geographic settings within GLBA and to calibrate their assessments 

to ensure reduced variability. The various condition assessment attributes (Table 3) appear to be less 

susceptible to inter-rater variability and the results suggest little if any refinement is needed. Some 

discrepancy will always be present in recreation impact assessments where most data are reliant on 

observer observations—minimizing this variation is a continual challenge. Past research has 
22

commented on this issue (e.g., Cole et al., 2008; Twardock et al., 2010) and consistency in 

application of a protocol and consistency of observers can help considerably at minimizing 

variability.

Glacier Bay National Park currently has approximately 3500 annual wilderness visitor use nights 

occurring in Glacier Bay proper and selection of campsites is on an “at-large” basis. Glacier Bay 

National Park has a rare opportunity to document general baseline conditions while visitor use 

numbers are low and management influences are negligible. These baseline conditions will help 

GLBA articulate the resource and social conditions it wishes to maintain within the park and to 

manage visitor use to stay within those parameters. Without a baseline inventory and ongoing 

monitoring of recreation impacts, these tasks are not possible. 

NPS managers can use the data collected for the following purposes:

 To assist in the determination of sustainable visitor capacities and desired future conditions

for coastal areas of GLBA.

 As a measure for wilderness character monitoring.

 To evaluate the success of management actions to minimize visitor created resource impacts.

 To create boundaries for various use zones.

 To assist in developing minimum impact suggestions for GLBA visitors.

Implementation Recommendations

With adequate training for field crews and oversight, the protocol developed and tested in this project 

will be an effective tool to document location, number, and general condition of recreation impacts 

and campsites in a baseline inventory of the coastal areas of Glacier Bay. This baseline will be an 

effective tool to inform management decisions and planning processes. The importance and efficacy 

of monitoring programs has been demonstrated in many natural areas over nearly five decades of 

research (e.g., Frissell and Duncan 1965; Cole 1983: Marion and Leung 1998; Twardock et al., 

2010). Understanding trends in conditions of campsites and visitor use locations is a fundamental 

component in the application of long-term planning strategies such as the Visitor Experience and 

Resource Protection framework (National Park Service, 1997) and Wilderness Character Monitoring. 

Determining trends in resource conditions often highlights the need for management actions, and can 

indicate when more specific research is needed (Boyers, 2000). 

Since not all inter-rater variability will ever be eliminated, it is recommended that a baseline 

recreational impact survey be implemented in a “campaign style” manner, with all survey areas and 

other campable areas surveyed by the same survey team in a succinct time period. Surveys should 

take place between June 15 and August 30 of each year (significant vegetation change before and 

after these dates may alter condition class assessments). This survey would establish a baseline for 
23

GLBA campsite location, number and general conditions. This would likely take 1-2 seasons to 

complete in Glacier Bay proper. The baseline inventory also establishes a foundation for further 

inquiry; once a baseline is established a subset of analysis areas or individual campsites could be 

selected for more specific measures based on current or potential management issues. Using the 

baseline data, a monitoring protocol can be developed that allows for timely and effective monitoring

of changes in the number, location, and condition of campsites. Since site conditions change rapidly

with changes in use levels, especially in a place without static conditions and few hardened sites (like 

the shorelines of Glacier Bay), a monitoring interval of 5 years would adequately show change over 

time. The baseline inventory would help determine whether a different monitoring strategy (for 

example, to only measure certain index survey areas) would suffice in order to create an

operationally feasible monitoring protocol. 

An additional protocol to document restoration/custodial effort is under development by park staff. 

This protocol will document rock ring, fire ring, and trash removal, and other restoration efforts 

made by GLBA staff. The data collected in this manner will be useful for end of year reporting, and 

for documenting restoration /custodial effort in individual survey areas between monitoring intervals. 

A final campsite inventory and monitoring program for Glacier Bay should include the following 

components: 1) establish baseline inventory (1-2 field seasons), 2) document site restoration efforts 

(ongoing), 3) monitor change (frequency, intensity and sampling design TBD following baseline 

inventory). This, coupled with other visitor use data and future social science work can provide early 

warning of potential resource change and inform best practices for allocating use and preserving 

Glacier Bay’s opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation as well as other 

qualities of its superlative wilderness character. 
24

Literature Cited

Belnap, J. 1998. Choosing indicators of natural resource condition: A case study in Arches 

National Park, Utah, USA. Environmental Management. 22(4): 635-642.

Boyers, L, M. Fincher, and J. van Wagtendonk. 2000. Twenty-Eight Years of Wilderness 

Campsite Monitoring in Yosemite National Park. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRSP15-Vol-5:105-109.

Cole, D.N. 1993. Campsites in Three Western Wildernesses: Proliferation and Changes in 

Condition Over 12 to 16 Years. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-463. 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cole, D.N. 1983. Monitoring the condition of wilderness campsites. USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper INT-302. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Cole, D.N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: A sourcebook. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report INT-259. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cole, D.N., and T.E. Hall. 1992. Trends in campsite condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness, Bob 

Marshall Wilderness, and Grand Canyon National Park. USDA Forest Service Research 

Paper INT-453. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cole, D.N. 1995. Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping: Experimental applications of 

low level stress. Environmental Management 19:405-416.

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation. In: Buckley R (ed) 

Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp 41–60.

Cole, D.N., and C.A. Monz. 2004. Impacts of camping on vegetation: Response of acute and 

chronic disturbance on vegetation. Environmental Management 32:693-705.

Cole, D.N. and C.A. Monz. 2004. Spatial patterns of recreation impact on experimental 

campsites. Journal of Environmental Management 70:73-84.

Cole, D.N., P. Foti and M. Brown. 2008. Twenty years of change on campsites in the 

backcountry of Grand Canyon National Park. Environmental Management 41:959-970.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document Supporting 

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

SRS-150. Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Cordell, H.K. 2004. Outdoor recreation for 21st century America. Venture Publishing, State 

College, PA.

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based outdoor recreation and tourism. Forest 

History Today Spring:4-10.
25

Frissell, S.S., and D.P. Duncan. 1965. Campsite preference and deterioration in the QueticoSuperior Canoe Country. Journal of Forestry 63(4): 256-260.

Frissell, S.S. 1978. Judging recreational impacts on wilderness campsites. Journal of Forestry

76:481-483.

Klasner, F., C. Monz, and J. Cusick. 2011. Development of Campsite Monitoring Protocols in 

Kenai Fjords National Park. Alaska Park Science 10(1):32-35.

Leung, Y-F, and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A stateof-knowledge review. In D. N Cole and others (compilers), Wilderness Science in a Time of 

Change Conference– Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats and Management. USDA 

Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden 

UT. Pp. 23-48.

Lewis, T.M., and N. Drumheller. 2004. Wilderness Camp Impacts: Assessment of Human 

Effects On The Shoreline of Glacier Bay. NPS GLBA internal document. 

Marion, J.L. 1995. Capabilities and management utility of recreation impact monitoring 

programs. Environmental Management 19:763–771.

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Soil and Vegetation 

Impacts on Campsites. Ecological Society of America 6(2):520-530.

Marion, J. L. and Y.F. Leung. 1998. Campsite survey implications for managing designated 

campsites at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. In: Kulhavy, D. L. & Legg, M. H. 

(eds.), Wilderness and Natural Areas in Eastern North America: Research, Management and 

Planning (pp. 146-155). Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Center for 

Applied Studies in Forestry. 

Monz, C.A., and P. D’Luhosch. 2005. National Park Service Southwest Alaska National Parks 

visitor impact monitoring: Phase 1 report. 59 pp.

Monz, C.A., D.N. Cole, J. Marion, and Y-F. Leung. 2010. Sustaining Visitor Use in Protected 

Areas: Future Opportunities in Recreation Ecology Research Based on the USA Experience. 

Environmental Management 45: 551-562.

Monz, C.A., and P. Twardock. 2010. A classification of campsites in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska, USA. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(7) 1566-1572.

National Park Service. 1997. VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) 

framework – A handbook for planners and managers. USDI National Park Service, Denver 

Service Center, Denver.

Unertl, K. 2011. Variability Test for Glacier Bay’s Wilderness Campsite Assessment Protocol, 

NPS GLBA internal document.
26

Twardock, P., C.A. Monz, M. Smith, and S. Colt. 2010. Long-term changes in resource 

conditions on backcountry campsites in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA. Northwest 

Science. 84 (3) 223-232.
27

Appendix I. GLBA Survey Areas
28
29
30
31

Survey Area ID Location Description

1 Scidmore Cut Beach

Area is attractive to kayakers who are waiting to get through the high-tide cut into Scidmore 

Bay, and the western end of the survey area has historically been used as a camper drop-off 

location. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting semi-palmated plovers, nesting spotted 

sandpipers, oystercatchers, wolverine, river otter sign and abundant bear foods and sign. 

2 First Cove Northwest of Scidmore Cut

Area is attractive to campers en route from the camper drop-off to the glaciers of the West 

Arm. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting spotted sandpipers, nesting 

oystercatchers, wolf sign and brown bear with cubs.

3 Small Beach East of Long Beach East of Ibach Point

Area is attractive to campers en route from the camper drop-off to the glaciers of the West 

Arm. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting ptarmigan, river 

otter sign, possibly denning marmot, and abundant bear sign.

4 Long Beach East of Ibach Point

Area is attractive to campers en route from the camper drop-off to the glaciers of the West 

Arm. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting mew gulls, nesting 

ptarmigan, nesting sparrows, denning marmots, river otter sign, small salmonids, and 

abundant bear foods and sign.

5 Reid Inlet, Ibach Point

This area is very attractive to campers as it offers views of Reid Glacier, and receives dayuse from people off of boats anchored in Reid Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting ptarmigan, nesting 

sparrows, arctic terns, mew gulls, pelagic cormorants, spotted sandpipers, scoters offshore, 

river otter sign, wolf sign, and abundant bear foods and sign.

6 Head of Reid Inlet, East Side

This area has potential to be attractive to campers as it is directly adjacent to Reid Glacier, 

and receives day-use from people off of boats anchored in Reid Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting mew gulls, parasitic jaegers, oystercatcher 

nest, and bear sign.

7 Reid Inlet, Western Side of Mouth

This area is very attractive to campers as it offers views of Reid Glacier and contains the

historic Ibach Cabin remains. For these reasons the area also receives day-use from people 

off of boats anchored in Reid Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting ptarmigan, nesting least sandpipers, 

nesting semi-palmated plovers, nesting spotted sandpipers, nesting oystercatchers, nesting 

sparrows, nesting bald eagles, possibly nesting arctic terns, spawning pink salmon, river 

otters, and abundant bear sign.

9 Ptarmigan Creek

This area is attractive to campers because it is the last large campable area with fresh water 

before turning into Johns Hopkins Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting mew gulls, 

suspected nesting semi-palmated plovers and spotted sandpipers, nesting bank swallows, 

river otters, and brown bear. 
32

Survey Area ID Location Description

10 Mary's Beach, East of Lamplugh Glacier

A trail along the beach berm heads up the valley to the west, eventually reaching an 

overview of Lamplugh Glacier. This area is attractive because of this access to a view of 

Lamplugh Glacier and also because it is the last easily campable beach before turning 

into Johns Hopkins Inlet. 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting 

oystercatchers, denning marmots, nesting barn swallows, nesting sparrows and 

warblers, nesting bald eagles, nesting spotted sandpipers, boreal toads, river otter sign, 

and bear sign.

11 Scidmore Bay, Northern End

This area is attractive to kayakers waiting to get through the high-tide cut from Scidmore 

Bay to the West Arm. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting arctic terns, nesting semi-palmated 

plovers, nesting mew gulls, nesting spotted sandpipers, nesting ptarmigan, wolf, black 

bear and brown bear. Common mergansers, harlequin ducks, and white-winged scoters

in, or near, Scidmore Glacier outwash on southern end of survey area.

12 Scidmore Bay, East Side

This area holds no particular attraction to campers other than it is a long open beach in 

the middle of Scidmore Bay. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: wolf and bear sign. 

13 Entrance to Scidmore Bay, Eastern Shore

This area holds no particular attraction to campers other than it is a scenic point 

overlooking the mouth of Scidmore Bay. 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear 

sign.

14 Small Island in Hugh Miller West of Blue Mouse Cove

This area holds no particular attraction to campers but offers scenic island camping in 

Hugh Miller Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, river otter sign, and bear sign.

15 West Blue Mouse Cove - North of Cut to Hugh Miller

This area holds no particular attraction to campers except as a place to camp while 

waiting to get through the tidal cut from Blue Mouse Cove into Hugh Miller Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign.

16 Blue Mouse Cove

This area holds no particular attraction except for years when it is used as a camper 

drop-off location. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: spawning pink salmon, oystercatchers, 

spotted sandpipers, and bear sign.

20 Sundew Cove

This area is attractive to campers during years that it is used as a camper drop-off. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers with chicks, common 

mergansers with chicks, spawning pink salmon, wolf sign and bear sign.

21 Southeast of Gloomy Knob

This area is attractive to campers who want to climb Gloomy Knob or hike to Vivid Lake. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: spawning pink and sockeye salmon, boreal 

toads, wolf sign, river otter sign, mountain goat sign, and bear sign. 
33

Survey Area ID Location Description

22 Northwest of Gloomy Knob

One attraction of this area may be a hiking route to Vivid Lake.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, spawning pink and 

sockeye salmon, semi-palmated plover, spotted sandpiper, river otter sign, and bear 

sign.

23 Queen Inlet, 2nd Drainage South of Carroll Glacier

This area is especially attractive to campers when the camper drop-off is located about 1 

mile to the south and this is the nearest campable meadow.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: mew gulls and arctic terns with young, nesting 

oystercatchers, spawning pink salmon, spotted sandpipers, wolves and a brown bear.

24 Queen Inlet, 1st Drainage South of Carroll Glacier

This area offers no particular attraction except that it is relatively close to the Queen Inlet 

camper drop-off.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, wolf sign, a brown bear, and a 

large number of scoters just offshore.

25 Queen Inlet, 1st Drainage South of Carroll Glacier

This area is attractive to campers who are en route from the Queen Inlet drop-off to 

Rendu Inlet or north to the glaciers.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: possible nesting oystercatchers, merlin with 

young, warblers and sparrows with young, river otter sign, and bear sign.

26 Mouth of Rendu Inlet, Eastern Shore

This area is somewhat out of the way and probably only gets use from kayakers 

exploring Queen and Rendu Inlets.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include:: nesting oystercatchers, river otter sign, and a 

brown bear.

27 Rendu Inlet, Romer Glacier Outwash

This area is one of the few suitable camping areas near the head of Rendu Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, wolf sign, river otter 

sign, brown bears and bear cub sign.

28 First Beach West of Mouth of Rendu Inlet

This area is near the Rendu camper drop-off location.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, river otter sign and bear sign.

29 Rendu Camper Drop-off

This area is used most heavily in years when the camper drop-off location is here. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting spotted sandpipers, oystercatchers, 

river otter sign and bear sign. 

30 Mainland North of SE Tip of Russell Island

This area offers no particular attraction to campers. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting spotted sandpipers, possible eagle 

nest inland from beach, river otter sign, bear sign.

31 Northeast Tarr Inlet

Survey area contains a trail up a knoll with the remains of a rock cairn on it. This area's 

greatest attraction is spectacular views of Marjorie and Grand Pacific Glaciers.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting spotted sandpipers and bear sign. 
34

Survey Area ID Location Description

32 Mid-Tarr Inlet, Beach NW of Large Outwash on East Side

This area would likely only be used by kayakers heading up Tarr Inlet. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, spotted sandpipers, least 

sandpipers, wolf sign and a brown bear.

33 Mid-Tarr Inlet, Large outwash on East Side

This area would likely only be used by kayakers heading up Tarr Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: ptarmigan with young, oystercatchers with 

young, possibly nesting spotted sandpipers, common redpolls with young, mew gulls, 

arctic terns, river otter sign, wolf sign, and bear sign.

34 Northwest Russell Island

This area holds no particular attraction to campers except for scenic views of the West 

Arm.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting spotted sandpipers, oystercatchers, 

warblers and sparrows with young, ptarmigan with young, river otter sign, and bear sign.

35 Southwest Russell Island

This area holds no particular attraction to campers except for scenic views of the West 

Arm.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: abundant river otter sign and bear sign.

36 Southeast Russell Island

This area holds no particular attraction to campers except for scenic views of the West 

Arm.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: warblers with young, scoters off shore, river 

otter sign, and bear sign. 

37 Johns Hopkins Head, West Shore

This area is the closest possible campsite to Johns Hopkins Glacier and offers a 

spectacular view. It is, however, difficult to get to at times of heavy ice and questionable 

in safety due to calving induced waves.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: harbor seals hauled out on icebergs, 

kittiwakes, glaucous-winged and mew gulls.

38 Johns Hopkins, Chocolate Falls (Seal Camp)

This area is very close to Johns Hopkins Glacier and offers a spectacular view. It is also 

difficult to get to at times of heavy ice. The area has been used as a harbor seal 

research camp for several weeks per summer from 1991-2002.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: harbor seals hauled out on icebergs, nesting 

oystercatchers, and bear sign. 

39 Topeka Outwash

This area has been closed to camping since the early 1990s due to bear problems. The 

exception to this rule is Alaska Discovery, the Park guided kayaking concessionaire, has 

been allowed to camp there since year 2000. If this area were to open to the general 

public for camping, the attraction would be a large open campable area at the mouth of 

Johns Hopkins inlet with spectacular views and access into the inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: mew gulls with young, oystercatchers and 

arctic terns with suspected young, spotted sandpiper nests, ptarmigan with young, and 

bear sign.
35

Survey Area ID Location Description

41 Queen Inlet, Camper Drop-off

Two rock cairns are present on beach, probably from drop-off. Area is likely only 

attractive to campers when it is a drop-off location because there is little campable 

terrain and there is a high danger of rocks falling onto this area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, spotted sandpipers 

with young, and bear sign. 

42 Point at the Mouth of Tidal Inlet, South Shore

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting eagles, oystercatchers with young, 

river otter sign and bear sign.

43 Tiny Peninsula 1 Mile South of Tidal Inlet

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by. 2003 

Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, spotted sandpipers, wolf 

sign, river otter sign and bear sign.

50 Northeast Lester Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by. Evidence 

of 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter and bear sign.

51 Island North of Lester

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by. 2003 

Sensitive Species observed include: blue grouse with young, coyote sign, river otter sign 

and bear sign.

52 South Tip of Island South of Kidney Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: blue grouse with young, nesting crows, 

oystercatchers, river otter sign and bear sign.

53 North End of Island South of Kidney Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, coyote sign, and bear sign.

54 South Kidney Stone Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by. Evidence of 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

55 South Hutchins Bay, Mainland peninsula East of Kidney island 

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting ravens and river otter sign.

56 Hutchins Bay

This area is one of the few places in the Beardslee Islands that has a consistent supply 

of fresh water. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

57 Northeast Kidney Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, coyote sign and bear sign.
36

Survey Area ID Location Description

58 Northwest Kidney Island

There is a dilapidated small shack in woods. Area holds no particular attraction to campers 

unless they were passing by. 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: spotted sandpiper, 

river otter sign and bear sign.

59 Southern tip of Link Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting warblers, river 

otter sign, coyote sign, and a black bear. Survey area is near seal haulout.

60 Small Island West of South Tip of Link Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, semi-palmated plovers 

suspected nesting, river otter sign and a black bear with bear sign including den.

61 Tiny Island with SPIDER Geo-marker

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter and bear sign.

62 Peninsula Due North of SPIDER Geo-marker

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: boreal toad, river otter sign and a black bear.

63 South End of Northern-most Island in the Beardslees.

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by except for a 

possible waiting area for access through the high-tide cut into Beartrack Cove. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign, including sign of 

cubs.

64 Southwest Corner of Northern-most Beardslee Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, river otter sign and bear sign.

65 Northern-most Tip of the Beardslees

Survey area is at the northernmost tip of the Beardslee Islands in Beartrack Cove and is a 

natural stopping point for kayakers waiting to access the Beardslees through a high-tide cut.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, semi-palmated plovers, 

spotted sandpipers, nesting sparrows, lady slipper orchid, river otter sign and bear sign 

including an old den and sign of cubs.

66 North Tip of Mainland, Beardslees

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by except for a 

possible waiting area for access through the high-tide cut into the Beardslee Islands.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: raft of over 500 common mergansers off shore, 

sign of small weasel including den, sign of bear including den.

67 East Side of Peninsula West of Beartrack Cove

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by except for a 

possible waiting area for access through the high-tide cut into the Beardslee Islands. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, and sign of bear including den.

68 Island Due East of Boulder Island, West Side.

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: a large flock (120) of oystercatchers, coyotes, and 

bear sign including possible den.
37

Survey Area ID Location Description

69 Island Due West of Tiny Island with SPIDER Geo-Marker.

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign including possible den, and 

bear sign.

70 Island Southwest of Spider Geo-marker, South Tip

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatcher nest, nesting hairy woodpecker, 

spotted sandpiper, nesting sparrows, river otter sign, black bear and a dug up den, 

possible coyote or river otter.

71 Island North of White crow Island with SOCK Geo-marker.

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign with possible den and a black 

bear.

72 Linear Island Northeast of White crow

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and black bears.

73 West White Crow Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers except for being on a southwest facing 

point at the southern end of the Beardslee Islands. This site receives use from harbor 

seal researchers 1-3 weeks per year.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, coyote, river otter 

sign, bear sign. Nearby reefs are used by arctic terns, gulls, oystercatchers harlequin 

ducks and harbor seals that may be impacted by kayakers in this area.

74 Southeast Strawberry Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

75 Southwest Strawberry Island

Holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by except for being 

the westernmost point of Strawberry Island and a natural stopping point for kayakers 

traveling through the northern part of Sitakaday Narrows.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, black turnstones, river otter 

sign and bear sign.

76 Northern Tip Young Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting sparrows, river otter sign and bear 

sign. 

77 East Side of Island in Secret Bay

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by. The only 

sensitive species observed in 2003 was a black bear. 

78 Cove West Side Young Island

Area holds no particular attraction to campers except for kayakers traveling through 

Sitakaday Narrows.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, river otter sign and bear sign.
38

Survey Area ID Location Description

80 First Cove South of York Creek

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: wolf sign, river otter sign, and bear sign.

81 York Creek

This area is a natural stopover for kayakers traveling up the east side of the bay as it 

offers level campable terrain and fresh water.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign. 

82 South Leland Island

This area is very attractive to kayakers traveling up or down the east side of the bay 

because the "island hopping" route is the most direct and the rest of Leland Island is 

closed to camping.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting gulls of 

unknown species, and river otter sign. A nearby harbor seal haulout is extremely 

susceptible to disturbance from kayakers entering or leaving this area.

83 1st Drainage S. of Spokane Cove

The main attraction of this area is probably that it is the last campable area at the 

southern end of a long beach camping closure and has freshwater available.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, coyote sign, and bear sign. 

85 South Sturgess Island

This area is very attractive to kayakers traveling up or down the east side of the bay 

because the "island hopping" route is the most direct and the adjacent mainland is 

closed to camping.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign.

86 North Sturgess Island

This area is very attractive to kayakers traveling up or down the east side of the bay 

because the "island hopping" route is the most direct and the adjacent mainland is 

closed to camping.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, nesting crows, and river otter 

sign.

87 North Garforth Island

This area is particularly attractive to campers when the camper drop-off is located 

nearby at Mt. Wright.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter and bear sign.

88 Mount Wright

This area is particularly attractive to campers when the camper drop-off is located 

nearby at Mt. Wright. 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign. 

89 Muir Point

This area has been used as a camper drop-of location and is also close to the Mt. Wright 

camper drop-off. It is also attractive in its location at the southern mouth of Adams Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers with young, river otters and a 

black bear. 

90 Creek West of Tlingit Point

This area is especially attractive when the camper drop-off location is at nearby Sebree 

Island and because of its freshwater creek. 2003 Sensitive Species observed include: 

eagle nest, spawning salmon, wolf sign, otter sign and bear sign. 
39

Survey Area ID Location Description

91 Small Island south of Tlingit Point

This area is probably attractive when the camper drop-off location is at nearby Sebree 

Island.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: over 260 oystercatchers, arctic terns, a large raft 

of scoters, several cormorants and mew and glaucous-winged gulls. 

92 Tlingit Point

This area is probably attractive when the camper drop-off location is at nearby Sebree 

Island, but beach terrace appears to be eroding and past evidence of use may have been 

erased.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, nesting crows, river otter sign and 

bear sign.

94 SW Sebree Island

This area is often the location of a camper drop-off and is most likely used more heavily 

during those times.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

95 SE Sebree Island

This area is probably attractive when the camper drop-off location is nearby on the 

southwest side of Sebree Island.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign. 

96 Caroline Point

This area is attractive to campers traveling up and down Muir Inlet, particularly when the 

camper drop-off is at Sebree Island.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: arctic terns, oystercatchers, scoters off shore, 

river otter sign and bear sign. 

97 Shore North of Ice Valley Outflow

This area may be attractive to campers traveling up and down Muir Inlet but holds no other 

significant attractions.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: spotted sandpipers suspected nesting, harlequin 

ducks with young, and bear sign. 

98 Morse Glacier Outwash

This area may be attractive to campers traveling up and down Muir Inlet but holds no other 

significant attractions other than freshwater. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatcher with young, arctic terns, semipalmated plovers and spotted sandpipers acting defensively, sparrows and warblers with 

young, wolf sign, coyote sign, and bear sign.

99 Creek across Muir Arm form Klotz Hills

This area may be attractive to campers traveling up and down Muir Inlet but holds no other 

significant attractions other than freshwater.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: wolf sign, river otter sign and bear sign. 

100 Adams Glacier Outwash

This area may be attractive to campers who wish to hike the outwash.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: semi-palmated plovers, oystercatchers, arctic 

terns, wolf sign, and bear sign. 

101 Southwest of Adams Glacier Outwash

No specific attractions in this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: spotted sandpipers, oystercatchers, and bear 

sign.
40

Survey Area ID Location Description

103 South of Casement Glacier Outwash across Adams Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: wolf sign and bear sign. 

104 Mid-Adams Inlet, South side

No specific attractions in this survey area except as a mid-point in Adams Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting juncos, wolf sign, and bear sign.

105 Point George

The main attraction of this area is its location at the northern mouth of Adams Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers and bear sign.

106 Maquina Cove

No specific attractions in this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign. 

107 South Klotz Hills

No specific attractions in this survey area.

No sensitive species observed in survey area.

108 First Cove North of Klotz Hills

No specific attractions associated with this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: suspected nesting spotted sandpipers and 

semi-palmated plovers, oystercatcher, river otter sign, brown bear.

109 Large Former River Fan, South of Forest Creek.

No specific attractions associated with this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, parasitic jaegers, and bear 

sign.

110 Center of Small Cove at South End of Forest Creek Fan

No specific attractions associated with this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, wolf sign and bear sign.

111 North End of Forest Creek Fan

No specific attractions associated with this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: wolf sign and bear sign.

112 Goose Cove

The attraction of this area is a small tidal lagoon and freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive oystercatchers, wolf sign and bear 

sign. Stream is believed to contain spawning salmon.

113 Sealer's Island

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting arctic terns, nesting mew gulls, 

nesting oystercatchers, nesting glaucous-winged gulls, nesting crows, river otter sign, 

and a brown bear. 

114 Rounded Peninsula between Nunatak and Goose Coves.

No specific attraction in this area except that it offers extensive camping possibilities.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive oystercatchers, nesting warblers, 

and bear sign.
41

Survey Area ID Location Description

115 Nunatak (1st cove North of Nunatak)

No specific attractions in this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign.

116 Wolf Point

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive semi-palmated plovers, mew gulls, 

oystercatchers, and bear sign.

117 Stump Cove

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive oystercatchers and bear sign. 

118 North Side Wachusetts Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting sparrows and bear sign. 

119 Rowlee Point

This area's main attraction is its location at the southern mouth of Wachusetts Inlet.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive spotted sandpipers, oystercatchers, 

coyote sign and bear sign.

120 Hunter Cove North

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: defensive semi-palmated plovers and spotted 

sandpipers, oystercatchers, coyote sign, and a brown bear.

121 Hunter Cove South

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, wolf sign, and bear sign.

130 Mouth of Geikie, North Shore

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, spawning pink and chum 

salmon, river otter sign, a wolverine, and black bears and a brown bear.

131 North shore Geikie with ARCH Geomarker

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, spawning pink salmon, coyote 

sign, river otter sign, and a blue color phase black bear (glacier bear).

132 First Site East of Charpentier Valley

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

133 Valley From Charpentier Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: common mergansers with young, 

oystercatchers and bear sign.

134 Mid North Shore, Geikie Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: a black bear.
42

Survey Area ID Location Description

135 Stream Off of South Mt. Bulky, Geikie Inlet

Rock cairn in survey area likely from camper drop-off. This area was used as a drop-off 

location for at least one year. Otherwise, no specific attractions in this survey area except for 

freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: brown bears.

136 North Shore Geikie, about 1 mile from the head.

No specific attractions in this survey area except for access to Geikie Glacier Outwash.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign.

137 Head of Geikie Inlet, South Shore

No specific attractions in this survey area except for access to Geikie Glacier Outwash and 

freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign.

138 Mouth of Tyndall Inlet, West shore

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: black turnstones, wolf sign and bear sign.

139 West island of the two islands in Geikie Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area except for being an island with scenic views.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: black turnstones, oystercatchers and bear sign.

140 Island at Mouth of Shag Cove, Geikie Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area except for being an island with scenic views.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting bald eagles, river otter sign and bear sign.

150 East Drake Island

No specific attractions in this survey area except for being on an island with scenic views.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

151 Johnson Cove, Willoughby Island

Historic structure remnants were found in survey area. This area is attractive because it is 

located within a protected cove on the outside of Willoughby Island, and thus a natural 

stopover for kayakers passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: several species of orchids, river otter sign and 

bear sign. 

160 Large cove south of McBride Inlet

No specific attractions in this survey area except for freshwater stream

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, wolf sign and bear sign.

161 Long beach north of McBride Inlet

This area is attractive to campers because of its proximity to McBride Glacier and access to 

freshwater. Many Alaska Discovery guided kayaking trips begin or end in this location. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter, defensive oystercatcher, semipalmated plovers, coyote and bear sign. 

162 Riggs Glacier

This area is attractive to campers because of the spectacular views of Riggs Glacier.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting semi-palmated sandpipers, spotted 

sandpipers, oystercatchers, finches with young, coyote, wolf and bear sign. Nesting arctic 

terns and mew gulls in vicinity that could be impacted by campers in this area.
43

Survey Area ID Location Description

164 South Shore, Mid Upper Muir Inlet

This area is attractive to campers traveling in upper Muir Inlet because it is one of the 

few campable areas, and may be an access point for hiking up White Thunder Ridge.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, suspected nesting 

spotted sandpipers, nesting swallows, wolf sign and bear sign. 

165 North Shore, Mid Upper Muir Inlet

This area is attractive to campers traveling in upper Muir Inlet because it is one of the 

few campable areas and has freshwater.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting arctic terns, mew gulls with young, 

oystercatchers with young, nesting semi-palmated plovers, nesting glaucous-winged 

gulls, nesting herring gulls, and a spotted sandpiper. Boreal toad tadpoles were later 

reported at this site.

166 North Shore, West End of Muir Inlet

This area is attractive to campers traveling in upper Muir Inlet because it is one of the 

few campable areas and has freshwater.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting mew gulls with young, nesting 

oystercatchers, nesting glaucous-winged gulls, defensive spotted sandpipers, semipalmated plovers, and American pipits. 

167 North spit McBride Inlet

This area is very attractive to campers because of the spectacular views of McBride 

Glacier.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: nesting oystercatchers, nesting gulls of 

unknown species, defensive semi-palmated plovers, coyote sign, bear sign, and wolf 

sign including evidence of pups. Harbor seals pupping and molting in fjord would 

potentially be disturbed by campers in this area. Arctic terns have been observed 

nesting in area in past, but no evidence of nesting was observed in 2002 or 2003.

168 South spit McBride Inlet

This area is very attractive to campers because of the spectacular views of McBride 

Glacier.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers with nests, semi-palmated 

plovers, spotted sandpipers, wolf sign, bear sign, and possible river otter sign. Harbor 

seals pupping and molting in fjord would potentially be disturbed by campers in this area. 

170 Garforth Island, South End

This area is probably most attractive to campers when the camper drop-off is nearby at 

Mt. Wright. 

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, river otter sign and bear sign. 

171 Blue Mouse Cove, Southeast

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign.

172 Small Island in South Blue Mouse Cove

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: bear sign.

173 North tip of Mainland Peninsula in Mid-Hugh Miller Inlet

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, a black bear and river otter 

sign.
44

Survey Area ID Location Description

174 Northeast Mouth of Charpentier Inlet

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: young spotted sandpipers, river otter sign, 

and bear sign.

175 Small Island at Mouth of Charpentier Inlet

Area holds no particular attraction to campers except for being an island with scenic 

views.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: mew gulls with young, oystercatchers with 

young, arctic terns, dowitchers, black turnstones, crow nest, and bear sign.

176 South Tip of Island off Southeast Tip of Gilbert Peninsula

No established sites or evidence of human use. Area holds no particular attraction to 

campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign, mink sign, and bear sign 

including evidence of cubs.

177 South of Entrance to Weird Bay, mouth of Scidmore Bay

Area holds no particular attraction to campers unless they were passing by.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: oystercatchers, glaucous-winged gulls and 

molting harlequin ducks. 

180 Mt. Wright Drop-off

This area is sometimes the location of a camper drop-off and probably receives most of 

its use during these times. The potential for falling rocks makes this area hazardous for 

camping.

2003 Sensitive Species observed include: river otter sign and bear sign. 

181 Topeka Outwash East

Created in 2011

182 Topeka Outwash West

Created in 2011

183 Tarr Inlet West Side

Created in 2011

185 Tarr Inlet West Side

Created in 2011

186 Tarr Inlet West Side

Created in 2011

187 Sebree

Created in 2011
45

Appendix II. Historical Campsite Assessment Summary

Survey Year

Location 

Information/Data 

Source(s)

Attribute 

Information

Completeness of 

Data

Comparison to 

2012 Possible

1970s  Survey sheets

 Paper maps

General descriptive 

information; focus 

on structures (e.g. 

cabins, tent 

platforms, etc.)

 Selected areas

 Lacking Survey 

Area ID

 Narrative report –

would require 

coding

No

1982/83  Survey sheets

 Paper maps

 General 

descriptive 

information

 Counted tent 

sites, fire rings

Descriptive 

information about 

vegetation 

condition (e.g. 

“trampled,” 

“flattened,” “dead,” 

“recovering”)

 Selected areas

 Lacking Survey 

Area ID

 Narrative report –

would require 

coding

Minimal

1986/87  Survey sheets

 Paper maps

 Frequency of use

 Substrate

 Dominant 

vegetation

 Area of 

vegetation impact 

(square feet)

 Area of substrate 

impact (square 

feet)

 Fire rings (count)

 Human alteration

 Human waste

 Trash

 Trails (yes/no)

 Condition 

(pass/fail)

 General 

comments

 Selected areas

 Data sheets 

mostly complete

 Some areas have 

associated Survey 

Area ID

 Open-ended 

comments would 

require coding

 Not all reports 

distinguish 

between ‘satellite 

sites’ and 

individually 

impacted sites

Minimal

2002/03  GIS locations  Unique campsite 

ID

Links to Access 

database Minimal
46

Survey Year

Location 

Information/Data 

Source(s)

Attribute 

Information

Completeness of 

Data

Comparison to 

2012 Possible

2002/03

 Digitized 

data sheets 

(electronic 

spreadsheets)

 Site Name

 Location 

description

 Landing 

substrate

 Site substrate

 Veg type in 

site

 Veg type off 

site

 Site length

 Site width

 General 

observations

 Trailing

 Supratidal fire 

pit

 Rock ring

 Intertidal 

firepit

 Trash

 Human waste

 Firewood

 Structures

 Footprints

 Size

 Long-lasting 

impact

 Short-lived 

impact

 Impact 

number

 Impact rating

 Observer 

rating

 Attribute 

information 

mostly 

complete

 Descriptive 

observations 

require coding

 Many variables 

coded as 

presence 

(TRUE) or 

absence 

(FALSE)

 Inconsistency in 

measurement/

 application of 

protocol (e.g. 

site 

dimensions; 

using vague 

terms like 

“several” 

instead of 

giving a 

number)

Minimal
47

Survey Year

Location 

Information/Data 

Source(s)

Attribute 

Information

Completeness of 

Data

Comparison to 

2012 Possible

2011  GIS locations

 Location 

description

 Type of site

 Landing 

substrate

 Campsite 

substrate

 No. satellite sites

 Condition class

 Veg cover on site

 Veg cover off site

 Trash

 Human waste

 Campfire

 Rock rings

 Size category

 Campable area

 Size estimate

 Size dimension

 Dominant 

vegetation type

 Attribute 

information missing 

for most locations

 Missing Survey 

Area ID for each 

site – can be 

overlaid with 

Survey Area layer 

in GIS 

 Lacking complete 

spatial information 

for 2011 survey 

areas (i.e. no 

polygon layer)

No
48

Survey Year

Location 

Information/Data 

Source(s)

Attribute 

Information

Completeness of 

Data

Comparison to 

2012 Possible

2011

 Digitized 

data sheets 

(electronic 

spreadsheets)

 Site Name

 Location 

description

 Landing 

substrate

 Site 

substrate

 Veg type in 

site

 Veg type off 

site

 Site length

 Site width

 General 

observations

 Trailing

 Supratidal 

fire pit

 Rock ring

 Intertidal 

firepit

 Trash

 Human 

waste

 Firewood

 Structures

 Footprints

 Size

 Long-lasting 

impact

 Short-lived 

impact

 Impact 

number

 Impact rating

 Observer 

rating

 Attribute 

information 

mostly 

complete

 Descriptive 

observations 

require coding

 Many 

variables 

coded as 

presence 

(TRUE) or 

absence 

(FALSE)

 Inconsistency 

in 

measurement/

 application of 

protocol (e.g. 

site 

dimensions; 

using vague 

terms like 

“several” 

instead of 

giving a 

number)

 Several sites 

not measured

Minimal

2012  GIS locations

 Landing 

substrate

 Campsite 

substrate

 Dominant 

vegetation type

 Tent rocks

 Campfire

 Tree/shrub 

damage

 Veg cover on site

 Veg cover off site

 Site size

 Trash

 Mostly complete –

lacking size 

information for 7 

measured 

campsites

N/A
49

Appendix III. Number of full assessments completed per 

survey area each year

Data sources: Export_WCIsites3.xlsx and tblSiteObs.xlsx, provided by National Park Service

Survey 

Area 2002 2003 2011 2012

Not Given 47

1 8 10

2 3

3 1 2

4 6 1 5

5 4 1 23

6 1

7 5 3

9 3 47

10 3 1 32

11 6 4

12 1 4

13 1 1

14 1

15 1

16 1 4

20

21 3 1 6

22 4 2

23 4 3

24 1 1

25 6 2

26 1 1 3

27 2 1

28 1

29 2

30 1

31 2 1

32 2 2

33

34 2 1 5

35 1 1

36 2 1 5
50

Survey 

Area 2002 2003 2011 2012

372

38217

3921 15

40

4111

421

4311

501

511

5211

5312

541

55111

5611

5711

58112

59111

601

611

621

6312

642

6554

661

671

6821

691

701

711

721

7311

741

751

7611

771

7811

802

813
51

Survey 

Area 2002 2003 2011 2012

822

831

852

861

873

881

891

9041

9221

94431

9522

965

974

981

991

1001

1011

1031

1041

1051

1061

1071

1085

1092

1101

1112

1126

1131

1143

1151

1161

1171

1181

11916

12014

121

1301

1311
52

Survey 

Area 2002 2003 2011 2012

1321

1331

1342

1352

1362

1372

1381

1391

1401

1501

1512

16012

161224 11

162623

16432

16514

16628

167162

168282

1702

17111

1721

17312

1741

1751

17611

1771

1801

1811

1821

1832

184

1851

1865

200 12

2011

2023

2121
53

Survey 

Area 2002 2003 2011 2012

Total 

number of 

measured 

sites

142a 133b 76c 265

a 15 sites not measured in 2002

b 1 site not measured in 2003

c 6 sites not measured in 2011
54

Appendix IV. Summary of Historical Assessments by Data Source

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

Not 

Given 47

1 0 8 8 0 10

2 0 3 3 0 -

3 0 1 1 0 2

4 0 6 6 17 1 5

5 0 4 4 12 1 23

6 1

7 0 5 5 19 3 -

9 0 3 3 8 47

10 - - 3 - 1 32

11 0 6 6 0 4

12 1 1 0 0 4

13 1 1 0 0 1

14 1 1 0 3 -

15 1 1 0 3 -

16 1 1 0 5 4

20 0 0 7 -

21 0 3 3 12 1 6

22 0 4 4 4 2

23 0 4 4 4 3

24 0 1 1 0 1

25 0 6 6 5 2

26 0 1 1 6 1 3
55

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

27 0 2 2 0 1

28 0 1 1 0 -

29 0 2 2 5 -

30 0 1 1 0 -

31 0 2 2 4 1

32 0 2 2 7 2

33 0 0 2 -

34 0 2 2 6 1 5

35 0 1 1 0 1

36 0 2 2 0 1 5

37 2

38 0 2 2 3 1 7

39 0 2 2 6 1 15

40 0 0 7 -

41 0 1 1 5 1 -

42 1

43 - - 1 - 1

50 1 1 0 0 -

51 1 1 0 0 -

52 1 1 1 1 0 -

53 1 1 0 0 2

54 1 1 0 0 -

55 1 1 1 1 3 1

56 1 1 0 4 1 -
56

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

57 1 1 1 1 0 -

58 1 1 1 1 0 2

59 1 1 1 1 3 1

60 1

61 1 1 0 0 -

62 1 1 0 0 -

63 1 1 0 0 2

64 2

65 2 5 3 4 0 -

66 1 1 0 0 -

67 1

68 - - 2 - 1

69 1 1 0 0 -

70 1

71 1 1 0 0 -

72 1 1 0 5 -

73 1 1 1 1 0 -

74 1 1 0 0 -

75 1 1 0 0 -

76 1 1 0 0 1

77 1 1 0 0 -

78 - - 1 - 1

80 1 2 0 0 -

81 1 3 0 0 -

82 1 2 0 0 -
57

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

83 1 1 0 0 -

85 1 2 0 0 -

86 1 1 0 0 -

87 1 3 0 0 -

88 1 1 0 0 -

89 1 1 0 0 -

90 4 1

92 1 2 1 1 0 -

94 2 4 2 3 5 1 -

95 1 2 0 2 2 -

96 2 5 0 0 -

97 1 4 0 0 -

98 1 1 0 0 -

99 1 1 0 0 -

100 1 1 0 0 -

101 1 1 0 0 -

103 1 1 0 0 -

104 1 1 0 0 -

105 1 1 0 0 -

106 1 1 0 0 -

107 1 1 0 0 -

108 2 5 0 0 -

109 2

110 1
58

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

111 2

112 2 6 0 0 -

113 1 1 0 0 -

114 2 3 0 0 -

115 1 1 0 0 -

116 1 1 0 0 -

117 1 1 0 0 -

118 1 1 0 0 -

119 2 1 0 0 6

120 2 1 0 0 4

121 1 0 0 -

130 1 1 0 0 -

131 1 1 0 0 -

132 1 1 0 0 -

133 1 1 0 0 -

134 1 2 0 0 -

135 1 2 0 0 -

136 1 2 0 0 -

137 1 2 0 0 -

138 1 1 0 0 -

139 1 1 0 0 -

140 0 1 0 0 -

150 1 1 0 0 -

151 1 2 0 0 -
59

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

160 1 1 0 0 2

161 2 2 2 2 12 4 11

162 2 6 0 6 2 3

164 1 3 2 2 0 -

165 1 1 0 6 4

166 1 2 0 0 8

167 0 1 6 6 7 2 -

168 0 2 8 8 18 2 -

170 1 2 0 0 -

171 1 1 0 3 1 -

172 1 1 0 3 -

173 1 1 0 0 2

174 1 1 0 0 -

175 1 1 0 0 -

176 1 1 0 0 1

177 1 1 0 0 -

180 1

181 - - - 1

182 - - - 1

183 - - - 2

184 - - - -

185 - - - 1

186 - - - 5

200 - - - 12

201 - - - 1

202 - - - 3
60

Survey 

Area

2002

GIS

2002 

tblsSiteObs

2003

GIS

2003

tblSiteObs

2004 

Report

2011

GIS

2011

tblSiteObs 2012

212 1

Total 

number 

of sites

98 142a 105 133b 257c 227 76d 265

a 15 sites not measured in 2002

b 1 site not measured in 2003

c 268 sites identified in 2002/2003; 257 measured and rated

d 6 sites not measured in 2011

GIS values for 2002, 2003, and 2011 were derived by overlaying campsite point data with survey area polygons in ArcMap and counting the 

number of campsites within each survey area. Attribute tables from the point shapefiles were edited to include each point’s corresponding 

survey area number.

tblSiteObs values for 2002, 2003, and 2011 were derived by (i) manually merging tblSiteObs.xls (attribute data) and Export_WCIsites3.xls 

(spatial location data) and then (ii) selecting sites for which the field Measured was TRUE.

2004 Report values were taken from the Lewis and Drumheller (2004) camper impact report. This report summarizes the campsite 

monitoring data collected in 2002 and 2003.
61

Appendix V. GLBA Data Collection and Handling 

Recommendations

 For each feature collected, enter all attribute information

 Minimize comments/field notes to relevant information not adequately captured in the 

attribute fields. Reading comments for all sites is very time consuming, and coding the 

information can be difficult (multiple observers, clarity/specificity of information 

provided, etc.).

 Be as specific as possible (within reason!) in comments. For example, instead of 

“multiple tent pads” or “several tent rocks,” record a number. This will enable analysis of 

trends and comparisons between sites/areas.

 Do not separate out data. Having data in too many places makes it difficult to ensure all 

sites are being counted and hinders the ability to make comparisons over time. Maintain 

all data in GIS format (e.g. shapefiles, geodatabases). Files can be merged to ease data 

management (e.g. create one “campsite” file for each survey year by merging individual 

files collected in the field). Attribute information can be exported to a flat file format 

(.xls, .csv, etc.) for statistical analysis/summarizing.

 Do not separate attribute information from spatial information (e.g. create multiple 

tables/files). If you must for analysis purposes, make sure to keep the original file.

 Develop a standard protocol for naming files

 Create a metadata file for each data file

 Future data needs: updated polygon layer of Survey Areas
62

Appendix VI. Glacier Bay National Park Recreation Impact 

Assessment Protocol v.5.

Overview

Goal of the Procedural Manual

This manual describes all procedures necessary to conduct initial and repeat campsite assessments in 

coastal areas of Glacier Bay National Park.

Application to Park Management

Local land managers can use past, current, and future data in the following manner:

 Document current impacts and condition of campsites.

 Create Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) standards and indicators.

 Develop minimum impact suggestions for users.

 Assist in the determination of sustainable visitor capacities for Glacier Bay National Park.

 Create boundaries for various use zones.

Staff Training

Although this manual contains all the information necessary to conduct the inventory and monitoring 

program, it is not meant to be a substitute for proper on-site staff training. The objective of staff 

training is to communicate and illustrate field procedures, develop and refine experience and 

judgment, and build a commitment to quality. A minimum of two days of staff training is 

recommended. Training can be organized as outlined below:

Day 1: Field staff read and discuss procedural manual – Glacier Bay National Park 

Recreation Impact Assessment Protocol.

Day 2: For Quality Control, assessment procedures are demonstrated on a typical campsite. 

Following discussion and question and answer session, field staff, independently or in small 

groups, will apply procedures to a common survey area and group of campsites. The entire 

group reviews evaluations of each campsite. Differences are examined and resolved by 

referring to the manual and group critique.

A minimum of two field personnel are needed to conduct the inventory.
63

Materials for Collecting Field Data

 Glacier Bay National Park Recreation Impact Assessment Protocol – one per person

 Glacier Bay topographic map

 Compass

 Flagged wire pins – 25 minimum (two separate colors if more than one group is working in 

same area)

 Trimble Nomad or GeoXT GPS unit, Stylus

 Data Dictionary: GLBA2012_Rapid_v7

 Survey area polygons loaded onto GPS units or aerial photo

 Digital camera (for back-up)

 Note pad and pencil 

Description of Procedures

This manual describes procedures for conducting inventories and resource condition assessments 

necessary to document changes in condition of coastal campsites in Glacier Bay National Park. 

Types of Assessments

Survey Area

For the purposes of this manual, survey areas are defined as areas where camping activities are 

known or suspected to take place. These areas will be walked and scouted for campsites and other 

signs of visitor use. Polygons of survey areas collected in 2002-2003 will be used to guide field 

crews. Survey areas are (often but not always) predefined by the 2002-2003 camper impact survey. 

Make sure you are covering the entire survey area as defined in the Trimble or the aerial photo given 

to you prior to your trip. Make sure you sweep the entire area from mean high tide and then inland

to the logical end of most camper activity. If new survey areas are established, please start numbers 

at 200.

Campsites

Definition of a campsite:

For the purposes of this manual, campsites are defined as locations where there is clear evidence of 

recent (within last 2-3 years) camping activity. Each “campsite” is distinct and separated by 

vegetation, geographic restrictions, etc. If you are questioning whether a large site is multiple sites or 

a single site, please record it as multiple sites. Conversely, do not call multiple sites a single site (i.e. 

no satellite sites!).

Evidence includes: 

 Vegetation loss or change clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, framed by 

tent rocks, etc.).

 Flattened vegetation clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, etc.) 

 Compressed gravel clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, framed by tent 

rocks, etc.).

 Recently placed tent rocks

 Camp trash
64

 Recent tree or shrub damage

 Campfire in site

Finding sites to add to the inventory/monitoring program

A goal of the inventory/monitoring program is to keep informed of campsite conditions in Glacier 

Bay National Park. To achieve this goal, new visitor sites are added to the inventory as they are 

discovered. Survey areas must be thoroughly searched to identify locations of visitor sites to add to 

the program and locate previously surveyed campsites – including those no longer used. After 

landing on a beach with potential camping, conduct searches for new visitor sites by following all 

visitor-created trails, however faint, to search out likely camping areas. Analyze visitor sites’ 

vegetation by comparing site to adjacent areas of similar topography – compare a disturbed beach 

berm with a similar undisturbed beach berm. For coastal visitor sites (those along or near beaches), 

be sure to analyze the site for natural influences, such as tidal and weather, to determine whether the 

vegetation inconsistencies are due to human or environmental influence. If you are in doubt as to 

whether the site is a campsite – please log it as a suspect site!

Suspected Campsites

For the purposes of this manual, suspected campsites are defined as a location where camping is 

likely to have occurred and use is suspected, but no clear evidence is present. If evidence of recent 

camping is present (see above list), the location should be recorded and measured as a campsite. If 

you are in doubt that the site is indeed a suspect site, do not record the site!

Visitor-Created Trails

A visitor-created trail connects known areas of visitor use, such as campsites, water sources, food 

storage areas, viewpoints, and intertidal access. Only include trails that are 5-meters in length or 

longer. Do not map wildlife trails

Sensitive Species

Collect a waypoint for sensitive species or species of concern including: nesting birds, dens, exotic 

plants, and hauled out and/or unusual animal species.

Interstadial Wood

Gather a point for interstadial wood that is in place (i.e. large logs or stumps that are embedded in the 

soil). Do not include driftwood. Indicate whether or not there are signs of human-caused damage, 

such as cuts, charring, or burn scars.
65

Rapid Assessment Backcountry Campsite Assessment Procedures

Survey Area

Survey areas are (often but not always) predefined by the 2002-2003 camper impact survey. Make 

sure you are covering the entire survey area as defined in the Trimble or the aerial photo given to you 

prior to your trip. Make sure you sweep the entire area from mean high tide and then inland to the 

logical end of most camper activity. Begin at one end of the survey area. Walk the entire area to 

search for campsites and other signs of visitor use. As you walk, do the following:

 Place a pin flag in each campsite and suspected campsite that you encounter.

 Keep a tally of the number of fire signs, human waste sites, structures, and amount of trash 

you find. 

When you have concluded your sweep of the survey area, start the GPS and do the following:

1. Open TerraSynch and create new file. Use the numeric code for the survey area to name the 

file.

2. Load GLBA2012_Rapid_v7 data dictionary.

3. Collect “Survey Area” point within the survey area polygon and record attributes

Attributes

1. Survey Area Number: Enter pre-assigned three-digit survey area code

2. Surveyed By: Enter the initials of the field crew conducting the assessment

3. Fire Signs: Enter the number of supratidal fire signs you encountered in the survey area. Fire 

signs include fire rings, charcoal piles, and large burnt logs. Do not include burnt scattered 

pieces of charcoal or washed-up firewood.

4. Trash: Use the drop down menu to choose a category for the amount of camping trash found 

in the survey area. Do not include trash found in campsites (this will be counted later) or 

flotsam that has been washed ashore.

a. None

b. Handful or less

c. Handful to gallon

d. Gallon to 5 gallons

e. More than 5 gallons

5. Human Waste: Follow all trails in the vicinity of campsites to conduct a quick search of 

likely “toilet” areas, typically just out of site of campsites. Count the number of individual 

human waste sites, defined as separate locations exhibiting toilet paper and/or human feces. 
66

The intent is to identify the extent to which the improper disposal of human waste is a 

problem. Enter the number of individual human waste sites found within the survey area. 

Include upland and supratidal sites only. Note: use individual counts for each location (e.g. 

one multi-day/use pile is 1 site).

6. Structures: Enter the number of human-made structures encountered. Include beach 

furniture made of rock, wood, or other available materials; stacked rocks such as cairns. Do 

not include tent rocks, fire rings.

7. Comments: Enter any notable comments, if any, about the area.

8. Field Notes: Use the drop down menu to indicate whether any field notes were recorded 

separate from the information collected using the GPS unit.

9. Date/Time: Created automatically with feature.

Campsite

Walk the survey area again, using the pin flags you placed during the initial sweep to help locate 

campsites observed during the initial sweep of the survey area. At the campsite, stand in the center 

and collect a high-accuracy GPS point (minimum of 20 locations collected on the GPS for each site). 

A high-accuracy point is critical in relocating campsites during future monitoring. Do not move from 

the center of the campsite while the GPS is logging. If you must move or the GPS has logged at least 

20 positions, select the Pause button before moving. You can continue entering attribute information 

while the data logger is paused. Remove the pin flag before moving on to the next site.

Attributes

1. Survey Area Number: Enter the three-digit number of the survey area where the campsite is 

located.

2. Campsite Number: Enter a number for the campsite, beginning at 1 for each survey area and 

increasing incrementally.

3. Surveyed By: Enter the initials of the field crew conducting the assessment

4. Rationale: Specify why you are designating the location as a campsite by choosing an option 

from the drop down menu:

a. Veg loss or change – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to 

vegetation loss or change clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, 

framed by tent rocks, etc.).

b. Flattened veg – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to 

flattened vegetation clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, etc.). 

c. Compressed gravel – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to 

compressed gravel clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, framed 

by tent rocks, etc.).
67

d. Tent rocks – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to the 

presence of recently placed tent rocks.

e. Camp trash – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to the 

presence of camping trash in the site.

f. Tree/shrub damage – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to 

recent tree or shrub damage caused by human use (i.e. sawed limbs or branches, 

axe/hatchet scars, burn scars, cut stump, broken or twisted branches, etc.).

g. Campfire – Primary reason for recording the location as a campsite is due to the 

presence of a campfire in the site.

h. Other – There is another reason for considering this location a campsite. Specify the 

reason in the Comments field at the end of the data dictionary.

5. Landing Substrate: Record the predominant substrate where visitors using this site would 

land their boats by choosing one of the categories below from the drop down menu:

a. Cobble – includes gravel size stone and larger; smaller than boulders

b. Sand – includes sandy beach soils which do not form a surface crust in trampled areas

c. Soil – includes clays to loamy soils

d. Boulder – includes large rocks 8-inches in diameter or larger (think melon-size or 

larger)

e. Cobble/Sand – combination of cobble and sand

6. Campsite Substrate: Record the predominant substrate of the campsite by choosing one of 

the categories below from the drop down menu:

a. Boulder – includes large rocks 8-inches in diameter or larger

b. Cobble – includes gravel size stone and larger; smaller than boulders

c. Sand – includes sandy beach soils which do not form a surface crust in trampled areas

d. Cobble/Sand – combination of cobble and sand

e. Soil – includes clays to loamy soils

f. Compacted gravel – small size stone that has been compacted and flattened into an 

obvious tent pad. Common in recently deglaciated areas that have little or no 

vegetation.

7. Campsite Size: Record the size of the campsite by choosing one of the categories below 

from the drop down menu. Assume a 5’x7’ tent with enough room for normal camp 

activities. If in doubt, divide into multiple campsites.

a. Small – 1 tent pad

b. Medium – 2-3 tents

c. Large – 4-5 tents

d. X-large – more than 5 tents
68

8. Tent Rocks: Count all rocks within the site that have been moved and placed by humans. A 

tent rock should be fist-size or larger and obviously placed within the site.

9. Campfire IN Site: Count the number of campfire signs within the campsite.

10. Veg Cover ON Site: An estimate of the percentage of live non-woody vegetative ground 

cover (including herbs, grasses, and mosses. Exclude tree seedlings, saplings, and shrubs) 

within the campsite boundaries using the categories listed below. Exclude undisturbed 

“islands” of vegetation. For this and the following parameter, it is often helpful to narrow 

your decision to two categories and concentrate on the boundary that separates them. For 

example, if the vegetation cover is either 6-25% or 26-50%, you can simplify your decision 

by focusing on whether vegetative cover is greater than 25%. Do not extrapolate the amount 

of ground cover that could or should be seen. Use total leaf coverage, not stem or stock 

coverage, to determine percent. Refer to the color photos provided in this manual for further 

guidance.

a. 0-5%

b. 6-25%

c. 26-50%

d. 51-75%

e. 76-95%

f. 96-100%

11. Veg Cover OFF Site: An estimate of the percentage of vegetative ground cover in an 

adjacent but largely undisturbed “control” area. Use the categories listed below. The control 

site should be similar to the campsite in slope, tree canopy cover (amount of sunlight 

penetrating to the forest floor), and other environmental conditions. The intent is to locate an 

area which would closely resemble the campsite area had the campsite never been used. In 

instances where you cannot decide between two categories, select the category with less 

vegetative cover. The rationale for this is simply that, all other factors being equal, the first 

campers would have selected a site with the least amount of vegetation cover. Refer to the 

color photos provided in this manual for further guidance.

a. 0-5%

b. 6-25%

c. 26-50%

d. 51-75%

e. 76-95%

f. 96-100%

12. Veg Type 1 IN Site: Indicate the dominant vegetation type within the site by choosing from 

the drop down menu:
69

a. Sparse Herbacerous – leafy forbs and herbs growing intermittently within the 

campsite boundaries

b. Dense Herbaceous – leafy forbs and herbs growing closely together or continuously 

within the campsite boundaries

c. Open Scrub – shrub or alder scrub that is open enough to allow for easy walking 

among plants

d. Dense Scrub – shrub or alder scrub with plants growing densely together and 

providing a barrier to easy walking

e. Graminoid – grasses and grass-like plants (sedges)

f. Dryas Mat – low growing mats of Dryas spp.

g. Moss 

h. Lichen

i. Other

13. Veg Type 2 IN Site: If vegetation within the boundaries of a campsite is an equal mixture of 

two types (e.g. Moss and Lichens), indicate the co-dominant vegetation type here by 

choosing one of the categories listed below from the drop down menu. If there is one clear 

dominant vegetation type, leave this attribute blank.

a. Sparse Herbacerous – leafy forbs and herbs growing intermittently within the 

campsite boundaries

b. Dense Herbaceous – leafy forbs and herbs growing closely together or continuously 

within the campsite boundaries

c. Open Scrub – shrub or alder scrub that is open enough to allow for easy walking 

among plants

d. Dense Scrub – shrub or alder scrub with plants growing densely together and 

providing a barrier to easy walking

e. Graminoid – grasses and grass-like plants (sedges)

f. Dryas Mat – low growing mats of Dryas spp.

g. Moss 

h. Lichen

i. Other

14. Veg Type 1 OFF Site: Indicate the dominant vegetation type present in an adjacent but 

largely undisturbed “control” area. Use the categories listed below. The control site should be 

similar to the campsite in slope, tree canopy cover (amount of sunlight penetrating to the 

forest floor), and other environmental conditions. The intent is to locate an area which would 

closely resemble the campsite area had the campsite never been used. If the campsite is 

located in a forested area with tall trees, indicate the dominant understory vegetation type.

a. Sparse Herbacerous – leafy forbs and herbs growing 

b. Dense Herbaceous – leafy forbs and herbs growing closely together or continuously 
70

c. Open Scrub – shrub or alder scrub that is open enough to allow for easy walking 

among plants

d. Dense Scrub – shrub or alder scrub with plants growing densely together and 

providing a barrier to easy walking

e. Graminoid – grasses and grass-like plants (sedges)

f. Dryas Mat – low growing mats of Dryas spp.

g. Moss 

h. Lichen

i. Other

15. Veg Type 2 OFF Site: If vegetation within the control area is an equal mixture of two types 

(e.g. Moss and Lichens), indicate the co-dominant vegetation type here by choosing one of 

the categories listed below from the drop down menu. If there is one clear dominant 

vegetation type, leave this attribute blank.

a. Sparse Herbacerous – leafy forbs and herbs growing intermittently 

b. Dense Herbaceous – leafy forbs and herbs growing closely together or continuously 

c. Open Scrub – shrub or alder scrub that is open enough to allow for easy walking 

among plants

d. Dense Scrub – shrub or alder scrub with plants growing densely together and 

providing a barrier to easy walking

e. Graminoid – grasses and grass-like plants (sedges)

f. Dryas Mat – low growing mats of Dryas spp.

g. Moss 

h. Lichen

i. Other

16. Trash: Include all recreational use litter or trash that is present within the boundaries of the 

campsite. Choose an amount from the drop down menu:

a. None

b. Handful or less

c. Handful to gallon

d. Gallon to 5 gallons

e. More than 5 gallons

17. Tree/Shrub Damage: Count the number of separate events of tree or shrub damage within a 

2 meter radius of the campsite that is clearly caused by humans. Examples of tree/shrub 

damage include sawed limbs or branches, axe/hatchet scars, burn scars, cut stump, broken or 

twisted branches. Do not include tree and shrub damage caused by wildlife (e.g. scraping or 

scratching from bears, moose, and other animals) or storm damage.
71

18. Reference Photo: Take a photo of the campsite using the Trimble camera and link the file to 

the campsite feature here (see directions below). If the GPS unit you are using does not have 

a camera or the camera is not working, take a photo using a separate digital camera and 

indicate the file name in the Comments section. When taking the photo, choose the best 

vantage point that gives you a clear perspective of the campsite.

19. Photo Bearing: Enter compass bearing from the location where you take the campsite 

reference photo. This will aid in future relocation of the campsite.

20. Comments: Record comments regarding anything noteworthy about this campsite. If you 

selected “Other” in the Rationale field, explain why you recorded this location as a campsite.

21. Field Notes: Use the drop down menu to indicate whether field notes associated with this 

campsite were taken separately from the information recorded in the GPS unit during the 

assessment.

22. Date/Time: Created automatically when the campsite feature is created.

Suspected Campsite

In locations where camping is suspected but no clear evidence of recent camping is present, a 

Suspected Campsite feature can be created with the GPS. Stand in the center of the suspected site and 

collect a high-accuracy point. Note any relevant information in the Comments field. The rationale 

for collecting location information for suspected campsites is that these sites can be relocated during 

future monitoring and inspected for evidence of camping activities. A “suspected campsite” may 

develop into a “campsite” over time.

Attributes

1. Surveyed By: Enter the initials of the field crew conducting the assessment.

2. Comments: Specify why you designated this location as a suspected campsite.

3. Date/Time: Created automatically when the suspected campsite feature is created.
72

Sensitive Species

Collect a waypoint for sensitive species or species of concern including: nesting birds, dens, exotic 

plants, and hauled out and/or unusual animal species. Please try NOT to disturb the nest, den or 

animals by getting too close. Take the GPS point from a distance at which the animals’ behavior is 

not changed by your presence. 

Attributes

1. Type: Choose one of the following from the menu of sensitive species:

a. Bird nest

b. Mammal den

c. Animals

d. Hauled out pinniped

e. Exotic plant

f. Other

2. Species: Choose one of the following from the menu:

a. BLOY

b. ARTE

c. Gull

d. Weasel

e. Canine

f. Bear

g. Marmot

h. Boreal Toad

i. Dandelions

j. Other

k. Unknown

3. Number: If applicable, enter the number of nests, dens, or other sensitive species. Not 

necessary for dandelions, etc.

4. Description: A 50 character memo field to write any necessary notes on your observation.

Vis Created Trail

A visitor-created trail connects known areas of visitor use, such as campsites, water sources, food 

storage areas, viewpoints, and intertidal access. Only include trails that are 5-meters in length or 

longer. Do not map wildlife trails.

Walk and map any visitor-created trails in the survey area. The Vis Created Trail is set to collect a 

location every 1 second. This creates a more precise line feature. However, you don’t want to stop 

and stand around without pausing while logging or you’ll get a big jumbled mess of lines! Record 

any relevant information in the Comments field.
73

Interstadial Wood

Collect a point to indicate the location of any large pieces of interstadial wood within the survey area. 

Use the drop down menu to indicate whether there is any Human-caused damage present. Record 

any relevant information in the Comments field.

Taking Campsite Reference Photos Using the Trimble Nomad GPS

Before taking the photo, make sure the data logger is paused and the GPS is not collecting any 

position data.

1. From TerraSynch, tap on the Windows icon in the top left corner of the screen. Select 

Pictures and Videos from the drop down menu. A new window will open.

2. Tap the Camera icon in the top left corner of the window.

3. Aim the front of the Nomad at the campsite. The screen will function as the viewfinder of the 

camera.

4. Press the Enter button [ ] on the front of the Nomad to take the picture.

5. Underneath the picture, select Menu.

6. Click on Properties. Name the file using the 3-digit survey area code and campsite number 

using the following format: <survey area>_<campsite number>. For example, the reference 

photo for campsite 4 in survey area 007 would be named 007_4.jpg.

7. Close the camera program by clicking OK in the top right corner. You will be back in the 

campsite feature in TerraSynch that you collected previously.

8. Under the Reference Photo field, tap the box with the stylus. You should see a list of files in 

the My Pictures folder. If necessary, navigate to the correct folder by tapping the [...] icon 

next to the drop down box.

9. Select the file for this campsite (007_4.jpg). The most recent photo should appear at the top 

of the list. To view or verify the file, tap the Play button (looks like a right-pointing triangle) 

next to the box. The picture you have selected will be displayed. To clear the preview, click 

OK.
74

Vegetation Reference Photos

Cover On Site

0-5% cover 6-25% cover

26-50% cover 51-75% cover

76-95% cover 96-100% cover
75

Cover Off Site

0-5% cover 6-25% cover

26-50% cover 51-75% cover

76-95% cover 96-100% cover
76

Glossary of Terms

boulder: Rocks 8-inches in diameter (melon-size) or larger

campsite: For the purposes of this manual, campsites are defined as locations where there is clear 

evidence of recent (within last 2-3 years) camping activity. Evidence of camping includes: 

Vegetation loss or flattened vegetation clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a tent, 

framed by tent rocks, etc.), compressed gravel clearly caused by human use (i.e. in the pattern of a 

tent, framed by tent rocks, etc.), recently placed tent rocks, camp trash, recent tree or shrub damage, 

campfire in site. This clear evidence must be present to call a location a campsite.

cobble: Fist sized rocks, larger than gravel, that do not move when you walk on them.

compacted gravel: Gravel that has been flattened to accommodate a tent. Rocks do not shift when 

walked on.

gravel: Small rocks of maximum size 1-2 cm. If it moves when you walk on it, it’s gravel.

interstadial wood: Large pieces of wood, such as logs or stumps, that were covered by glacial ice 

and exposed after glacier receded.

landing: Area where visitors pull their boat up to the shore.

sand: Includes any sandy beach soils that do not form a surface crust in trampled areas.

soil: Includes any clays to loamy soils. Soil is a mixture of minerals, organic matter (dead and alive), 

water and air. Note: moss is a vegetation, NOT a soil.

substrate: A general term used to describe the soil-vegetation types where campsites are found.

supratidal: The area above the mean high tide line and into the uplands.

survey area: Discrete area where camping activities are known or suspected to take place. Survey 

areas may be a variety of shapes, including long, linear beaches or points of land. Individual survey 

areas are usually bound by environmental features such as very dense vegetation, cliffs, and water.

suspected campsite: Backcountry area where overnight camping activities are suspected but no clear 

evidence of such activities is present. See definition of campsite for examples of evidence.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 132/128528, May 2015
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM