The Visitor

VERP

Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework

A Handbook for Planners and Managers

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service
VERP

The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework

A Handbook for Planners and Managers

September 1997

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Denver Service Center
Contents

HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK 1

Organization of the Handbook 3

HISTORY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPT 4

Introduction 4

The Concept of Carrying Capacity 4

Limits of Acceptable Change 5

OVERVIEW OF THE VERP FRAMEWORK

Purpose of the VERP Framework 8

Summary of the Framework 9

VERP and NPS Planning 11

VERP and NEPA 12

ELEMENT 1

Assemble an Interdisciplinary Project Team

Pointers for Building the Team 13

ELEMENT 2

Develop a Public Involvement Strategy 15

8

13

Pointers for Developing a Public Involvement Strategy 18

ELEMENT 3

Develop Statements of Park Purpose, Significance, and Primary Interpretive Themes;

Identify Planning Constraints 19

Identification of Park Purpose and Significance 20

Pointers for Developing Park Purpose Statements 21

Examples of Park Purpose Statements 21

Pointers for Developing Park Significance Statements 22

Examples of Park Significance Statements 24

Identification of Primary Interpretive Themes 25

Pointers for Articulating Primary Interpretive Themes 26

Examples of Primary Interpretive Themes and Park Themes 26

Identification of Planning Constraints 28

iii
��������

Pointers for Identifying Planning Constraints 28

Examples of Planning Constraints 29

ELEMENT 4

Analyze Park Resources and the Existing Visitor Use 30

Analysis as It Relates to VERP 30

Pointers for Analysis 32

Experiential Resource Analysis 33

Pointers for Experiential Resource Analysis 38

Existing Use and Facilities Analysis 38

Pointer for Existing Use and Facilities Analysis 39

Resource Concerns / Resource Sensitivity Analysis 40

Pointers for the Resource Concerns / Resource Sensitivity Analysis 41

ELEMENT 5

Describe a Potential Range of Visitor Experiences and Resource Conditions 42

Importance of Diversity 42

Identifying the Range of Potential Resource Conditions and Visitor Experience 43

Example of Zone Descriptions from Arches National Park 46

Example of Zone Description from Isle Royal National Park — Motorized Sensitive

Water Zone 47

Pointers for Determining the Range of Resource Conditions and Visitor Experiences 48

ELEMENT 6

Allocate the Potential Zones to Specific Locations in the Park (Prescriptive Management Zoning) 51

Examples of VERP Zoning 52

Pointers for Developing Management Zoning 52

Development of Alternatives 56

Pointers for Developing Alternatives 57

ELEMENT 7

Select Indicators and Specify Standards for Each Zone; Develop a Monitoring Plan 58

Definition of Indicators and Standards 58

Indicators 60

Sources of Indicators 60

Characteristics of Good Indicators 62

Selection of Indicators 64

Standards 67

Characteristics of Good Standards 67

Setting Standards 69

Examples of Possible Indicators and Standards 70

Revision of Indicators and Standards 70

Pointers for Developing and Selecting Indicators and Standards 72

Development of a Monitoring Strategy 74

Key Components of a Monitoring Strategy 75

Where Resource and Social Indicators Should Be Monitored 76

When Indicators Should Be Monitored 78

How Resource and Social Indicators Should Be Monitored 79

iv
Contents

ELEMENTS8&9

Monitor Resource and Social Indicators

Take Management Action 81

Monitoring 81

Range of Possible Management Actions 82

Pointers for Selecting Management Tactics 85

APPENDIX A

Descriptions of the Resource Experience Opportunity Areas Developed for the Arches VERP Plan 87

APPENDIX B

Descriptions of the Management Zones in the Arches VERP Implementation Plan 90

GLOSSARY 96

BIBLOGRAPHY 97

LIST OF PREPARERS 103

FIGURES

1. Planning Corral 19

2. Resource Experience Opportunity Areas, Arches National Park 36

3. Parkwide Management Zones, Arches National Park 53

4. Windows Sector Management Zones, Arches National Park 54

TABLES

1. Resource Experience Attributes for Visitor Use 37

2. Potential Management Zones, Arches National Park 45

3. Summary of the Arches National Park VERP Zones 55

4. Example of an Evaluation Matrix for Selecting Indicators 66

5. Examples of Indicators and Standards 71

v
How

To Use this Handbook

In 1992 the National Park Service (NPS) began developing the

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework to address visitor use management and carrying capacity

issues in the units of the national park system. Arches National

Park was the first unit in which the VERP process was tested.

Interest in the VERP framework in the National Park Service

has subsequently soared, and additional applications are now

underway in several park units. Interest has also been expressed

by other management agencies both in this country and

internationally.

This handbook is intended to provide sufficient guidance so that

a NPS planner, resource manager, or other practitioner

assigned to undertake VERP planning can do so with confidence. However, even with this handbook a practitioner will

need to have initiative and creativity, be willing to experiment,

and be able to make judgement calls in order to successfully

carry out a VERP effort. Frequent communication with individuals involved in other VERP efforts may also be helpful.

It must be stressed that this handbook is not meant to be a complete guide on how to do general planning for parks. Many important topics that should be considered in the development of

park plans, such as the treatment of issues, public involvement,

and the assessment of alternatives, are discussed briefly or not

at all. Readers should refer to the NPS Park Planning Guidelines

and the Park Planning Sourcebook (both in preparation) for

more details on park planning.

Due to the timing of the production of these three documents,

there may be inconsistencies and contradictions in terminology

and directions contained in the documents. In these cases, readers should defer to the guidance provided in the Park Planning

Guidelines.

1
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

This Handbook is... — a general guide to the elements that make up the VERP framework. It

defines the elements, explains their relationships to each other and to

planning, suggests some terminology, and shares current insights into the

successes and potential pitfalls in applying VERP.

— about a new way of addressing visitor use (carrying capacity) issues in

parks. The VERP framework is a methodology for visitor use planning and

management. Many of the VERP elements are also elements of general

management planning.

— intended to provide overall consistency in the application of the VERP

methodology so that the framework can evolve and improve in an orderly

way.

— a compilation of many ideas and approaches that are new and/or

experimental to the Park Service. As the VERP framework is tested in

more park areas, this handbook will need to be updated.

This Handbook is not... — a step-by-step guide on how to apply VERP. It is not possible for this

handbook to answer all the questions that arise over the application of the

VERP framework in every park.

— a description of a substitute or alternative general management planning

process, although the VERP framework may be used in conjunction with

general management planning.

— intended to provide a recipe that requires that the VERP framework be

applied exactly the same way in every park unit.

— the final word on the VERP process. It will often be up to the practitioner

to choose a course of action deemed best for each park situation. We are

still learning how to implement the VERP framework.

2
How to Use This Handbook

ORGANIZATION OF THE HANDBOOK

The first two chapters of this handbook give an overview of the

carrying capacity concept and the VERP framework. The

remaining chapters are organized by nine VERP framework elements. Generally each of these chapters describes the purpose

or role of the element, describes what it is, provides examples,

and offers pointers on how to complete the elements. These

chapters vary considerably in their level of detail, depending on

how familiar planners/managers are with the element. At the

end of the handbook there is a glossary of terms and a list of key

sources of additional information.

3
History

and Development of the Concept of Carrying Capacity

The Purpose of the

National Park Service

conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wild life

therein

provide for the enjoyment of the same in

such manner and by such means as will

leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations

— 1916 NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1)

The national parks� contain natural and cultural resources of

great importance to the nation and, in many cases, to the international community. Given the significance of this resource

base, public demand to see and experience these areas should

not be surprising. In the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, visitation increased tremendously in the national park system. In the

1990s the increase in visitation has slowed, but use levels are still

rising in many parks. This upward trend is expected to continue

into the next century.

The increasing visitation to the national park system is making it

more difficult for the National Park Service to fulfill its dual

mission to provide for the enjoyment of national parks while

conserving resources for future generations. Concern over rising

visitation in parks, and accompanying impacts on resources and

on visitor experience, has led the National Park Service to focus

increasing attention on the concept of carrying capacity.

THE CONCEPT OF CARRYING CAPACITY

The underlying concept of carrying capacity has a rich history in

the natural resource professions. In particular, it has proven a

useful concept in wildlife and range management where it refers

to the number of animals of any one species that can be maintained in a given habitat. Carrying capacity has obvious parallels

and intuitive appeal in the field of park management. In fact, it

was first suggested in the mid–1930s as a park management concept in the context of the national park system. However, the

first rigorous application of carrying capacity to park planning

and management did not occur until the 1960s.

�� ��� ���� ������ �� ���� �������� ������ �� ��� ����� �� ��� �������� ���� ������ ������ �������� ���������� ����������

��������� ���������� ���������� ������ ���� ��� ������ ������� �������� ������ �������� ������ �����

4
History and Development of the Concept of Carrying Capacity

The initial scientific applications of carrying capacity in parks

focused on the impacts on park resources resulting from visitor

use. It soon became apparent, however, that there was another

dimension of carrying capacity dealing with the social aspects of

the visitor experience. In the 1964 monograph The Carrying

Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation, J. A. Wagar reported that

his study “was initiated with the view that the carrying capacity

of recreation lands could be determined primarily in terms of

ecology and the deterioration of areas. However, it soon

became obvious that the resource–oriented point of view must

be augmented by consideration of human values.”

The point was that as more people visit a park, both the natural

and cultural resources of the area and the quality of the visitor

experience can be affected. Through the years it has become

evident that there is a conflict between Park Service efforts to

encourage the use of parks by making them more accessible to

more people, and its efforts to ensure that park resources are

protected and opportunities for quality visitor experience

opportunities are provided.

LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC)

The early scientific work on carrying capacity has blossomed

into an extensive literature base on resource and social aspects

of park use and their application to carrying capacity (for examples, see the Bibliography). But despite the impressive literature

base, efforts to determine and apply carrying capacity to parks

have often resulted in frustration. The principal difficulty lies in

determining how much resource or social impact is too much.

Given the substantial demand for public use of the parks, some

decline or change in resource condition and the quality of visitor

experience is inevitable. But how much decline or change is

appropriate or acceptable? This issue is often referred to as the

limits of acceptable change (LAC) and is fundamental to

addressing carrying capacity.

In 1985 the U.S. Forest Service published a process for dealing

with the issue of recreational carrying capacity in wilderness.

The process was first applied at the Bob Marshall Wilderness

Complex in Montana. Since that time several planning and

management frameworks have been developed to address carrying capacity, including the National Parks and Conservation

Association Visitor Impact Management (VIM) process, the

Parks Canada Management Process for Visitor Activities

(known as VAMP), and the Park Service VERP process. While

each framework includes refinements to suit individual agency

5
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

missions, policies, and procedures, all of the frameworks share a

common set of elements. All of these frameworks include a

description of desired future conditions for park resources and

visitor experiences, the identification of indicators of quality

experiences and resource conditions, establishment of standards

that define minimum acceptable conditions, the formulation of

monitoring techniques to determine if and when management

action must be taken to keep conditions within standards, and

the development of management actions to ensure that all indicators are maintained within specified standards.

Another way of looking at the basic logic of the LAC process

and other frameworks has been articulated by David Cole of the

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and one of the

original authors of the LAC concept. According to Cole, the

intent of carrying capacity planning is to develop a compromise

between the absolute protection of resources (in this case referring to the environmental conditions and the visitor experience)

and the unrestricted access to resources for recreational use.

The LAC process was designed to help define this compromise.

The basic logic of the LAC process, according to Cole, is as

follows:

• Identify Two Goals in Conflict. In the case of national

parks, the two goals are usually the protection of environmental conditions and visitor experiences (goal 1) and

the unrestricted access to resources for recreational use

(goal 2).

• Establish that Both Goals Must Be Compromised. If one

or the other goal cannot be compromised, then the LAC

process is not needed — one goal must simply be compromised as necessary to meet the one that cannot be

compromised.

• Decide Which Goal Will Ultimately Constrain the Other.

In the case of national parks, the goal of protecting environmental conditions and visitor experiences will almost

always constrain the goal of unrestricted access.

• Write LAC Standards for this Ultimately Constraining

Goal. LAC standards express the minimally acceptable

conditions for the environment and visitor.

6
History and Development of the Concept of Carrying Capacity

• Compromise this Goal Until the Standards Are Reached.

Allow the environmental conditions and visitor experiences to degrade only to the minimally acceptable standard. Recreational access should not be substantially

restricted until the standards are reached.

• Compromise the Other Goal as Much as Necessary.

Once standards for environmental conditions and visitor

experiences are reached no more degradation is allowed,

and recreational access is restricted as needed to maintain standards.

Looking at the basic logic of the LAC process in this way is

helpful for several reasons. First, this way of thinking illustrates

that the fundamental challenge in visitor use management is not

so much the resolution of resource protection and visitor use

conflicts. Instead, the emphasis should be on defining complementary visitor experience opportunities and resource conditions, and then determining to what extent unrestricted

recreational access can be accommodated. Second, this logic

allows managers to recognize that unrestricted access — a value

held strongly by many recreationists — is a valid goal, but one

which cannot always be accommodated in light of the equally

valid goals of visitor experience diversity and resource protection. Third, an understanding of the generic thought process is

helpful in understanding how the various frameworks may be

adapted or fine-tuned for different situations without losing the

critical elements of the frameworks. Fourth, because there has

been interest on the part of managers to apply the LAC process

to problems other than carrying capacity, the examination of the

generic process helps in determining the situations in which

such applications may be useful and those situations in which

they may not.

Since the inception of the LAC process, land area managers and

planners have continued to test, adapt, and refine the process.

The VERP framework is one of the adaptations of the LAC

process. In VERP planning, the process is expanded to address

a wide variety of resource settings and frontcountry as well as

backcountry experiences.

7
Overview

of the VERP Framework

PURPOSE OF THE VERP FRAMEWORK

Under the 1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (P.L. 95-

625), the National Park Service is required to address the issue

of carrying capacity in its general management plans (GMP).

NPS management policies and planning guidelines acknowledge

this responsibility. The concept of carrying capacity is intended

to safeguard the quality both of the park resources and the visitor experience. Park resources in this context encompasses all of

the biophysical, aesthetic, and cultural elements and features

contained in a park.

As it applies to parks, visitor carrying capacity is defined as “the

type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while

sustaining acceptable resource and social conditions that complement the purpose of a park.”

Under this definition carrying capacity is interpreted primarily

as a prescription of resource and social conditions, and secondarily as a prescription for the appropriate numbers of people.

Inherent in the above definition are the understanding of the

purpose of a park and the development of management prescriptions specifying appropriate resource and social conditions.

Another basic assumption is that carrying capacity work is

undertaken with the intent of managing visitor use. Visitor use

management begins with a plan, but it continues as an cyclical

process involving monitoring, evaluation, and taking action to

make adjustments.

Discussions about the appropriate focus and scope of efforts

have led to the following working definition. VERP is:

8
Overview

a planning and management framework that focuses on

visitor use impacts on the visitor experience and the park

resources. These impacts are primarily attributable to

visitor behavior, use levels, types of use, timing of use, and

location of use.

It should be noted that crowding is only part of what contributes

to or takes away from the visitor experience. However, it is the

rapidly increasing visitation in many parks that is driving the

interest in and the need for using the VERP framework. Managers have other tools besides the VERP framework for evaluating the quality of park interpretation programs and the

adequacy of facility maintenance, for example, even though

these factors certainly influence the quality of the visitor

experience.

SUMMARY OF THE FRAMEWORK

Nine elements are integral to the VERP framework. The elements are summarized below; each element is discussed in further detail in subsequent chapters. While the scope of the

elements, the order in which they are undertaken, and the specific methods used to complete the elements may vary in different situations, all of the elements are necessary to implement a

VERP program. Although the elements are numbered and may

appear to follow a linear process, it is important to remember

that the VERP framework is iterative, with feedback and “feedforward” occurring throughout the elements.

The VERP framework is intended to provide a logic and rationale for making decisions on carrying capacity issues. It is, therefore, important to document all decisions that are made during

the course of developing and implementing the VERP elements

in a park. The documentation of rationale is particularly important when managers need to make controversial decisions, such

as limiting visitor use or increasing development.

Framework Foundation

Element 1: Assemble an Interdisciplinary Project Team. A core

team is needed and should include those people who can

develop the plan and those who will implement the plan. A wide

variety of consultants with various backgrounds and expertise

may be needed to assist the core team.

Element 2: Develop a Public Involvement Strategy. As in any

planning effort, the public must be involved in VERP planning.

9
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Both NPS staff and publics external to the agency should be

considered. A public involvement strategy should be prepared

early in the framework.

Element 3: Develop Statements of Park Purpose, Significance,

and Primary Interpretive Themes; Identify Planning Constraints. These statements form the foundation upon which the

VERP plan and implementation strategies are built. All subsequent elements must be consistent with and supportive of these

statements. This element may already exist in many parks, having been developed in previous planning efforts. But if this work

has not been done, the work on VERP elements should not continue until all of these statements are articulated and clearly

understood.

Analysis

Element 4: Analyze Park Resources and the Existing Visitor

Use. The objective of this element is to understand as fully as

possible park resources and existing visitor use and experience.

This analysis should be documented, usually through a combination of maps, matrixes, and text.

Prescriptions

Element 5: Describe a Potential Range of Visitor Experiences

and Resource Conditions (potential prescriptive zones). Potential zones are described by different desired visitor experience

opportunities and resource conditions that could be provided in

a given park, consistent with the park purpose and significance.

The zone descriptions prescribe the appropriate kinds and levels

of activity, development, and management. These potential

zones are described in text only; they are applied to specific geographical areas in element 6.

Element 6: Allocate the Potential Zones to Specific Locations in

the Park (prescriptive management zoning). In this element the

zones described in element 5 are assigned to specific locations

in a park. The zoning scheme prescribes future conditions; it is

not descriptive of existing conditions, although in some cases

the continuation of existing conditions could be the desired

future. If appropriate, the planning team should develop alternative zoning schemes and assess their beneficial and adverse

impacts, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA).

10
Overview

Element 7: Select Indicators and Specify Standards for Each

Zone; Develop a Monitoring Plan. Indicators (specific, measurable variables that will be monitored) and standards (minimum

acceptable conditions) are identified for each zone. A monitoring plan is developed that identifies priorities, methods, funding, and staffing strategies and analysis requirements.

Monitoring and Management Action

Element 8: Monitor Resource and Social Indicators. The park

staff regularly monitors resource and social conditions in various zones. Staff and funding limitations will usually necessitate

setting priorities and monitoring indicators only in the most

critical areas.

Element 9: Take Management Action. When monitoring indicates that social or resource conditions are out of standard or

are deteriorating toward a standard, management action must

be taken.

VERP AND NPS PLANNING

The VERP framework was conceived and designed to be part of

the park GMP process. Indeed, many of the elements in the

VERP framework, such as developing park purpose and significance statements and describing future conditions by individual

management zones, will be integral to most park general management plans. According to current NPS guidance, general

management plans will qualitatively address carrying capacity by

describing the visitor experience and resource condition by

zone. Most future general management plans, therefore, will

not contain further carrying capacity details. In most cases the

more quantitative elements of the VERP framework — specifying indicators and standards, developing a monitoring strategy,

and identifying management actions needed to address conditions when standards are reached or exceeded — will be accomplished in an implementation plan that is developed after the

completion of a general management plan.

There may be other situations where VERP planning will be

applied outside of the GMP process. For example, it may be

necessary at times to address visitor use issues for parks with

older general management plans or to address visitor use issues

in only one or two areas in a park. A separate visitor management plan or an amendment to an existing plan may be appropriate in these cases.

11
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

VERP and NEPA

All VERP planning, including the development and revision of

standards and management actions and the development of a

VERP implementation plan, is subject to the provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act. As much as possible, a decision to pursue a VERP effort should be analyzed in the environmental documentation accompanying a general management

plan. But often it may not be possible in a general management

plan to predict the full range of management actions needed to

implement a VERP effort or the consequences of those actions.

In this case additional NEPA documentation may be needed to

cover the standards and management actions in a VERP implementation plan. If major or controversial actions are proposed

after an implementation plan is completed, or a decision is

made to revise indicators or standards, further NEPA documentation may be needed. (For further general guidance on when to

apply NEPA compliance, readers should refer to the National

Park Service National Environmental Policy Act Guidelines.)

12
Element 1

Assemble an Interdisciplinary Project Team

Planning is a complex challenge that should be accomplished by

an interdisciplinary team. Careful thought needs to be given to

selecting team members to ensure that the team has the necessary skills, knowledge, and expertise to develop and guide the

implementation of a plan. A core team should be assembled

consisting of

• a team leader/planner (someone to lead the team

through the framework)

• a decision maker (superintendent or assistant

superintendent)

• two or three key park staff/specialists

It is essential that all of these individuals be part of the core

team. In addition to the core team members, a variety of consultants will likely participate at different points in the development of a plan.

POINTERS FOR BUILDING THE TEAM

� Park staff must play a major role in the development of a plan

because they will be responsible for implementing it. If the

plan is to succeed, it is important that the planning team cultivate staff understanding of and ownership in the plan.

� Developing a plan may take a lot of time and effort. It is

essential that before beginning work on a plan, the park

superintendent and park staff are aware of the future workload requirements and are willing and able to make the

needed time commitments. This commitment must be strong

throughout the planning effort. If team members do not

attend meetings, do not do assigned work, or drop off the

team, the chances significantly increase that the plan will fail.

13
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

(The ability of people to commit to team participation may be

one of the criteria in selecting team members.)

� The core team should be kept relatively small (i.e., 3–7 members). It should include diverse perspectives and disciplines,

and should represent a range of park staff and management.

� Since direction must be given to the planning team on numerous details, it is desirable to have the superintendent on the

core team. In instances where the superintendent cannot sit

in, the assistant superintendent should participate. In the latter case, the superintendent should be regularly briefed on

the status of the effort to avoid any surprises.

� The core team should rely on consultants to provide additional skills and abilities. The number and types of consultants and the duration of their involvement will vary

depending on the core team’s needs and abilities and the

characteristics of the park. Some of these consultants could

be from outside the Park Service, including other agencies,

stakeholders, and research institutions. Individuals who might

participate in different planning projects or at different times

on the same project include

• natural resource specialists

• cultural resource specialists

• resource managers

• interpretive specialists

• natural resource scientists

• social scientists

• geographic information system specialists

• public involvement specialists

• park maintenance specialists

• concession management specialists

• landscape architects

• writer/editors

• community planners

• facilitators

• state historic preservation officers

14
Element 2

Develop a Public Involvement Strategy

Parks have a great deal of symbolic value to the American

public and are often the focus of intense emotions. Public

involvement in the planning process helps the planning team to

understand the values people hold in relation to park resources

and the visitor experience and is critical to creating a plan that

can be successfully implemented. Underlying all fundamental

planning decisions are competing values, which must be

resolved by a decision as to which value is of greater importance

in this particular situation. A planning decision is the compromise between competing values at a given point in time. Understanding public values enables the planning team to make

informed planning decisions.

Involving the public in the planning process helps a planning

team to

• learn about public concerns, issues, expectations, and

values

• educate people about the planning process, issues, and

proposed management action

• learn about the values placed by other people and groups

on the same resources and visitor experience

• collect data and validate proposals (e.g., information on

public values and issues, on how people use a park, on

existing and desired conditions, and on the acceptability

of proposed indicators, standards, and management

actions)

• define the range of alternatives

• build support among local publics, visitors, Congress, and

others for implementing the plan

Developing a public involvement strategy is one of the planning

team’s first tasks. The strategy should outline opportunities for

I know no safe depository of the

ultimate power of society but the people

themselves, and if we think them not

enlightened enough to exercise their

control with a wholesome discretion, the

remedy is not to take it from them, but

to inform their discretion by education.

— Thomas Jefferson

15
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

public involvement throughout the planning effort and should

be carefully and systematically designed as part of the decisionmaking process. The public and the planning team should

exchange information and ideas throughout the process, not just

after decisions have been made. When this does not occur, public comment is likely to be received either too early or too late

to be usable, or it may fail to focus on the critical issues.

The public needs to understand how their input will be used,

how decisions will be made, and the consequences of potential

management action. There should be a link between public

comment and decision making, or the public will see no reason

to participate.

The success in implementing a public involvement strategy

depends upon preplanning and preparation. For each element

in the plan it is important to know why the team is involving the

public, what needs to be accomplished, and what information

needs to be exchanged between the Park Service and the public.

Only after these questions have been answered should the team

determine which public involvement techniques would be most

appropriate. The timing of public involvement events should be

sensitive to the amount of information generated and the decisions made since the last time the team interacted with the

public.

The planning team may need to actively solicit the views of

some groups that might not otherwise participate and may need

to explore alternative forms of public involvement that are sensitive to the groups’ needs and culture. It is important to involve

as many people, organizations, and agencies as possible that

may be affected by or have a stake in the outcome of planning

and implementation decisions. All groups and individuals

should have equal access to information as well as equal opportunities to interact with the planning team.

Below are some factors that should be considered in identifying

publics to involve in a planning process.

Proximity. People who live in the immediate area of

the park may be affected by noise, the influx of

people, or the changes in public use. Because of the

national interest in parks, NPS managers must

consider and balance information received from both

local and national publics. A sample of visitors from

across the United States and nationally based

organizations should also be involved.

16
Element 2

Economic Gain or Loss. Groups may have jobs or

competitive advantages to win or lose. For example,

concessionaires and local outfitters may disagree with

tribes over the use of areas sacred to the tribes.

Use. People’s use of a service or resource may be

affected by the outcome of the action.

Values. Some groups may be only peripherally

affected by the first three factors but find that some

of the issues raised by a proposed action directly

affect their values — their sense of the way things

ought to be. Whenever a proposed action touches on

issues such as free enterprise versus government

control or jobs versus environmental protection,

there may be individuals who participate primarily

because of the values involved.

Park staff involvement is an important component of public

involvement, especially in large parks where many staff members will not participate directly in developing the plan. Park

staff understanding and involvement will likely be critical in

establishing community support for the plan and for successful

plan implementation.

While public involvement cannot be considered a statistically

valid survey, it can be viewed as a snapshot of public opinion. It

should be remembered that the information received by the

planning team only represents the people who responded. Also,

public involvement is not a voting process. The results of a public involvement effort should be used, along with the analysis of

other information and data gathered during the planning

process, to make rational and defensible planning decisions.

Good planning ensures that everyone who has a stake in the

outcome of a decision understands and can accept the decision

as it is being made. To achieve this objective the public must be

convinced and understand that

• doing something is better than doing nothing

• the planning process is reasonable and fair, and not

predetermined

• park managers are truly listening to the public

• park managers are trying to minimize hardships while

still solving the problems

Public involvement in VERP planning is critical because carrying capacity decisions are value-laden. Public opinion assists in

17
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

defining important values in a park, determining acceptable and

unacceptable visitor experiences, and identifying appropriate

management actions and restrictions. If the public does not

understand and support the results of the planning effort, the

successful implementation of a VERP plan is unlikely.

POINTERS FOR DEVELOPING

A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY

� When identifying interested publics, identify the members of

the public that can help this framework move forward

(enablers) and those who have the real or perceived power to

stop or derail this framework (disablers). It is important to

ensure active involvement by these individuals and groups

throughout the framework.

� The public and the Park Service may have very different perceptions on how much time should elapse or how much progress has been made between public involvement

opportunities. It may be appropriate to ask some agencies,

organizations, and individuals how they would like to be

involved, and how often, to ensure that contact with stakeholders is timely and occurs at appropriate junctures in the

planning process.

� Solidify objectives for public involvement before focusing on

techniques to ensure that the team selects the most effective

public involvement technique.

� Public involvement must be timely. Do not move too far forward in the framework or allow too much time to elapse without consulting the public.

� Clearly explain to the public how decisions are made in the

framework, who is responsible for making those decisions,

and how public input will be used in making those decisions.

� Only presenting the results of the planning team’s work to the

public, without giving the supporting rationale (linkages), can

lead to unnecessary challenges and misunderstandings.

18
Element 3

Develop Statements of Park Purpose, Significance, and Primary

Interpretive Themes; Identify Planning Constraints

Park purpose and significance statements, as well as the NPS

mission, clarify the most basic assumptions about park use and

management, and provide context for how a park should be

managed or used. These foundation elements can be thought of

the cornerstones of a corral, as shown in figure 1. This corral

forms the boundaries that limit decisions concerning a park.

If park purpose, significance, primary interpretive themes, and

planning constraints have not been identified, work on other

elements of the VERP framework should not begin until the

statements are clearly articulated and understood by both park

management and the public.

If park purpose and significance statements and primary interpretive themes do already exist, they still should be reviewed

and either be validated or updated.

Park

Purpose

NPS Mission

Laws

Policies

Park

Significance

all decisions

about the park

Figure 1. Planning Corral

19
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes should

not be identified early in the framework and later forgotten.

Everything the planning team does in the VERP framework

should be continually tested against park purpose, significance,

and primary interpretive themes.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARK

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

The foundation of park planning, and the VERP framework, is

formed by the purpose and significance of a park. In any planning effort, the participants (including the planners, park staff,

and the public) have assumptions, frequently not articulated,

about the basic purpose and significance of a park. All planning

discussions, proposals, and assessments, and all management

decisions and actions will be filtered and evaluated by each individual based on his or her own set of assumptions. Until these

assumptions are examined and understood by the participants,

subsequent planning and management will lack focus and continuity, and public understanding and consent will be difficult or

impossible to achieve.

Park purpose is defined as the reason or reasons the area was set

aside as a unit of the national park system. Park significance is

summarized in statements that capture the essence of the park’s

importance to our natural and/or cultural heritage — what is so

important about this area that it belongs in the national park

system? Significance statements place a park in a broader

regional, national, or international context.

In addition to park purpose, all parks are subject to many legal

and administrative mandates that apply to managing the

national park system. Some special mandates also may apply to

a particular park that are worthy of discussion and special consideration, either because they are unusual (such as a special

provision for grazing in the establishing legislation of a park) or

because they add another dimension to park purpose and significance (such as the designation of an area as part of the

national wilderness preservation system, or a designation as a

world heritage site or biosphere reserve). These special mandates may be documented in a park plan, but are listed separately from park purpose and significance.

20
Element 3

Pointers for Developing

Park Purpose Statements

� Purpose statements articulate the reasons the park exists;

they do not include mandates for management or other legislative requirements (see examples).

� Purpose statements must be grounded in park legislation, legislative history, and other formal designations (e.g., wilderness, biosphere reserve, or wild and scenic river status). Care

should be taken in quoting legislation or legislative history

verbatim as purpose or significance statements because the

language is often vague and open to differing interpretation.

Whenever possible, words contained in the legislation, such as

“outstanding,” “natural,” “preserve,” and “enhance,” should

be defined or qualified by the purpose statements (see examples).

� As much as possible, purpose statements should be specific to

the unit in question. If a purpose statement could be applied

to any park in the system, it should be reexamined.

� Park purpose generally does not change. But in some cases

they can evolve over time if conditions and values change

and/or new information becomes available.

� As a general rule, parks should not have more than three to

five purpose statements.

� All participants (planners, park staff, and the public) must

understand and accept the park purpose statements. The

statements are the result of extensive discussion and clarification. Draft statements should be developed by a small, facilitated group, and then the statements should be evaluated and

refined by larger groups and the public.

Examples of Park Purpose Statements

� To manage park scenery, natural and cultural resources, and

wildlife in a manner consistent with the 1916 Organic Act.

This is not an effective purpose statement. It is merely a

restatement of the NPS mission and policy. All this statement

really says is that we are going to obey the law.

� To provide for livestock grazing, consistent with legislation and

proclamations, while conserving and protecting resources.

21
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

This is not an appropriate purpose statement. While providing for livestock grazing is a legislative mandate for this particular park, grazing is not the reason the park was

established. This statement would be more appropriately

documented as a special mandate.

� Preserve and protect special geologic features: labyrinths of

remarkable canyons, volcanic phenomena, fossiliferous deposits,

brilliantly colored strata, and rare sedimentation.

This is a much better purpose statement. It ties the purpose

of this park to those essential features detailed in the

enabling legislation.

� Preserve (for research) and interpret (for commemoration) sites

and remains associated with the American Colonial period from

1607–1781.

Again, this statement is park-specific and begins to establish

park priorities. The words “preserve” and “commemorate,”

which appeared in the legislation, are better defined.

� Perpetuate, for future generations, a representative sample of the

natural and cultural resources of the Big Dry Desert.

This statement gives some information about park priorities

and also qualifies the word “preserve,” which was in the original legislation. At this park, the preservation of the entire Big

Dry Desert would be impossible because of the small size of

the park and increasing development outside the park boundary. So the staff used the language, “perpetuate...a representative sample,” as an achievable purpose.

Pointers for Developing

Park Significance Statements

� Significance statements should define the overall significance

of a park. Park significance is not an inventory of park

resources or even “significant” park resources; a repetition of

purpose statements; a statement of fact about or a description

of a resource (without placing the statement in context); or a

statement that a resource is significant (without explaining

why it is important).

� A good test for significance statements is to ask, “If this

resource or value were removed, would we still have XYZ

National Park?” For example, Black Rocks National Monument was set aside to preserve distinctive volcanic features.

22
Element 3

Nearby, and in park boundaries, is a section of trail ruts associated with the Irish migration to Mexico. If the volcanic

rocks were gone, would we still have Black Rocks NM? If the

answer is no, the volcanic rocks represent park significance. If

the Irish trail were removed, would we still have Black Rocks

NM? If the answer is yes, even though the trail resource may

carry its own significance, and the park may have some management and protection responsibility for it, the trail is not

representative of park significance.

� Significance statements are intended to help set park priorities. The tendency to make significance statements inclusive

enough to justify all ongoing park programs should be

resisted. However, it should also be recognized that park

staffs need to do many things that are not necessarily supported by their significance, but are dictated by laws or NPS

policy. For example, a park whose significance is primarily

archeological may need management programs in place to

protect habitats for endangered species, even though the

endangered species are not included in park significance

statements.

� The argument may be made that all park resources are

important, and therefore, it is not possible to determine significance or set priorities — all park resources are the highest

priority. However, park managers need to know what is most

important when making decisions on allocating limited money

and staff time.

� Do not forget to consider park values from multiple cultural

perspectives. For example, Native Americans may have different views on the significance of a park, which should be

included in the list of significance statements.

� To find information about significance consult the park enabling legislation and associated history, documentation in

support of special designations (such as a world heritage site

or biosphere reserve), research reports, and experts.

� The number of significance statements will vary with each

park unit. However, not even a park as large and diverse as

Yellowstone National Park should have more than 10. Most

parks will have three to five statements. If a significance statement can be applied to every unit in the system, it is not a

good statement; significance statements are park-specific.

(See the examples below for more tips.)

� As with purpose statements, all participants (planners, park

staff, and the public) must understand and accept the park

23
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

significance statements and must be involved in writing them

and/or have input in refining them. The involvement of

experts who know and understand park resources is crucial in

developing accurate and useful significance statements. (Usually park staff members are the experts, but there may be

experts outside the staff who should be consulted.) On the

other hand, significance statements that are written by only

one or two experts may omit some statements or fail to

describe park significance so it can be understood by park

staff, planners, or the public. Draft significance statements

should be developed by a small, facilitated group, and then

the statements should be evaluated and refined by larger

groups and the public.

Examples of Park Significance Statements

� The park and surrounding area provide a wide array of recreational activities.

This is not a good significance statement. Can you think of a

park about which this could not be said?

� The park contributes significantly to local economies in many

ways.

While this may be a true statement, and may even represent

park significance to a limited segment of the public, it does

not represent the part of American heritage preserved at this

park. Therefore, it is not a good significance statement. It

would be an appropriate part of the description of the park

and its relationship to the region in which it is located.

� The park and surrounding area provide a diversity of travel experiences, from paved and dirt roads, to trails, and unmarked

backcountry routes.

This may be a valid “desired future,” but it is more an evaluation of the park infrastructure than a statement about the

overall significance of the park.

� The park contains significant archeological and historical

resources.

This statement is not useful because “significance” is not

defined. Are they significant because they are rare, numerous, good examples of their type, the only ones in existence,

or what?

24
Element 3

� The park contains one of the very few accessible examples of

intertidal communities and chaparral communities representative of the southern California coastal environment.

This significance statement is useful. It calls out special features (intertidal communities and chaparral communities),

puts them in context (representative of the California coastal

environment), and qualifies the significance (one of very few

accessible examples).

Listed below are some more clear statements of park significance. They explain the nature of the significance and put the

area in context:

• The most pristine and biologically diverse area of the Big

Dry Desert occurring in the United States.

• The climactic campaign of the Revolutionary War — the

symbolic end of British colonization.

• The park contains one of the last free-flowing river systems

contributing to major canyon formation on the Colorado

Plateau.

IDENTIFICATION OF

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Primary interpretive themes are those ideas about park

resources that are so important that every park visitor should

understand them. The list of primary themes does not include

everything a park staff may wish or need to interpret, but should

cover those ideas that are critical to visitor understanding of

park significance.

There is not complete agreement among planners on the need

to include primary interpretive themes as a part of the planning

foundation. Those who do not believe that primary themes

should be included argue that identifying themes places more

emphasis on the interpretation program than other park programs. Those who support identifying primary themes argue

that, just as significance statements begin to set resource protection priorities, the primary interpretive themes flow out of park

significance and help set visitor experience priorities. In other

words, the primary interpretive themes help define the visitor

experience opportunities that should be provided in a park.

25
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

A new trend in some parks is to articulate “park themes” that

are broader than interpretive themes and can be thought of as

themes for resource management and maintenance as well as

for the interpretation program. Examples of both kinds of

themes are offered below.

Pointers for Articulating

Primary Interpretive Themes

� Primary themes are only those basic ideas that communicate

the significance of the park. This is not an outline of the

entire park interpretation program. Do not list all of park

interpretive themes and call them primary themes.

� To be most useful, themes should be written as complete sentences to communicate a complete thought. Incomplete

thoughts do not provide enough focus to be useful in guiding

planning and management efforts. For example, rather than

writing, “the importance of Spanish and Portuguese exploration” (a topic, not a complete thought), write “Spain and Portugal played major roles in human understanding of the globe

— they explored three-quarters of the U.S. and colonized half

of it” (a complete thought, and the actual message to be conveyed).

� The list of primary interpretive themes is short. Most parks

should not have more than three to five primary interpretive

themes. Keep in mind that some significance does not need to

be interpreted, only experienced. For example, many parks

include unusual or particularly spectacular scenic vistas as

part of their significance; such vistas rarely require

interpretation.

Examples of Primary Interpretive

Themes and Park Themes

The following primary interpretive themes were developed for

the Blue Ridge Parkway:

• The Blue Ridge region is among the biologically richest areas in North America.

• Material cultures and life ways in the Blue Ridge province illustrate how isolation and assimilation shape cultures.

26
Element 3

• The parkway is a special roadway and a managed landscape that was designed to maximize scenic values.

A different approach to developing primary interpretive themes

was taken at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument:

• At John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

there are lots of fossils

there is a great diversity of fossils

the fossils are very well preserved

the fossils represent an unusually long time span

the fossils are datable

Thus, it is wonderful place to study evolutionary change.

At Isle Royale National Park the park staff identified “park

themes” instead of primary interpretive themes. These themes

incorporate key resources and stories that characterize the park.

Some examples of these park themes include:

• Self-sufficiency is a way of life on Isle Royale. Selfsufficiency is as important today for park backpackers, canoeists, and boaters as it was for those who first used and

settled the island — Native Americans, European miners,

lighthouse keepers, and commercial fishermen.

• Isle Royale is a living laboratory where plant and animal life

can be studied in a relatively simple and controlled ecosystem. The theory of island biogeography is illustrated by both

the limited number and variety of species found here.

• Because of Isle Royale’s generally undisturbed setting, it is

an important source of information about the world around

us — how the world evolved, how the impacts of civilization

have altered natural systems, and what the unmodified environment holds.

• The Park Service is striving to sustain the native fishery of

Isle Royale National Park — perhaps the most exceptional

fishery in the Great Lakes region. For centuries Isle Royale’s

waters have attracted fishermen — prehistoric people, immigrant commercial fishermen, and today’s sport fishermen. A

relic of the past, adaptive fishing lifestyle and technology still

remains and reminds us of this significant island culture.

27
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

IDENTIFICATION OF

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Planning constraints are those decisions that are “givens” and

usually are not reconsidered during the planning effort. Examples include decisions that are contained in recently approved

plans, the conditions of current concession contracts, understandings or agreements made between the park and another

agency, tribal government, or members of the public, past promises, and political commitments.

Many planning participants will have their own ideas about what

can and cannot be considered in a planning process. Waiting too

long to clarify these assumptions will create problems and confusion later on. Sometimes the public will have strong feelings

about issues that will not be addressed in a particular plan.

Early identification of what will and will not be addressed in the

planning effort is important in focusing attention on appropriate

issues and not raising expectations on issues that are outside the

scope of the VERP framework.

Pointers for Identifying Planning Constraints

� There must be justification for planning constraints. The

opinions and personal agendas of planners or managers or

“we have always done it this way” are not sufficient

justifications.

� Other governmental agency mandates may affect a park, and

therefore, should not be forgotten. For example, the mandates of an adjacent national forest may constrain how park

management zones are applied in certain areas.

� Good sources of information on planning constraints include

park and other office files, staff with institutional memory

(e.g., long term park employees), and superintendents (who

may be a good source for political and other types of real and

perceived constraints).

� Planners and park staffs frequently assume that constraints

exist when in fact they are not real. Constraints also may be

assumed to be non-negotiable when that is not the case. Thus,

there is a need to question and validate planning constraints

before accepting them. This is particularly true for constraints

seen as park or local traditions. Discussion of what actions

must be done (“must do’s”) and what actions are not possible

(“can’t do’s”) often broaden the flexibility and scope of the

plan, rather than narrowing the plan.

28
Element 3

� Planning constraints should be identified, documented, and

shared with the public as early in the planning process as possible. All participants must understand these constraints.

� Constraints may need to be reexamined throughout a planning effort to ensure they are still valid. Information generated as a result of planning may alter thinking on some

constraints.

Examples of Planning Constraints

• The National Park Service will not ban motor boats, sport

fishing, or docking facilities in the park (political constraint, past promise).

• Fishing in the park will be managed in cooperation with

the state (past formal agreement).

• The National Park Service will minimize the loss or

degradation of wetlands in the park (executive order).

• There will be no additional land acquisition in the park

boundaries (political constraint, past promise).

• The National Park Service will keep open the XXX

Campground regardless of money and staff limitations

(political commitment).

• The National Park Service will abide by the policies of

the interagency management commission (formal agreement).

29
Element 4

Analyze Park Resources and the Existing Visitor Use

Element 4 is intended to provide the planning team with a

common understanding of park resources and visitor experiences.The term “resource” is defined here as the biotic, geologic, hydrologic, aesthetic, ethnographic, architectural, historic,

and archaeological elements and features contained in a park.

The mix of these resources helps shape visitor experiences in a

park. The team analyzes resources and visitor experience in

order to

• categorize important information and give the planning

team a common vocabulary

• understand what experience opportunities, based upon

park resources, could be provided to visitors in the constraints of resource protection

• document existing conditions and uses in the park

It is important to remember that this element describes existing

conditions; it does not prescribe future conditions.

ANALYSIS AS IT RELATES TO VERP

Using analysis techniques to provide a working understanding

of resources and existing conditions is common to all planning

efforts. There are several aspects of the VERP framework, however, that require some changes in the way NPS planners traditionally have carried out analysis activities for planning.

• Need to Document the Analysis. In the past much analysis

was carried out more or less intuitively and through discussion among the planning team members. Because of

the need to document the decision-making thought process throughout the VERP framework, the team’s

30
Element 4

analysis, and the conclusions the team draws from it must

be documented.

• Need to Understand Resources from an Experiential Viewpoint. The opportunities for diverse visitor experiences in

a particular park are largely determined by resource

characteristics such as variety, attractiveness and accessibility to visitors, and the relationship of various resources

to park purpose and significance. Planners and managers

need to understand these resource characteristics in order to define and manage for a range of visitor experiences that is appropriate to that park.

• Need to Understand the Ability of the Resource to Withstand/Tolerate Use. Providing opportunities for visitors to

experience resources must be undertaken in the context

of resource protection and preservation. Different resources have different abilities to accommodate various

visitor activities. Identifying the most sensitive resources

or resource areas is an initial step in ensuring the provision of appropriate types and levels of visitor use.

• Need to Test or Question the Appropriateness and Current

Location of Existing Facilities and Infrastructure. In the

past the Park Service’s usual response to increasing pressure from visitor use has been to harden sites and/or to

increase the capacity of facilities and infrastructure (such

as roads and utility systems). The VERP framework offers additional solutions based on the desirability of experiences that may require fewer facilities, smaller facilities,

or facilities in different locations than currently are

provided.

Analysis results are used throughout the VERP planning elements to

• help define the potential range of management zones

that may be appropriate in a particular park

• help determine where particular management zones

might be placed in a park (for example, higher use zones

should be allocated to more resilient resource areas)

• justify why certain zones are allocated (or not allocated)

to certain locations; as baseline data against which to

evaluate the implications of zoning areas one way versus

another (impact analysis)

31
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

• help park managers make management decisions long after a particular plan is completed.

Analysis is a creative process — there is no one right way to

accomplish it, so long as the needed outcomes are produced. In

this section of the handbook, we discuss three kinds of analysis,

all of which are recommended for a VERP project. While examples are presented, planners should keep in mind that these

examples are not necessarily the only methods that could be

employed. Analysis methods must be tailored to the needs of

each individual situation, the availability of data and technology

in each particular park, and the capabilities and experience of

the planning team.

Pointers for Analysis

� While there are different approaches that can be followed in

this element, whatever approach is used must be documented.

This will help keep track of important decisions made along

the way, and it will be easier for the planning team to make

adjustments and correct errors.

� It is important to think about what information is really

needed for the plan. On the one hand, there is more park

resource information, and it is more accessible than ever before. On the other hand, the team will probably find that it

does not have all the resource information it would like. The

inventory of resources and existing conditions should be tailored to park significance, the goals and problems being

addressed in the plan, and the level of detail needed. Taking

the time to define needed baseline information will help

ensure that the team gets the appropriate information and

avoids wasting time and dollars collecting unnecessary data.

Keep in mind that it is better to take action to protect the

resources the team knows about than to do nothing because

the team does not have as complete information as it would

like.

� To understand a park, it is necessary to understand the context or environment in which the park is located. Lands adjacent to a park may affect the condition or sensitivity of park

resources, visitor experiences, and the need to provide various

opportunities in a park.

� There is a full range of graphic and text options that provide

flexibility in displaying analysis information. A combination of

text, matrices, and maps is common. Data layer overlays may

32
Element 4

be digitized and used as a part of a geographic information

system (GIS), or they may be hand drawn on polyester film

(e.g., Mylar) for manual overlaying of one sheet over another.

The decision to use GIS or hand-drawn maps is dependent

upon the complexity of data, the time frame for completing

the VERP work, the project budget, the availability of digitized data, and the staff expertise to do the specialized computer work.

� Resource analysis is usually best performed by experts (some

of whom may not be on the planning team or park staff) who

know the resources and have the knowledge or the understanding to carry out accurate evaluations. The planning team

may also want others, including visitors, stakeholders, and

citizens, to review the results of this analysis, because they

often can provide valuable insights and observations.

EXPERIENTIAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS

The purpose of this kind of analysis is to help the planning team

understand the park as a system of physically definable and

experientially different spaces. A park landscape can be thought

of as having a “floor plan” with a collection of individual rooms

or “landscape units” that can be entered and experienced, like

the rooms of a building. The intent of this task is to define the

park floor plan by identifying and mapping all of the individual

units that comprise the floor plan. In natural parks, topography,

hydrology, and vegetation will primarily define the park landscape units; in cultural resource parks, architectural elements

and structures and landscape plantings also may define units.

To accomplish this analysis, various data layers are combined

and analyzed to define a set of polygons that segment the entire

park into units or rooms. The polygons are based on the edges

or boundaries enclosing spaces with relatively homogeneous

vegetation, the characteristics of the surrounding landform and

waterform, or, in the case of a cultural area, the architectural

style or function of a particular space. Identifying landscape

units involves locating and mapping such elements as prominent

ridge lines, steep topographic slopes, forest edges, grouped

forms which dominate an area, architectural walls, buildings,

landscape plantings, junctions between land use areas, and land

cover patterns.

Once landscape units are defined, the experiential qualities of

each unit can be described. These descriptions might contain

information on colors, textures, spatial enclosure, vegetative

cover, and other natural or cultural resources contained in the

33
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

unit. Characterizing the experiential qualities of the landscape

units may show that some units provide very similar kinds of

experience opportunities. To carry the “room” analogy further,

a house may have ten rooms: five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a

kitchen, and a living room. Similarly, landscape units that share

experience characteristics may be grouped into opportunity

areas. For example, a park may have nine landscape units

defined by topography and vegetation, but because three of the

units are very similar to each other, the park would have only

seven opportunity areas. If all nine landscape units were experientially distinct, the landscape units and opportunity areas

would be the same.

How opportunity areas are mapped may differ for each park,

but the delineation of the opportunity areas should be determined by the resources. Opportunity areas should not be

defined by or be limited to existing park visitation patterns, the

established visitation uses, or the existing infrastructure (e.g.,

roads, trails, visitor centers, comfort stations, overlooks). Stating

this another way, planning teams should map opportunity areas

(i.e., develop a park floor plan) only based on resource-related

overlays. This allows the resources, the locations of attractions,

and the kinds of experience opportunities to direct the need for

and the location of park infrastructure, rather than the reverse.

Two examples of opportunity areas that were developed for the

Arches VERP plan are the fins and upland blackbrush flat.

• Fins. This opportunity area includes the Devils Garden,

Fiery Furnace, Klondike Bluffs, and Herdina Park areas.

They are dominated by the orange-to-reddish Entrada

sandstone fins and spires. In these areas there are labyrinths of spires, fins, chutes, and arches. The visitor experience in this opportunity area is very much inwardly

focused because of the high vertical landforms that limit

movement and views along narrow corridors. The immediate foreground and the focused corridor views of landforms dominate the experience; in contrast, the

importance of color and vegetation cover is minimal.

• Upland Blackbrush Flats. This opportunity area covers

most of Willow Flats. These areas are generally flat, with

some relief, and appear sandy or rocky. They have few

distinguishable geologic features. Low, dark, blackbrush

dominates the landscape. The vegetation can appear to

be an obstacle, and there are no obvious routes through

the areas.

34
Element 4

Figure 2 shows all of the opportunity areas that were identified

at Arches. (All of the Arches opportunity areas are described in

appendix A.)

For each of the opportunity areas, the Arches team evaluated

several attributes to determine which could support or sustain

visitor use, as well as the relative abundance of various

resources and the comparative importance of each area to the

park purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes.

This analysis helped to compare the human values inherent in

each of the opportunity areas and highlighted areas where

resource sensitivity may be in conflict with desired visitor. It also

assisted in determining the potential range of visitor experiences

and management zones for the park.

Table 1 shows the analysis that was developed for Arches. As

shown in the table, six specific attributes were analyzed for each

opportunity area. These include the

• relative abundance of the resource area, both in and outside the park

• ability of the resource area to conceal the evidence of

visitor use or development

• ability of the resource area to support or sustain visitor

use

• potential interest of the resource to visitors

• relative importance of the area to the park purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes

• sites or features in the resource area that are of critical

importance to park purpose, significance, and interpretive themes

35
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Figure 2. Resource Experience Opportunity Areas of Arches National Park

36
TABLE 1. RESOURCE ATTRRIBUTES FOR VISITOR USE

��������

������������ ��

���������

�������� ����������

����������� ����� �� ����

��� ��

����

������� ��

��������

�� �������

���

������� ��

�������� ��

���������

���

���������

�������� ��

�������� ��

�������

�������

��������

���� ����

���� ����

�����������

��������

�����

���� � � � � � � ��������� ��� ����� � � � � � � ������ ���������� ����� � � � � � �������������������� ����� � � � � � ������ ���� ��������� ������ � � � � � �������� ���������� ����� ����� ������ � � � � � � ����� ���� ��������� ������ � � � � � ���������������� � � � � � ������������ � � � � � ������ ������ � � � � � � 

� ������� ����� ��������� ������� ��������

� ���� ���� ���� ��������� ����� ���� ����

37
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Pointers for Experiential Resource Analysis

� The planning team may need to prepare several maps as well

as text and matrices to identify the landscape units and opportunity areas. For example, at Arches, edges were coarsely

identified on a map titled, “Landscape Framework.” Then,

the landscape units were established by drawing lines which

follow the natural boundaries and edges defined during the

landscape framework analysis. Landscape units were compared to see which units shared similar experience opportunities. These similar units were grouped, coded on a map, and

named to reflect the resource experience available there. To

differentiate the experience groups from landscape units, the

groups were termed resource experience opportunity areas. The

characteristics and patterns of each group of areas were

described and documented in writing and on a matrix. This

documentation allowed the introduction of information that

was difficult or impossible to map.

� Landscape units and opportunity areas are descriptive analysis tools, not prescriptive zoning tools. While the resource

characteristics in an opportunity area will help planners

decide what management zones might be appropriate or inappropriate in a particular area, the opportunity area boundaries should not be used to determine management zoning

boundaries. Some management zone boundaries may turn

out to be the same or similar to opportunity area boundaries,

but this should occur by coincidence, not by design.

� It is very important to understand how resources shape the

visitor experience, independent of park infrastructure. Keep

resource information separate from the inventories of park

facilities and visitor use (see next section).

EXISTING USE AND FACILITIES ANALYSIS

The purpose of this analysis is to understand the existing visitor

experience opportunities offered in the park by documenting

what people are doing, where they are doing it, how many people are using various park areas, and what facilities and infrastructure are currently present in the park. Analysis can help us

understand some of the reasons people go where they go and do

what they do in the park, including the identification of key

attractions sites, activity areas, and “hot” spots.

38
Element 4

Information the team may need for this analysis includes the

• location of park facilities (e.g., roads, parking areas,

trails, buildings, utility corridors)

• differences in standards and/or functions of the facilities

(e.g., paved, unpaved, gravel-surfaced roads; surfaced,

unsurfaced trails and boardwalks; visitor centers, administration buildings, restrooms)

• types of activities (e.g., hiking, crosscountry skiing, scenic

views)

• the circulation of visitor traffic and the sequence in which

opportunity areas are visited

• levels, timing, and seasonality of visitor use

• activity nodes

• areas with special use designations (e.g., wilderness areas,

wild and scenic rivers, historic districts)

• development and land use practices external to the park

(e.g., roads and trails, land ownership, existing activities,

land use zoning)

• key attractions in the region, especially those typically included in park visitor itineraries

Pointer for Existing Use and Facilities Analysis

� One of the most common areas of information lacking in

parks is how many people are where at any one time. Ideally,

this information should be collected prior to beginning a

VERP effort; however, if this does not occur, planners will

need to rely heavily on park staff knowledge to obtain this

information. This kind of data can be obtained by researchers

especially for a VERP effort, but gathering visitor use data

across large park areas will be costly and time consuming.

39
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

RESOURCE CONCERNS /

RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The purposes of this analysis are to identify the primary

resource concerns and resources that are sensitive to human use

or environmental change. Identifying resource concerns and

sensitive resources helps the planning team define potential

management zones and apply the zones to the park in a manner

that minimizes conflict between visitor use and resource

protection.

Resource concerns or threats are often described in text. For

example, a concern in some areas is that the populations of certain bird species are declining because they can no longer find

enough large, uninterrupted tracts of forest in which to breed. A

short paragraph could provide enough information to help a

planning team site development and transportation corridors so

that forests are not further fragmented, or so that forest fragments are reconnected. Schematic maps (with notes, symbols,

and arrows) can also be used to illustrate resource threats.

The product of resource sensitivity analysis is typically one or

more maps showing the relative resource sensitivity of different

areas to human activity or environmental change (e.g., habitat

alteration or facility development). Individual sensitive

resources are first mapped at relatively coarse scale, either by

hand or in a GIS format. Then the individual maps are overlaid

(again by hand or digitally) to create a “synthesis map” showing

the spatial distribution of all of the sensitive resources and their

locations relative to other park features, such as infrastructure.

The overlay method also identifies places where more than one

sensitive resource occurs in the same area. In some cases, before

overlaying the resource layers, the planning team assigns a

higher weight (or value) to certain resources known to be more

sensitive or vulnerable to impacts. On the resulting synthesis

map, highly sensitive areas represent either particularly sensitive

individual resources or areas where two or more sensitive

resources co-occur.

The type of sensitive resources identified and mapped may vary

with the size and character of the park and with the nature of

available information. Examples include

• archeological resources

• wetland areas

• floodplain areas

• erosive soil and steep slopes

40
Element 4

• threatened and endangered species and their habitat

• rare or special plant communities or associations (e.g.,

dunes, bogs, tundra)

• corridors for animal movement (often drainages or

stream courses)

• wildlife winter range

• critical nesting, mating, or breeding areas

• historical sites and structures

• historic districts

Pointers for Resource Concerns /

Resource Sensitivity Analysis

� When planning teams use synthesis maps, questions often

arise regarding specific resources in certain areas. Therefore,

it is usually helpful for the team to have individual resource

maps (as well as synthesis maps) available for reference.

� The team should understand the nature of the ecosystem

characteristics, such as succession, nutrient cycling, energy

flow, and disturbance regimes. The team should also consult

with experts as needed. Understanding the ecosystem structure and function will help identify resource threats, as well as

components and relationships that must be preserved to

ensure ecosystem health. In the Arches case, for example,

insights into the importance of the cryptobiotic soil crust (a

living soil consisting of cynobacteria, lichens, and mosses) led

the planning team to use soil crust as an indicator of ecosystem integrity.

41
Element 5

Describe a Potential Range of Visitor Experiences and Resource Conditions

(Potential Management Zones)

In element five, the focus moves from being descriptive to being

prescriptive. In this element the team begins to formulate and

describe future conditions for a park. Element five focuses on

determining what resource and managerial conditions and visitor experience opportunities should exist in a park.

IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY

Providing opportunities for a range of visitor experiences is an

important part of planning for most national parks. One might

ask, “why should a park provide opportunities for more than

one type of experience?” Visitors come to national parks for

very different and sometimes conflicting reasons. By providing a

diversity of settings, visitors can theoretically select which

experience(s) most closely match the reason that they came to

the park. Also, planning for a diversity of experiences helps to

avoid the conflicts that often occur among visitors who want different things from their visits.

National parks normally provide opportunities for a diversity of

experiences by providing a variety of settings or environments

for visitors. For example, in Yosemite National Park, a visitor

can experience a largely urban environment (Yosemite Valley)

and also experience wilderness in the high Sierras. In Yosemite,

as in other national parks, many other identifiable settings are

between these two extremes.

In the past park managers and planners did not try to define the

types of visitor experience opportunities different areas in a

park could best provide. It also was not recognized that changes

in the levels of visitor use and in behavior, as well as visitor

impacts and management reactions to those impacts, affect the

diversity of visitor experiences in the parks. Most visitors went

to areas in the parks with special attractions (e.g., Old Faithful

42
Element 5

Geyser, Yosemite Valley) and/or to easily accessible areas. Park

managers and planners largely responded to increasing visitor

use levels with what were believed to be appropriate infrastructure and management policies. For instance, sites often were

altered to accommodate more visitor use. But, the increased levels of use and reactive management action frequently changed

the characteristics of the settings and the visitor experience.

The VERP framework takes a different approach from what

was done in the past. The framework is prescriptive and proactive about

• what visitor experience opportunities are provided in a

park

• what the essential elements of those experiences are, how

much land should be allocated to various visitor experience opportunities

• where in the park should the opportunities be provided.

The VERP framework also is intended to ensure that a diversity

of experiences is available in a park. It is not intended to ensure

that a diversity of experiences will be available at every attraction in the park, nor is it intended to protect all experiences in

all zones. It may not be possible to provide opportunities for a

diversity of experiences at unique attractions, such as at Old

Faithful Geyser.

IDENTIFYING THE RANGE OF POTENTIAL

RESOURCE CONDITIONS AND VISITOR

EXPERIENCES

The objective of element five is to determine the range of

potential visitor experiences and resource conditions that can be

accommodated in a park. This is done by creating a series of

potential management zones. Each potential zone is defined by

the

• resource conditions

• social conditions

• kinds and levels of visitor uses

• kinds and levels of park development

• kinds and levels of management activity

43
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Both matrices and written narratives are developed to describe

the potential zones. It is usually best to start out developing a

matrix similar to table 2. The matrix consists of two axes. One

axis lists the potential zones, while the other axis consists of key

factors, or descriptors, that describe the potential quality of the

zones and differentiate one potential zone from another.

The potential zone names are relatively unimportant but should

be derived from the visitor experience opportunities or

resources in the zone instead of the infrastructure in the zone.

For example, rural (an experience opportunity) is a better name

than unpaved road (an infrastructure feature).

The descriptors usually can be separated into three main

categories.

• Social Descriptors. Those aspects about the experience

that are related to the effect of visitors on other visitors

(e.g., visitor behavior, numbers).

• Resource Descriptors. The biological, geological, cultural, or scenic aspects related to the experience.

• Managerial Descriptors. Those aspects of the visitor experience that are controlled by management (e.g., infrastructure, the presence of park staff, the intensity of

management, and signing). Once the matrix is filled in,

written descriptions of each of the potential zones should

be completed. These narratives expand on the matrix,

providing a more holistic perspective on the zones and

their characteristics.

After the descriptors are chosen, the matrix is filled in by the

planning team. The objective here is to seek a consensus on

what the potential zones are and how they qualitatively differ

from other zones — it is not necessary to be definitive and

quantitative at this point. Words qualifying the descriptors may

include: “large,” “small,” “moderate,” “high,” “low,” “extreme,”

“minuscule,” “not applicable,” “medium,” and “variable.”

Developing the potential zones may take several days. Substantial revisions may be required as the team begins to relate the

potential zones to specific geographical areas (see element 6).

New descriptors often are added; others may be deleted. Potential zones may be combined when there appear to be little difference between them. Other potential zones may be added if

the team subsequently identifies omissions in the range of

desired visitor experiences and resource conditions.

44
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES, ARCHES NATIONAL PARK

���������

���������� ����� ���������� ����� ����������� ���������

���������

�����������

���������

�����

���

������

������

�������������������� ��� ����������� ����������

��� �������� ������������� ���������

����

���� ��� ��� �������

���������� �� ������������� �� ����� ����������

���� ����

��������

��� ���� ���� ���� ���� �������

������� ���������������������

���� ���� ���������

����

��� ���� ��� ���� ���� �������� ��� 

��� ����� ���������

������������

�������� �������� ��� ���� ��� �������� ��� ���� ��� 

���������� ��������� ���������������� � �����

�� ��� ��� ��� ����� ������ ���� ��������� 

���������� ��������� ���������������� � ������

����������� ����

������������� ����

������������� ����

��� ���������

�� ����

��� ��� 

���������� ������ ����������� ���������� ���

������

���� ���� ���� �������� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �������

��������� ��� ��������

�����������

��� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� �������� ��� ��� 

����������� ��� �������� ���� ��� ��� �������� ���� ���� ��� ��� �������� ����� ����� �������� ��� ��� ���� ��� ���� �������� ����������� ��� �������

��������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �������� �������

��������������� �� ������

��������������

���� �������� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� 

45
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Examples of potential zones are described below. The first two

descriptions are from the Arches VERP implementation plan.

The third is from the Isle Royale National Park General Management Plan and is included to show some of the variety of

zones and the ways they may be described. (A description of all

the zones from the Arches plan is included in appendix B.)

Example of Zone Descriptions

from Arches National Park

Pedestrian Zone. This zone is comprised of high use trail corridors that access prime park features. The areas in this zone are

predominately natural, but with much evidence of the sights and

sounds of people. Visitors can see, touch, smell, and hear park

resources as they walk along a well-defined trail, but they will

not feel like they are far from their cars or conveniences. Paved

or hardened trails and small interpretive structures are the only

facilities present. Some trails would be accessible to visitors with

disabilities. To use this area, visitors must make a short time

commitment and physically exert themselves to some degree.

There are limited opportunities for challenge and adventure,

and the need for outdoor skills is relatively unimportant. The

probability of encountering visitors is very high and moderate

for encountering NPS staff; many people may be present. No

vehicles or stock are permitted in this zone.

Visitors, sites, and trails are intensively managed in the pedestrian zone to ensure resource protection and public safety (e.g.,

with fences, intensive law enforcement, and restrictions on visitor activities). Resources can be modified for essential visitor

and park operation needs, but they are changed in a way that

harmonizes with the natural environment. Except for these

essential changes, the Park Service's tolerance for resource

degradation here is low.

Hiker Zone. This zone is applied to trail corridors and areas of a

somewhat more primitive nature than those in the pedestrian

zone. The hiker zone provides a sense of being immersed in a

natural landscape and feels somewhat distant from most comforts and conveniences. Unpaved, maintained trails, and sometimes cairned routes are the only facilities in this zone.

Opportunities exist to experience challenge and adventure. Visitors must commit a block of time, have some outdoor skills, and

expend some physical exertion to use the area. The probability

of encountering other visitors is moderate to high (although

there are opportunities for solitary experiences) and moderate

46
Element 5

for encountering NPS staff. No vehicles or stock are permitted

here.

A high level of management is provided for resource protection

and safety purposes in the hiker zone (e.g., placing stones along

trail edges and restricting off-trail use and group sizes). Some

resource modifications are evident, but they harmonize with the

natural environment. Park Service tolerance for resource

degradation here is low.

Example of Zone Description from Isle Royale

National Park — Motorized Sensitive Waters

Zone

Visitor Experience. This would be a zone where motorboat-borne

visitors and others could go to find relatively tranquil, natural

marine surroundings. The probability of encountering other

visitors would be moderate, but solitude would be possible. Tolerance for noise, visual intrusions, and social interaction would

be moderate. Any challenge or adventure would probably relate

to navigation in difficult climatic conditions. Visitors would

need to be relatively self-sufficient.

Resource Condition or Character. This zone could be in sheltered

Lake Superior harbors and bays where calm waters and relatively quiet are desirable for safety, resource, or visitor experience reasons. It might be appropriate, for example, in harbors

or bays where water birds nest or where facilities such as visitor

centers or campgrounds are located. A moderate level of management would be provided for resource protection and visitor

safety. The tolerance for resource degradation in this zone

would be low.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or Facilities. Human-powered and

motor-powered watercraft could be found in these waters. Boats

would travel at slow speeds and leave no wake. Boat anchorages

would be appropriate here.

47
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

POINTERS FOR DETERMINING THE RANGE

OF RESOURCE CONDITIONS AND VISITOR

EXPERIENCES

� Potential management zones describe the conditions to be

created, sustained, or tolerated, not the actions necessary to

create the conditions. In other words, the zones describe

“what” the team is trying to create, not “how” to create those

conditions.

� Usually there are neither definitive data to guide the team in

determining the range of resource conditions and visitor

experiences nor checkpoints to ensure that the team is on

track. Developing this element requires much brain storming,

discussion, and open-mindedness on the part of the team. It is

greatly aided by a facilitator and by individuals intimately

familiar with park resources and visitors.

� Because the determination of what a park should or should

not provide is largely subjective and often value laden, a full

understanding of public values and expectations is required.

The development of potential management zones is generally

done by the team and reviewed and refined by larger groups

and the public.

� Some guidance for determining the range of potential zones

appropriate to a particular park is provided by the

• regional context of the park

• park purpose, significance, and primary interpretive

themes (defined in element 3)

• distribution and abundance of different park resources

mapped in element 4 (e.g., vegetation, terrain, or

sensitive wildlife might give clues as to what experience

opportunities might be provided as well as what should

not be provided)

� Understanding visitor wants and needs can help determine a

range of desirable visitor experiences and resource conditions. This information can be obtained through a visitor survey or a newsletter with an accompanying response form.

Alternatively, the information may be collected using focus

groups or by holding conversations with visitors. At the very

least, individuals who interact with park visitors on a daily

basis should be involved in developing this element. In most

parks, these individuals are the interpreters, information desk

personnel, maintenance personnel, and other providers of

visitor information. They may be permanent or seasonal park

48
Element 5

employees, volunteers, or interpretative association employees. Because these individuals listen to and answer visitor

questions daily, it places them in a position to provide good

information and thoughts to the planning team.

� Inventorying the surrounding region will help determine what

types of visitor experience opportunities might best be provided outside the park and the types of opportunities that can

occur only in it. Providing a range of recreational opportunities in a region is desirable to satisfy the diversity of recreation tastes. No one park manager or agency should feel

obligated to meet the demands of all recreational users. Each

agency, for example, could aim at providing one or more specific types of recreational opportunities and refer those wanting something different elsewhere. Obviously, regional

collaboration among private and public managers is mandatory if a full and appropriate mix of opportunities and benefits is to be provided.

� A risk in element 5 is that the team will only look at the existing visitor experiences, recreational activities, resource conditions, and managerial conditions and describe them. This may

be appropriate; however, potential opportunities may be

missed if the team is narrowly focused on what is, rather than

what could be, or if the team hurries through this element.

Going back to the experiential resource analysis work may be

useful in checking to see if potential experience opportunities

have been missed.

� In describing a potential zone, a team is often tempted to use

words that actually describe an activity rather than an experience. This should be avoided — it is the experience on which

the team should be concentrating. For example, a team might

create different potential zones for hiking, equestrian use,

and overnight camping. These are all activities, not experiences. The potential zone instead should focus on the

intended experience (e.g., giving visitors an opportunity a

sense of being in wildlands, with opportunities for challenge

and adventure). Depending on the desired experience, it is

possible that one potential zone might provide opportunities

for all of the above activities.

� The goal of management zoning is to identify areas with different management requirements. Some variations of visitor

experiences and resource settings, and many different visitor

activities may occur in a single zone so long as the management prescriptions remain constant. Sometimes there is a tendency for team members to be either lumpers or splitters in

developing potential zones. Splitters can bog down the

49
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

process by trying to define different management zones for

every different experience or setting. Lumpers can make the

zones useless by including areas in the same zone that must

be managed differently. A middle ground must be sought that

defines enough zones to clarify management requirements

without over complicating the zoning scheme.

50
Element 6

Allocate the Potential Zones to Specific Locations in the Park

(Prescriptive Management Zoning)

In element 6, the potential management zones described in element 5 are allocated to specific geographic areas. This process

of management zoning is a key planning tool for making decisions about what is appropriate and not appropriate in a park,

and what can and cannot occur in different areas of the park in

terms of resources management, visitor use, and development.

There is no set way, no standardized approach, nor any computer program to manipulate the inputs from the preceding elements and derive an instant management zoning scheme for a

park. This is where the committed work of an interdisciplinary

team proves its value. The team must look at the desires and

concerns of the public as discussed in element 2, the planning

foundation established in element 3, the potentials and limitations of the park resources identified in element 4, and the

range of potential visitor experiences and resource conditions

described in element 5. Synthesizing all of this information, the

team begins to discern and organize patterns. These patterns,

examined visually through maps and overlays, and verbally

through team discussions, help guide the allocation of management zones to geographical units that can be identified on the

ground.

All land and water in a park must be zoned. Each area should

be included in only one zone because no area can be managed

more than one way at a time. However, if the team decides that

an area should be managed differently in different seasons the

area could be placed in different seasonal zones.

51
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

EXAMPLES OF VERP ZONING

The following maps show examples of how Arches National

Park was zoned by the planning team. Figure 3 shows the zoning

scheme for the entire park. Several popular areas were zoned at

a more specific scale; the second map of the Windows Section

(figure 4) is an example of such an area. A summary of the

Arches management zones is included for reference (for more

details, see appendix B).

Note that zones with heavily used roads and trails, where the

visitor experience tends to be linear, were mapped as corridors.

Lower use areas, where the visitor experience tends to be more

unstructured, were mapped as polygons. While this is expected

to be a common approach, it is by no means intended to be a

rule. Whether corridors or polygons work best will vary with

individual parks and situations. It may even be possible to have

the same zone (e.g., a backcountry trail zone), applied as a corridor in some areas of a park and applied as a polygon in other

areas of the same park.

On the Windows section map, notice how the pedestrian zone

corridor traverses the sensitive resource protection zone polygon. The park purpose statements direct the park to “protect

extraordinary examples of eroded sandstone formations and the

setting in which they occur.” This application of the zones was

used to meet the management goal of keeping visitors on trails

in order to protect the sensitive scenic areas around key park

features (in this case, arch formations).

POINTERS FOR DEVELOPING

MANAGEMENT ZONING

� Management zoning is a prescriptive process that specifies

future conditions. Unless existing conditions are the desired

future, the zoning should not describe existing conditions.

(Zoning the existing conditions, rather than the future conditions, will maintain the status quo, which usually will not help

managers resolve current or future visitor use impacts.)

� Zoning should not be an arbitrary process or be based solely

on planners’ or park staff’s opinions. There should be a philosophy or vision for the future that guides the zoning

scheme. Without a unifying concept, zoning decisions cannot

be explained or justified. The reasons for placing zones in different locations should be documented as part of the process.

52
Element 6

Figure 3. Parkwide Management Zones, Arches National Park

53
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Figure 4. Windows Sector Management Zones of Arches National Park

54
Element 6

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE ARCHES VERP ZONES

��� ��������� ���� �� �� ���� ���� ����� ������� ����������� ����� ����������� ��� �������� ��������� ������ �����������

������� ������� ����� ������ ������ ��� ������ ��� ������ �� ������ ��� �������� ��� �� ������������

��� ��������� ����������� ���� ���� �� � ������������� ��������� ����� ��� ���� ���� ������������ ���������

������������ ������� ����� � ����� ���� ��������� ���� �� ��� ���������� ���� �������� ���� ���� ���� ����� ������� ������

����� ��� ���� ���� �����

��� ���������� ���� �� �� ���� ���� �� ������������� �������� ��� ���� ���� �������� �� ��� ������ ��� ������ �� �������

�� ���� ���� ������ ��� ���� ������ ��� ����� ���� ��������� �� ���� ���� ����� � ������������ ������ ��� ��� ���� ���� ����

��� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� �� ���� �����������

��� ����� ���� �������� � ����� �� ����� �������� �� � ������� ��������� ��� ����� �������� ������� ���� ���� ��������

��� ������������� �������� ���� ������ ���� ���� ��� �������� �������� �� ���� ����� ��� ���� ���������� ������� ���

������� �������

��� ����������� ���� ���� �������� � ����� �� ����� �������� �� � ������� ���������� ��� ����� ������� ���� ����

�������� ��� ������������� �������� ���� ������ � ���������� ���� ����� �� ���� ��� ������ ������ ���� ����� ������ ���

��������� ������ ��� ��� ���� ���������� ��������

��� ��������� ����� ���� ��������� ������������ ��������� ����� ����������� ����� ������� ������ ����� ����� �

����� �� ����� ��� �� ��� �������� �������� ��� ���� �� ������������� �������� ����� �� �������� �� ��� ������ ��� ������ ��

������� � ��� ������� ����������� ���� �� ����� �������� ��� �� �������� �� ��� �����

��� ��������� ������������� ���� ��������� ������������ ���������� ����� ������������ ����� ����� � ����� �� �����

�� ���������� ������� ������ ����� ������� ������� ������������ ��� ��� ���� ���������� ��������

��� ��������� ���� ������ ����������� �� �� �������������� ���������� ������������ ������ �� ��� ����� �� ������� ��

���������� ��� ������� �� ���� ����� �������� �� ����� �������� �� ���� ��������

��� ��������� �������� ���������� ���� �������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ���� ����� �� ������ ���������� �� �� ��

���� ����� ��� �������� �� ������ ����� ������������� ������ ��������� ������ ���������� ���� ���� � ��� ����������� ���

������ �� ��� ������� �� ���� �����

� Management zones should have boundaries that are distinguishable in the field. Drainages, rivers, streams, topographic

features, landforms, roads, and other identifiable features

should be used as zone boundaries.

� There is no minimum area a zone can cover; however, in general, new zones for tiny portions of a park or for a single feature should not be created. When needed, specific

management strategies for a small area in a larger zone

should be identified.

� The shape of zones on a map may vary considerably depending on the resources, visitor experiences, and management

strategies. Some zones may be narrow or linear, such as zones

that follow vehicle corridors or rivers; other zones may be

large polygons.

55
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

An alternative is an understandable and

clearly articulated vision of future

conditions that is unified by a central

concept.

� When applying zones, the planning team should consider the

land uses outside of the park. To the extent possible, the park

zoning scheme should be compatible with land uses in areas

adjacent to the park.

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

For each planning effort, the team needs to determine if there

are different visions or concepts for the future of the park that

need to be considered and developed as alternatives. Alternatives may be formulated at several points in the planning

process. Usually, the need to develop alternatives is recognized

whenever planning participants — the planning team or the

public — cannot reach a consensus on the outcome of one of

the planning steps. For example, if one group of planning participants believes that park significance lies entirely with its cultural resources, while another group believes that park

significance lies wholly with its biological/ecological resources,

alternatives may need to be constructed around different park

significance statements. GMP alternatives usually will consist of

different zoning schemes driven by different concepts of the

park’s future. Using a common set of potential management

zones, different alternatives can be built by changing which

zones are used and\or by changing the allocations of land in

each zone. In some exceptional cases where only one zoning

scheme is feasible, or all planning participants share a single

vision of the future, alternatives may assess different management strategies for achieving the zoning scheme.

Unless alternatives have been formulated to assess different

park purposes or significance, all alternatives must be consistent

with the purpose and significance statements developed for the

park (see element 3). Likewise, alternatives must comply with

all other legislative mandates, NPS management policies, and

applicable NPS guidelines. These statutory, regulatory, and policy constraints can be thought of as forming a corral as

described in element 3. All potential alternatives must be

screened carefully to ensure they fit in that corral; an alternative

that does not fit should either be rejected or modified to meet

those constraints.

When the VERP framework is being undertaken as part of a

general management plan, alternative zoning schemes must be

created and assessed. However, if the VERP framework follows

an approved general management plan, the formulation of

alternatives may not be necessary.

56
Element 6

POINTERS FOR DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES

� The differences among alternatives should be clearly articulated in ways that will be apparent to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public. The alternatives should be described

in a parallel fashion using a similar outline for each alternative and similar maps and graphics. Beneficial and adverse

impacts should be assessed for each alternative. The reader

should refer to the NPS Park Planning Guidelines and

National Environmental Policy Act Guidelines for guidance on

how to integrate NEPA requirements into a VERP plan.

� An alternative needs to have an underlying cohesive rationale

or philosophy. Without a unifying concept, an alternative cannot be easily explained to the public and defended; may be

subject to the criticism of being arbitrary; and will likely not

aid managers in making decisions to resolve unanticipated

issues and problems.

� Alternatives that are driven by park infrastructure and size

(big, bigger, biggest) rather than by desired visitor experiences and resource condition usually do not resolve problems

resulting from increasing visitor use in the parks. More development can be proposed, but if visitor use levels continue to

increase, the problem will manifest itself again in the future.

� Developing alternatives can be time-consuming, difficult, and

frustrating work. Alternatives may go through many iterations. Some alternative concepts that were thought to be good

ideas may be rejected once the planning team explores the

concepts. The planning team should set aside time for this

task and have patience.

57
Element 7

Select Indicators and Specify Standards for Each Zone;

Develop a Monitoring Plan

Element 7 is a pivotal element because it marks the point at

which the VERP framework moves from being qualitative to

being quantitative. Once prescribed social and resource conditions are converted into variables that can be measured and

monitored, a park staff can determine whether or not conditions

are acceptable and take management action if needed.

The objective of element 7 is to select measurable characteristics or conditions that reflect the status of park resources and

visitor experiences and to establish standards, which when maintained, ensure that acceptable conditions are perpetuated

Developing indicators, standards, and a monitoring plan can be

highly technical tasks, requiring knowledge about sampling

design and data analysis. If a planning team does not have this

expertise, the team may need to consult with experts inside or

outside of the Park Service to ensure that the indicators, standards, and monitoring plan are valid, reliable, and useful.

DEFINITION OF

INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Management zones are usually described in general, qualitative

terms. Indicators and standards translate these qualitative

descriptions into quantitative variables and measurements (e.g.,

“low volume trail use” is defined in zone ‘x’ as five encounters

per day). While planners and managers may employ many different kinds of indicators and standards for different reasons, in

the VERP framework indicators and standards are based on the

original LAC methodology.

Indicators are defined as specific, measurable physical, ecological, or social variables that reflect the overall condition of a

zone. Resource indicators measure visitor impacts on the

58
Element 7

biological, physical, and/or cultural resources of a park; social

indicators measure visitor impacts on the visitor experience.

Standards are defined as the minimum acceptable condition for

each indicator variable. A standard does not define an intolerable condition. It is not a condition that managers should strive

to achieve, unless intolerable conditions already exist.

A brief example will help illuminate these definitions. A park

zone may prescribe that resource conditions be largely natural

and that social conditions offer visitors opportunities for solitude. These are broad, qualitative statements that provide a

general description of a park zone. However, these descriptions

are not specific enough to make decisions that could restrict

public access. How “natural” do conditions have to be, for

example, and how is “natural” to be measured? Likewise, with

regard to social conditions, what constitutes “opportunities for

solitude” and how is “solitude” to be measured?

Indicators and standards provide answers to these types of questions. Based on various sources that are discussed later in this

chapter, it may be determined that the amount of bare ground

at campsites is a key measure of the naturalness of resource

condition. Thus, the amount of bare ground at campsites may

be a good resource indicator. Moreover, it may be determined

that when the amount of bare ground exceeds 50% of the total

campsite area, most visitors and agency personnel believe that

impacts are unacceptable. Thus, the resource standard for bare

ground at campsites in zone ‘x’ may be set at 50% of the total

campsite area.

Similarly, it may be determined that the number of encounters

with other groups along trails is a key measure of the opportunities for solitude. Thus, the number of trail encounters with other

groups per day may be a good social indicator. Moreover, most

visitors may report that once they encounter more than three

groups along a trail per day, they no longer have an acceptable

level of solitude. Thus, the social standard for the number of

trail encounters per day in zone ‘y’ may be set at three — a

minimally acceptable social condition.

59
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

INDICATORS

Sources of Indicators

Four sources of information exist for deriving indicators. Social

and resource indicators can be identified by consulting the scientific literature, conducting original research, consulting public

opinion, and applying management judgment. More than one

source is usually needed to formulate indicators.

Consulting Scientific Literature. There is a large and growing

body of scientific literature on the impacts of public use on

parks and related areas. This literature addresses impacts on

both resource and social conditions. For example, research on

visitors to wilderness and related areas has often found that the

ability to camp out of the sight and sound of other visitors is

important in defining the quality of the visitor experience. Such

findings might be suggestive of potential indicators for similar

areas. However, the extent to which research can be generalized

from one area to another is uncertain. Moreover, much of the

research on visitor use impacts has been conducted in wilderness and backcountry areas. Thus, many types of parks are relatively unstudied. These limitations suggest that scientific

literature can sometimes be useful in formulating indicators, but

will usually have to be supplemented with other techniques or

sources of information.

Conducting Scientific Research. Original scientific research

conducted at the park under consideration is a potentially powerful source of indicators. Research can help determine which

biophysical and experiential variables are important in maintaining the quality of resource and social conditions, respectively. This type of information can translate directly into

indicators.

Research directed at identifying resource-based indicators generally uses an approach that compares areas impacted by visitors to relatively unimpacted areas in similar ecosystems. This

research approach assumes that when areas with similar

resources (but different levels of use) are compared, variables

that are found to be different are likely to be sensitive to visitor

use; and therefore, are good potential indicators. Further

refinement of these variables can lead to a set of resource

indicators.

Research directed at identifying socially based indicators should

focus on identifying aspects of social conditions (i.e., visitor use

impacts, crowding) that are important in determining the quality

60
Element 7

of the visitor experience and that are subject to managerial

influence. If more than one park zone or type of visitor opportunity is anticipated (which is likely), then this study should

address each of those zones or opportunities. Visitors might be

asked about the effects of other visitors on the quality of their

experiences using both open- and close-ended questions. Openended questions probe visitors for park conditions and issues

that either add to or detract from the quality of the visitor experience. Close-ended questions present a series of park conditions and issues and ask visitors to rate the extent to which an

item adds to or detracts from the quality of the visitor experience. This type of study can be administered to a representative

sample of park visitors or it can take a more qualitative

approach through the use of focus groups and other

nonrepresentative samples.

Consulting the Public. Segments of the public often have strong

opinions about the resource and social conditions that should be

maintained in parks. These opinions can be useful in formulating indicators. As discussed here, public involvement does not

include scientifically based surveys of the public. This source of

information is generally not fully representative of the public.

Moreover, the public understanding of some technical issues,

particularly those concerning resource-related impacts, may be

limited. Thus, public involvement can be useful in formulating

indicators, but should be supplemented with other sources of

information.

Applying Management Judgment. A final source for formulating indicators relies on the judgment of park planners and managers. Some judgment is needed in identifying indicators, even

when the level of scientific knowledge is high. Park planners and

managers typically have considerable experience with and

knowledge of parks, which can help determine appropriate indicators for both resource and social conditions. They also have

access to guidance in park legislation and approved planning

and management documents that may help identify general

indicators. However, research has shown that managers are not

always knowledgeable about what visitors perceive and prefer.

Moreover, managers cannot be expected to have technical

knowledge about all aspects of resource and social conditions in

their parks. These limitations suggest that management judgment is an important component of formulating indicators, but

that it must be exercised in concert with other techniques or

sources of information.

61
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Characteristics of Good Indicators

Indicators may vary widely among parks and management

zones. However, there are eight characteristics that define good

indicators.

• Specific. Indicators should define specific circumstances

rather than general conditions. For example, “water quality” would not be a good indicator for resource condition

because it is too general. “Bacteria per volume of water”

would be a better indicator of water quality. Similarly,

“solitude” would not be a good indicator for social conditions because it is too general. “The number of other

groups encountered per day along trails” would be a better indicator of solitude.

• Objective. Indicators should be objective rather than subjective measures — indicator variables should be measured in absolute, unequivocal terms. Variables that are

subjective, expressed in relative terms or subject to interpretation, make poor indicators. For example, “the

number of people at one time at Wild Arch” is an objective indicator because it is an absolute number that can

reliably be counted and reported. However, “the percentage of visitors who feel crowded at Wild Arch” is a subjective indicator because it is subject to interpretation by

visitors — it depends on the types of visitors making the

judgement, the behavior of other visitors, and other variables. Similarly, “the number of severely impacted campsites” is a subjective indicator because the term “severely

impacted” is relative and subject to interpretation. A

more objective indicator would be “the number of campsites that exceeds 20 square meters of bare ground.” This

is not subject to interpretation and can be measured in

absolute, unequivocal terms.

• Reliable and Repeatable. An indicator is reliable and repeatable when measurement yields similar results under

similar conditions. Because in most parks different staff

members may be monitoring the same indicators on different days or during different seasons, the indicator

must also be reliable and repeatable when measured by

more than one person.

• Related to Visitor Use. Indicators should be directly related to at least one of the following visitor use attributes:

levels of use, types of use, timing of use, location of use, or

behavior of visitors. A major role of indicators is to help

62
Element 7

determine when management action is needed to control

the impacts of visitor use. Thus, there must be a strong

correlation between visitor use and selected indicators.

For example, “the number of miles of eroded stream

bank” would not be a good resource indicator on a river

that is highly susceptible to flooding and natural erosion.

“The number of social trails along the stream bank”

would be a better indicator.

• Sensitive. Indicators should be sensitive to visitor use

over a relatively short period of time. As the level of use

changes, an indicator should respond in the same proportional degree. If an indicator changes only after impacts

are substantial, it will not serve as an early warning

mechanism, allowing managers to react in a timely manner. Ecological research suggests that the disturbance of

ground cover vegetation usually occurs quickly under

relatively low levels of visitor use. Thus, this variable

might be a good indicator for resource condition. Social

research suggests that backcountry visitors are especially

sensitive to encounters with other groups at campsites.

Likewise, this variable might be a good indicator for social conditions.

• Resilience. Indicators should be responsive to, and help

determine the effectiveness of, management action. Consequently, indicator variables should measurably respond

quickly to changes in management. For example, an indicator of the condition of the soil surface may show quick

response (i.e., recovery) when visitor trampling is curtailed. In areas of higher rainfall, an indicator of vegetation cover can often show a similar quick response to a

drop in human traffic.

• Nondestructive. Indicators may need to be measured infrequently or frequently. But regardless of how often an

indicator is measured, monitoring should not result in destructive resource impacts or significantly detract from

the quality of the visitor experience.

• Significant. Perhaps the most important characteristic of

indicators is that they address prominent issues and management concerns, such as visitor impacts that could affect park purpose or significance. The very term

“indicator” suggests that they must be important in defining the basic integrity of resource condition and the quality of the visitor experience. It does little good to monitor

the condition of an environmental variable that is

63
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

generally unrelated to the larger concept of ecosystem

integrity or is not a special resource, such as a rare plant

population. Similarly, it is unproductive to monitor a

social variable that is unimportant to visitors.

Selection of Indicators

In some cases a planning team may identify only a few potential

resource or social indicators that can be monitored in a park. In

other cases there may be many potential indicators, in which

case the indicators need to be evaluated to select the “best”

indicators.

Assuming the potential indicators meet all or most of the eight

characteristics, the potential indicators can then be evaluated

against a set of selection criteria. These are traits that would be

desirable, but not critical, for an indicator. Listed below are

seven recommended criteria for evaluating indicators. Additional selection criteria may be added to the list depending on

the park, and whether one is evaluating social or resource indicators. The recommended criteria are:

• Easy to Measure. Indicators should be relatively simple

to measure. They also should be able to be measured

relatively quickly and without sophisticated equipment.

In general, the more expertise, time, equipment, and

number of people needed to monitor an indicator, the

less desirable it is.

• Easy to Train for Monitoring. There should be little, if

any, formal training needed; monitoring personnel

should be able to quickly learn how to monitor the

indicator.

• Cost-Effective. Related to the above criteria, monitoring

an indicator should be economically feasible, requiring a

relatively low expenditure of park funds.

• Minimal Variability. Ideally, an indicator should show

minimal variability based upon fluctuations in the environment. Indicators with less natural variation will be

more sensitive to visitor impacts and more useful than

those with more natural variability. If indicators have a

large range of natural variation, the detection of changes

caused by visitors will be difficult. For example, the

change in a rabbit population probably would not be a

good indicator because it has a lot of natural variability:

64
Element 7

the population changes annually in response to other

natural factors (e.g., changes in the amount of food,

cover, or the number of predators in an area) independently of changes in visitor use.

• Response Over a Range of Conditions. Indicators should

show a gradient in conditions, either due to the impacts

of visitors or management actions. Variables that respond to small amounts of disturbance will enable a

change to be detected earlier than variables that do not

show change until major or irreversible damage has occurred. For example, an indicator would be better if it

could respond to gradients between 0 and 100 than if it

just responds to the two extremes.

• Large Sampling Window. There should be a large time

frame when an indicator can be monitored (e.g., through

the year or through a visitor use season).

• Availability of Baseline Data. Ideally, data should have

been collected for the indicator in the past. Then new

data that is collected can be compared to determine

changes in resource conditions or visitor experiences.

A matrix can be a useful technique for rating potential resource

and social indicators, with the evaluation criteria on one axis

and the potential indicators on the other axis. An example of an

evaluation matrix is shown in table 4. After determining the

desirable criteria the planning team would fill in the matrix for

each potential indicator, checking the cells if the criteria are met

or rating the potential indicators on a scale based on how well

the criteria are met. The more criteria a potential indicator satisfies, the more desirable it is.

65
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

TABLE 4. EXAMPLE OF AN EVALUATION MATRIX FOR SELECTING INDICATORS

���������

���������� ������� �������� ��������� �������� �������� ��������� �������� ��� ���������� ������� �� ������� ��� ��������� ��������� ���������� ����������� ���� �� ������� ���� �� ����� ��� ���������� �������������� ������� ����������� �������� ���� � ����� �� ����������

����� �������� ������������������ �� �������� ����

��������� �

��������� �

��������� �

��������� �

��������� �

������������

66
Element 7

STANDARDS

Characteristics of Good Standards

The scientific literature identifies five characteristics of good

standards. These characteristics are not criteria that all standards must meet, but they are true for most standards.

• Quantitative. Standards are quantitative. Since indicators

are specific and measurable variables, standards should

be expressed in an unequivocal way. For example, if a social indicator is “the number of encounters with other

groups per day on the river,” then the standard might be

“an average of no more than three encounters with other

groups per day on the river.” In contrast “low numbers of

encounters with other groups per day on the river” would

be a poor standard because it does not specify the minimum acceptable condition in unambiguous terms. “Ten

percent ground cover of exotic species” would be a quantitative standard, while the “low cover of exotic plants”

would be a poor standard.

• Time or Space-Bounded. Incorporating a time- or spacebounded element into a standard expresses both how

much of an impact is acceptable and how often such impacts can occur. It is often desirable for standards to have

a time period associated with them. This is especially

relevant for social conditions such as crowding-related issues. For instance, in the above example, the standard for

encounters with other groups on the river was expressed

in terms of “per day.” Other time-bounded qualifiers

might include “per night,” “per trip,” “per hour,” or “at

one time,” depending upon the circumstances. Standards

for resource condition are often time or spatially

bounded. For instance, a standard of the acceptable numbers of social trails may be stated in terms of distance,

such as “four social trails per mile” or in terms of time

such as “four social trails used per hour.”

• Expressed as a Probability. In many cases it will be advantageous to include in the standard a tolerance for

some percentage of the time that a particular condition

will be unavoidably unacceptable; in other words, the

standard would include a probability that conditions will

be at standard or better. For example, a standard might

say, “no more than three encounters with other groups

per day along trails for 80% of days in the summer use season.” The 80% probability of conditions being at or above

67
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

standard allows for 20% of the time that random or

unusual events might prevent management from

providing these conditions. This allows for the

complexity and randomness inherent in visitor use

patterns. In the example of encounters along the trail,

several hiking parties might depart from a trailhead at

closely spaced intervals on a given day. These groups are

likely to encounter each other on the trail several times

during the day. On another day, the same number of

groups might depart from the trailhead at widely spaced

internals and thereby rarely encounter each other.

Similarly, it might be wise to incorporate a tolerance in

standards for peak days, holiday weekends, or other days

of exceptionally high visitation. A standard might be set

at “50 people at one time at Wild Arch for 90% of the

year.” The amount of tolerance needed depends on the

unpredictability of each individual situation and the

degree to which management can consistently control

conditions.

• Impact-Oriented. Standards focus directly on the impacts that affect the quality of the visitor experience or

resource condition, not the management action used to

keep impacts from exceeding the standards. For example,

an appropriate standard might be, “no more than 10 encounters with other groups on the river per day.” This

could be a good standard because it focuses directly on

the impact that affects the quality of the visitor experience — the number of other groups encountered. Alternatively, “a maximum of 20 groups per day floating the

river” would not be a good standard because it does not

focus as directly on the impact of concern — visitors are

concerned about encounters, not the total number of

groups floating the river. Basing standards on management techniques rather than on impacts can also limit the

range of useful management solutions. For example, limiting the number of boaters to 20 per day might be used

to ensure 10 or fewer encounters per day, but other actions, such as more tightly scheduling launch times, could

also ensure an appropriate encounter rate and could be

less restrictive on the level of visitation to the river.

• Realistic. Standards must reflect conditions that are attainable. In some cases, managers or the public may prefer conditions that are better than can realistically be

achieved. For example, an unrealistically low standard for

encounter rates that prohibits most of the visitors from

68
Element 7

using the resource may not be politically feasible. Moreover, such extreme measures that would place serious restrictions on visitors may not be ethically defensible

unless an extraordinary situation, such as imminent loss

of a significant resource, would justify the action.

In some cases where existing conditions are significantly below

standards (in a highly impacted natural area, for example), strict

standards could be set even though achieving the standard could

be many years in the future. A standard in this situation would

be used to measure long-term improvement in conditions.

Setting Standards

All of the same sources noted for setting indicators — scientific

literature, research, public opinions, and management judgment

— also can be used by a planning team to identify and set

resource and social standards. There are no specific criteria for

setting standards, but there are several points that should be

kept in mind.

Setting standards should involve input from scientists, managers, planners, and the public. However, it should be understood

that the process of setting standards is intrinsically subjective —

there is no “right” standard. Decisions on standards should be

made by understanding the tradeoffs and implications of the

standards, using information from the public, and relying on

whatever scientific data are available. Before standards are

finalized, it is important to try to envision as clearly as possible

the management actions that would be needed to keep standards from being violated. For example, a management action

required to address a standard out of compliance may create

additional problems. If these problems outweigh the benefits of

a stricter standard, a less stringent one may be defensible. The

final decisions on standards will rely heavily on the best professional judgment of scientists, planners, and managers.

In setting standards it is important to consider the degree of

rigor and reliability that is needed by a park. The planning team

needs to determine what data and level of analysis are needed

for its VERP framework. For example, if the planning team

anticipates that controversial decisions or highly restrictive management action will occur after standards are set, more data and

analysis may be needed than if decisions are anticipated to be

less controversial.

69
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE

INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Table 5 lists potential indicators and standards for resource and

social conditions. It must be stressed that this is not a complete

list. The examples, are offered for illustrative purposes only.

Practitioners should always take into account the unique characteristics of different areas in parks when developing appropriate

indicators and standards.

REVISION OF INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

A VERP plan should describe the process for updating and

revising indicators and standards. Because the Park Service has

little experience in applying indicators and standards in parks

(particularly in frontcountry areas), a planning team may find it

prudent to set provisional indicators and standards. These

provisional indicators and standards (and the measurement

techniques) can then be field tested to ensure they are valid, are

feasible to monitor, and reflect what was intended by the

planning team. Testing will often result in adjustments, even

dropping indicators, after one or more field seasons. Some

standards also may be determined to be indefensible or set at

the wrong point based on bad data or incorrect judgments. With

time, as more indicators and standards are applied in different

zones and in more parks, provisional standards may no longer

be necessary.

Once indicators have been adopted they generally should not

change over the expected life of the general management plan,

from which the VERP plan is tiered. However, there are situations in which it may be desirable or necessary to change indicators. Park managers may decide to modify indicators if better

ways are found to measure changes in resource or social conditions, if the indicators prove not to be sufficiently sensitive to

measure changes caused by visitor use, or if the indicators prove

not to be cost-effective to check regularly. If a different indicator is selected, a standard will have to be set for it. Managers

should ensure that this change will not result in managing for

resource or social conditions that are inconsistent with the condition specified in the management zone.

In most cases standards should not be changed during the life of

an approved general management plan. The reason for standards is to “draw a line in the sand,” which clearly shows when

conditions are unacceptable and action must be taken. It defeats

the purpose of the VERP framework if the line in the sand can

70
Element 7

TABLE 5. EXAMPLES OF INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

�������� �� ���������� ��� ��������� ��� �������� ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �� ��� ���� ������� �� � �������� ���� ���� ������

��������� ��� �� ��� ���� ������� �� � �������� �� ���� ������

���������� ��� ������ �� ���� ���������� �������� � ���� ���� � ����� ����������

��������� ��� �� ��� ���� ������� ������� ������� ��� �� ��� �������� �� � ���������� ����������� ����

���������� ��� ������� ���� ����� ����� ����� ��� � ��������� ��������

��������� ��� ������� ���� ����� ����� ��� � �������� �� �

���������� ��� ������ �� ������� ���� ����� ��������� � ������ �� ��������� �������� ������ � ���� �� �

����� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� � �����

��������� ��� �� ���� ����� ��� ������� �������� �� � ������� ����

�������� �� ���������� ��� ��������� ��� ������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �� ������� ���� ��� ���� ��� �� ��� ����� �� ����� �� ����� ������� �� ���

�����������

��������� ��� �� ������� ������ ���� ���� ����� ���� ��� �� ��� ����� ��� ����� �� ����� �������

���������� ������ �� ������ ���� �� ��� ���� �� ����� ���� ���� ��� ������ �� � ����

��������� ��� �� �������� ���� ��� ������ �� � ���� ��� �� ���� ���� �� ������ �� ��� ����

���������� ��� ������ �� ������ ����������� ����� � ����� ��� ��� ���� ��� ������ �� � ����

��������� ��� �� �������� ���� ��� ������ �� � ���� ��������� �� ���� ���� �� ������ ��� ��� ����� ���

�����

���������� ��� ������� ���������� ������ ���� ������� ��� ����

��������� �������� �� ��� ������ ����� � ������� ��� ���� ���� ��� �� ���� ��� ����

���������� ��� ������� ������ �������� �� ��� �� ���������� ������ ���� ��� ����

��������� �� ���� ���� ��� �� �������� ���� �� �� ���� ������� �� ��� ��� ����������

71
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

change indiscriminately. However, there may be some extraordinary reasons for modifying a standard. Some possibilities might

include

• the availability of new research information

• the initiation of a major planning effort

• a major change in technology

• a significant, unanticipated event occurring inside or

outside the park boundary (e.g., a flash flood that

destroys an important attraction or an oil shale boom

that starts next to a park)

In no case should standards (or indicators) be changed simply

because a park is out of standard or because the park staff wants

to postpone difficult decisions. If a decision is made to change a

standard, then the rationale for the decision should be clearly

documented in a formal amendment to the VERP plan. The

public generally should be informed of the proposed change,

and opportunities should be provided for public input. Depending on how changing the standard affects the human environment, NEPA documentation also may be needed.

POINTERS FOR DEVELOPING AND

SELECTING INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

� It is extremely important that the wording of indicators and

standards be carefully crafted. Changing just a few words in

an indicator or standard can have major repercussions. For

example, changing a crowding indicator from people at one

time during the peak hours of peak months to people at one

time 90% of the year could dramatically change how often

monitoring shows a park zone is out of standard. Terms such

as “peak days,” “peak hours,” and “use season,” need to be

clearly defined as part of the indicators and standards. Otherwise, there may be confusion and uncertainty regarding the

meaning and implications of indicators and standards.

� If research is needed to develop resource or social indicators

and standards it should begin as early in the VERP planning

process as possible. An ideal social research program may

take two field seasons to complete, the first focused on identifying potential indicators and the second aimed at developing

standards for those indicators.

72
Element 7

� For the Arches VERP plan, a two-tiered resource indicator

system was adopted. This system was used because of the cost

and expertise needed to measure some of the indicators. Tier

one included indicators to be measured more frequently, perhaps annually. Tier two included indicators with high significance, but which would be too costly or too difficult to

monitor frequently. Tier two indicators might be monitored

only once every few years. These indicators would be

expected to act as a check on the more simplistic tier one

indicators until it is established that tier one indicators are

sufficiently sensitive to the conditions being monitored.

� A question often associated with research on social indicators

and standards concerns who should be included in surveys.

Although it is usually impossible to include all groups in a survey, some of the groups a planning team should consider

including are current visitors, local residents, people who may

have been displaced from the park, the general public

(including people who may not visit the park), and international visitors.

� To detect change in some resource indicators, a comparison

between disturbed and less disturbed areas may be needed.

This “reference” or “control” approach involves some element of risk if the unimpacted areas cannot be protected

from human-caused disturbance over the long term.

� Although data will help support decisions about which indicators and standards to use and will reduce the uncertainty of

their implications, professional judgment will always play a

critical role in the selection of indicators and standards.

Therefore, judgments on indicators and standards must be

rendered in a logical, traceable manner that is subject to public review and input.

� Monitoring requirements and management realities need to

be considered in the selection of indicators and standards.

Specifically, the timing, methods, and staffing demands of

monitoring, and the display and analysis of monitoring data

should be carefully considered during the selection of indicators and standards.

� There may be a tendency to accept existing resource and

social conditions as standards. Standards can reflect existing

resource and social conditions, but this judgment should be

made only after careful thought and assurance that existing

conditions represent agency and public visions for the future

of the park.

73
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

DEVELOPMENT OF A

MONITORING STRATEGY

A VERP plan should document where, when, and how indicators will be monitored. Monitoring is the systematic and periodic

measurement of indicators of resource and social conditions.

Systematic means that a formal, explicit strategy exists that

charts how, when, and where indicators will be monitored and

how the data will be displayed. Periodic means that indicators

are measured on a predetermined temporal interval, consistent

with the values at stake, the decisions to be made, and the relevant science.

Monitoring plays three explicit roles in the VERP framework.

First, monitoring helps park managers understand the status of

resource and social conditions — if conditions are changing, or

if conditions are approaching, at, or outside of standards.

Second, monitoring enables park managers to assess the effectiveness of management action. Management action often must

be viewed as experiments. The ability of planners and managers

to predict the consequences of actions is limited because there

is much uncertainty about how people and natural or cultural

resources interact. Monitoring provides feedback to managers

about the consequences of specific management action. This

feedback informs managers that their actions are appropriate,

are solving problems, and should be continued. The feedback

can also inform managers if their actions are not correcting the

problems or are creating new problems.

Third, monitoring can provide a defendable basis for management actions that are implemented. Without data, park managers have little on which to base their actions except a “gut”

feeling that something is not right. With monitoring, managers

can show how conditions have changed or document why corrective actions need to be taken. While management experience

is an important element of decision making, in today’s world of

conflict and litigation, subjective impressions of conditions are

often no longer good enough. The public wants to see that

monitoring data was collected, that it is reliable and defensible,

and that it is understandable. Lacking an effective monitoring

effort, park managers will likely have trouble responding to public concerns and criticisms if their actions appear controversial.

Three criteria should be kept in mind in developing a VERP

monitoring strategy. A monitoring program needs to be:

74
Element 7

• Feasible. People and equipment are available to do the

monitoring where and when it is called for and later to do

the analysis of the data.

• Objective. The data are recorded in an objective,

scientifically valid manner.

• Timely. Monitoring data provide information when park

managers need it.

The energy required for monitoring is often the most underestimated aspect of developing a management plan that relies on

indicators and standards. Monitoring is an ongoing, long-term

undertaking. It requires an implementation schedule and protocol carefully designed to reduce bias and provide consistent,

meaningful information about the dynamics of park resources

and visitation. If properly conducted, monitoring will improve

manager awareness of resource and social conditions, help

guide and evaluate management actions, help anticipate emerging problems, and provide a mechanism for communicating

changes in resource and social conditions in a park.

Monitoring often has not been successfully implemented in carrying capacity frameworks. In deciding to implement a VERP

framework, a planning team and park staff need to examine the

commitment for monitoring. If it is unlikely that a park staff or

others will be able to monitor key resources and visitor experiences, the staff may want to reconsider proceeding with the development of a VERP framework.

Key Components of a Monitoring Strategy

A VERP monitoring strategy should include three key

components.

• Description of the Monitoring Procedures. The strategy

should describe the frequency, timing, and location of

measurement activity as well as any specific instructions

concerning how indicators will be monitored. For example, to monitor campsite encounters (e.g., the number of

other groups camped in the sight or sound of each other),

the procedures section would determine how many nights

a certain number of campsites would be monitored for

encounters. The process for monitoring campsite encounters would be described and the data collection forms, if

needed, would be provided. Similarly, to assess soil compaction the procedures section would describe the instruments to be used, where to use them (offsite as well as

onsite), how to use them, what period in the season to

measure compaction, and what data to record.

75
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

• Description of How Monitoring Data Will Be Analyzed

and Displayed. The strategy should tell park managers

what to do with the data they collect. The analysis and

display of the monitoring data are determined by the indicators and standards identified earlier in the VERP

plan. Thus, campsite encounters might be displayed as

the mean number of groups camped within sight or be

displayed as the proportion of group nights where more

than two other groups within sight or sound are encountered, depending upon how the indicator and standard

for campsite encounters are defined. Typically, the data

would be summarized in an annual monitoring report

that park managers can easily read.

• Identification of Personnel. The strategy should explicitly

identify the individual(s) or staff responsible for measuring indicators, analyzing data, and preparing an annual

monitoring report. This section, then, integrates the

VERP monitoring element into overall park management and identifies who is accountable for the park

monitoring effort.

Where Resource and Social

Indicators Should Be Monitored

One of the important points a monitoring strategy should

address is where to monitor resources and visitors in a park.

Resource and social conditions obviously do not need to be

monitored everywhere in a park; a park staff also usually will

not be able to monitor all indicators throughout a park. Thus,

there is a need to prioritize where monitoring occurs. Monitoring is generally focused in zones where problems are acute or

where the public has expressed concerns.

There are several guidelines to help identify where managers

should focus their monitoring efforts.

• Monitor Where Conditions Are At or In Violation of

Standard. When conditions are at or close to the limit of

what is acceptable, monitoring needs to be conducted to

determine when management action should be taken. If

standards are already being violated, monitoring is

needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the management

action being taken and determine when conditions are

back within standard.

76
Element 7

• Monitor Where Conditions Are Changing Rapidly. When

change is occurring relatively rapidly (e.g., resource conditions are deteriorating or opportunities for solitude are

decreasing), monitoring should be done to determine if

and when management action is required. Monitoring is

needed in these areas because the ability to predict the

direction of change is limited, there may be significant

uncertainties about the rate of change, and there may be

important, but unpredictable, offsite implications associated with the changes occurring.

• Monitor Where Specific and Important Values Are

Threatened by Visitation. Resource conditions or visitor

experiences may be threatened by recreational use in

many areas, but some areas may be more important than

others. For example, if solitude is an important experience in a backcountry zone that is being threatened by

the increasing levels of visitor use or the patterns of use,

managers should monitor an indicator measuring solitude in that zone. On the other hand, solitude may not be

currently threatened by visitor use in a different backcountry zone, and therefore, may not need to be monitored as closely.

• Monitor Where the Effects of Management Action Are

Unknown. The level of knowledge about human/environment interactions, particularly how management influences social and resource conditions, is limited. In a

sense, all management action is experimental. For example, while there has been considerable research on the effects of visitors on soil and vegetation on campsite

conditions, there has been little research on the effectiveness of various rehabilitation techniques. A number of

variables, such as soil, moisture, vegetation, growing season, and the type and frequency of use, potentially influence campsite rehabilitation efforts. Without monitoring,

it may not be clear what effect closing a campsite to

camping and reseeding native plants will have on site

condition. Monitoring provides the systematic feedback

that is needed when managers are unsure of the effects of

their actions.

77
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

When Indicators Should Be Monitored

The monitoring strategy also should identify when monitoring

should occur. How frequently should indicators be monitored?

What are the most appropriate and efficient times of the day,

week, or year to monitor? When in a season should campsite

impacts be measured? When should trail encounters be measured — on the “average” day, on peak days, or on randomly

selected days in the season? What is lost if monitoring has to

occur in a relatively ad hoc fashion?

The preceding guidelines also pertain to when monitoring

should occur. Managers may want to monitor indicators, or

monitor them more frequently, when conditions are near or

close to standard or are changing rapidly; when specific and

important values are threatened; when information is lacking;

or when the effects of management are unknown. Additionally,

if a major disturbance occurs in or outside a park, or there are

major social changes, park managers may want to monitor

resource condition and/or visitor behavior.

The standards written by the planning team will often guide the

timing of monitoring. For example, the following standard illustrates when to monitor:

Visitation at Farview Overlook will not exceed 30 people

at one time for more than 20% of the peak hours of

peak use days during the summer season.

Assuming that peak times, peak days, and the summer season

have been clearly defined, a monitoring schedule would be

developed to sample a representative number of the peak hours

of peak use days in the summer to estimate the percentage of

time that the number of people at one time exceeds 30.

Another example of a standard that addresses when to monitor

is the following:

Ninety percent of visitors in a year see no more than 30

people at one time at Wonder Geyser.

Assuming that the term “year” is clearly defined, in this case the

standard would require that a representative number of visitors

would be randomly sampled throughout the year. (If, however,

visitor use tends to occur primarily during a few months of the

year, a random, stratified, visitor sample may be required.)

78
Element 7

How Resource and Social

Indicators Should Be Monitored

Many sources describe in detail how to monitor resource and

social indicators. This section identifies several important points

to keep in mind regarding who should monitor, how monitoring

should be funded, and who should be responsible for a monitoring effort. Readers should refer to the sources in the Bibliography for additional information on this subject.

• Funding a “new” monitoring effort may be seen as a

daunting task, given limited budgets and staffing. Park

staffs will need to aggressively seek out innovative ways

to fund and operate a monitoring program, including

finding new money sources (e.g., donations, grants from

NPS and non-NPS sources), using “old” money pots (e.g.,

natural and cultural resource inventory/monitoring programs), and relying on non-monetary sources (e.g., volunteers). Other sources of funding could come from

reprogramming (e.g., deciding what not to do in place of

monitoring), and leveraging (e.g., using matching grants).

• Given limited agency resources, managers may want to

consider monitoring different parts of a park using a rotation or tiered system. Immediate and annual monitoring may need to be done on those areas close to or out of

standard. Other areas that may be approaching a standard or have other emerging needs (but not as pressing

as the first tier) may be monitored every two or three

years. A third tier of areas that appear to be in good

shape and are not experiencing rapid change may be

monitored on a less frequent schedule, perhaps every five

years. Alternatively, if managers can realistically monitor

conditions only in a fourth of the park each year, then a

four-year monitoring rotation may be a good starting

point.

• The description of monitoring procedures in the monitoring strategy should be clear and simple enough that a

person who was not involved in preparing the strategy

could accurately measure the variable being monitored.

• Monitoring procedures and methods will be largely dictated by the indicator being measured, the type of site

and the use that is being monitored, and the amount of

fiscal and human resources dedicated to the task. There

are numerous methods that can be used to monitor resource and social conditions, including trail counters

79
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

(with or without video cameras), permit systems, selfregistration stations, remote sensing, and visual

observations by managers, volunteers, or visitors.

80
Elements8&9

Monitor Resource and Social Indicators and Take Management Action

Elements 8 and 9 shift the focus of activities from preparation

and planning to the implementation of actions. During this

phase, the indicators identified are monitored according to the

monitoring plan(s) developed in element 7. The condition or

status of indicators then are evaluated against the established

standards, and decisions are made as to what, if any, management action is warranted.

MONITORING

The effective monitoring of resource and social indicators provides the feedback and documentation needed to implement

meaningful management action. Monitoring, and the analysis of

monitoring data may identify one of two situations that should

trigger corrective actions.

Deterioration. One situation that would trigger action would be

monitoring data that document how resource or social conditions are deteriorating over time, i.e., a trend is identified that

shows conditions are moving toward the standard. Management

action may, and perhaps should, be taken to slow or reverse the

trend. In this case conditions are still better than standard, and

actions should be selected that will not restrict recreational

access to any substantial degree. Remember that in the LAC

process the ultimate constraining goal (environmental conditions and visitor experiences) may be compromised to the standard before the second goal (unrestricted access) may be

compromised substantially.

Out of Standard. The second situation that would trigger management action would be monitoring data showing that resource

or social conditions are out of standard, i.e., conditions are

unacceptable. In this case, management action may be taken

that restricts or modifies recreational use to the degree necessary to restore and maintain acceptable conditions.

81
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Another way to think about monitoring and management action

is to liken monitoring results to a traffic light. A green light indicates that park conditions are within standard, which means that

no changes in management are required. A yellow light indicates

that conditions are deteriorating and are approaching a standard, which alerts managers to consider taking preventive action

(either nonrestrictive or minimally restrictive action). A red light

indicates that park conditions have violated a standard, which

requires managers to take action and signals the use of more

restrictive actions.

What actions may be considered to restrict or not restrict access

to recreational opportunities will vary according to different settings, different values held by park users, existing visitor use levels and access, and other situation-specific factors. It will be the

responsibility of planners and managers to involve the public in

determining what kinds of management actions will be appropriate

to take when conditions are deteriorating (but remain within standard), and what actions will be appropriate when conditions are

out of standard.

Before taking any corrective action, it is important to identify as

clearly as possible the root causes of why conditions are deteriorating. Numerous factors may be responsible for deterioration,

including the type and level of visitor use, the timing of use,

park management, and existing infrastructure (e.g., trail design,

information programs, the location of visitor centers). Sometimes the root causes of unacceptable conditions may underlie

more obvious symptoms. For example, an obvious probable

cause of a trail encounter standard being exceeded is that too

many people are using a particular trailhead. But perhaps the

root cause of the existing condition is the design of the access

road and parking areas that funnel people onto this trail. Or

perhaps the condition is due to a park brochure that publicizes

this trailhead and not others. If the root causes of existing conditions are not accurately identified, management action may be

misdirected, with less than satisfactory results.

RANGE OF POSSIBLE

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Several decades of research, management experience, and discussion have identified a variety of strategies and tactics that can

be taken to address resource or experiential impacts resulting

from recreational use. To assist park managers in determining

what actions might be most effective under various circumstances, the National Park Service commissioned the

82
Elements8&9

development of a decision-making handbook for addressing visitor use related problems. Much of the following information is

taken from the handbook being developed.

The handbook identifies five general management strategies

that managers can use to address recreational use impacts

• increase the supply of recreational opportunities, areas,

and facilities to accommodate increased demand

• reduce public use at specific sites, in individual management zones, or throughout the park

• modify the character of visitor use by controlling where

the use occurs, when the use occurs, what type of use occurs, or how visitors behave

• alter visitor attitudes and expectations

• modify the resource base by increasing the durability of

the resource or by maintaining or rehabilitating the

resource

Not all strategies are appropriate in all settings and situations.

For example, increasing the number of visitor facilities may not

be an appropriate strategy for wilderness or backcountry areas,

depending on legislative constraints, specific management

objectives, and existing visitor use levels. However, managers

are encouraged to consider employing as many strategies as possible to address specific impacts. Using a combination of strategies provides managers with greater flexibility and allows them

simultaneously to address the multiple dimensions and the

causes of undesired impacts. Reducing use may appear to be the

obvious solution to visitor use impacts, but managers should

remember that a less restrictive strategy may work as well and

have fewer repercussions to visitors and park management.

In the five strategies, there are many specific management

actions or tactics that can be used. These tactics fall into five

general categories

• site management (e.g., facility design, the use of vegetation barriers, site hardening, area/facility closure)

• rationing and allocation (e.g., reservations, queuing, lotteries, eligibility requirements, pricing)

83
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

• regulation (e.g., the number of people/stock, the location

or time of visits, activity, visitor behavior, or equipment)

• deterrence and enforcement (e.g., signs, sanctions,

personnel)

• visitor education (e.g., promote appropriate behavior, encourage/discourage certain types of use, provide information regarding use conditions)

When considering which management tactic, or combination of

tactics, to employ there is no easy answer or standard formula.

What to do is driven by the specified objectives for a particular

area or management zone. These objectives often help to focus

the range of options that managers can employ.

To aid planners and managers in selecting among the many

management tactics, there are several questions or selection criteria that may make decisions easier. Answers to these and

related questions can help to assess the trade-offs or the costs of

competing actions:

• Does the tactic adequately address the underlying cause

of the impact or visitor use problem?

• How effective is the tactic likely to be in resolving the impact in question?

• Is the tactic likely to lead to the creation of new

problems?

• Is the tactic subtle or obtrusive in terms of visitors being

aware that they are being managed?

• Is the tactic direct or indirect in terms of how it impacts

or influences visitor behavior?

• Does the tactic preserve visitor freedom of choice?

• Does the tactic affect a large or small number of visitors?

• Does the tactic affect an activity to which some visitors

attach a great deal of importance?

• Are visitors likely to resist the management action?

84
Elements8&9

• What are the costs to managers in implementing and administering the tactic?

After considering these and other questions, and weighing the

trade-offs, park managers should select the strategies and tactics

that best suite their situation and that they believe will most

effectively address visitor impacts while minimizing total costs to

managers, visitors, and resources.

POINTERS FOR SELECTING

MANAGEMENT TACTICS

� Fit the solution to the problem. Have a clear understanding

of the objectives that define the problem. Do not find yourself

in a situation where you have a solution in search of the

problem!

� Recognize that most management action can have immediate

and significant effects on the character of the area and on the

kind of recreational opportunity or benefit offered. For example, drastic or even seemingly subtle changes in the design

and type of facilities can alter the character of the site to the

point that it may no longer be satisfactory to many current

visitors. For instance, “creeping campground development”

can change a small, informal site into a large, intensively

developed site, which could force out those campers who

sought out that campground because of its solitude and closeness to nature.

� In wilderness and related backcountry settings, provide as

much freedom as possible for people to roam; control only at

accesses if possible. Even in frontcountry settings, actions that

are subtle and seemingly unobtrusive are much more supported by visitors than are direct, more obtrusive measures.

� Timing is crucial for trip planning. Because most people plan

before leaving home, get information to them as far in

advance of their visit as possible. For a variety of reasons, the

public is motivated to make preparations long before arriving

at parks and recreational areas. There is considerable evidence that people would be receptive to new types of information and information delivery systems to aid their trip

planning, to educate them about resource protection needs,

and to build support for agency management programs.

� An even distribution of visitor use is unrealistic. Using management tactics to achieve even distributions of visitor use in

85
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

most areas is neither desirable nor attainable. In most locations, geography, access, historic use patterns, and other factors would thwart efforts to spread out use more evenly. Also,

for many locations it would be desirable to offer a variety of

recreational opportunities in the area. Establishing distinctive

management zones to provide such diversity is a goal for

many areas and is a fundamental construct of the VERP

framework.

� Providing a range of recreational opportunities in a region is

desirable to satisfy the diversity of recreational tastes. Managers should establish objectives, standards, and strategies for

an area that will result in a seemingly balanced spectrum of

opportunities in a geographic region. No one manager or

agency should feel obligated to meet the demands of all recreational users. Each agency, for example, could aim at providing one or more specific types of recreational

opportunities and refer those wanting something different

elsewhere. Obviously, regional collaboration among private

and public managers is mandatory if a full and appropriate

mix of opportunities is to be provided.

� Selecting appropriate management tools and tactics is a value

judgment. Ultimately, managers are left with the difficult

decision of deciding how much visitation is appropriate, what

kinds of activities are acceptable for a given area, and how

visitor use is to be managed. For some decisions, the appropriate course of action is clear because there are few alternatives. More frequently, information necessary to decide is

meager and/or conflicting. Political, administrative, legal,

budgetary, and resource constraints influence decisions, as

well. While research and managerial experience can help,

such information only reduces the range of uncertainty associated with the decision. It does not eliminate it!

86
Appendix A

Description of the Resource Experience Opportunity Areas

Developed for the Arches VERP Implementation Plan

Fins. This opportunity area includes the Devils Garden, Fiery Furnace, Klondike Bluffs, and Herdina Park areas. They are dominated by the orange-to-reddish Entrada sandstone fins and spires.

In these areas there are labyrinths of spires, fins, chutes, and

arches. The visitor experience in this opportunity area is very much

inwardly focused because of the high vertical landforms that limit

movement and views along narrow corridors. The immediate foreground and focused corridor views of landforms dominate the

experience; in contrast, the importance of color and vegetation

cover is minimal.

Monoliths and Walls. This opportunity area is primarily composed

of the most striking non-arch landforms in the park. Courthouse

Towers, the Great Wall, the Windows section, and the Delicate

Arch area. The experience is not one of being in an area but rather

that of viewing from the outside the massive to delicate landforms

as they appear against the horizon. The opportunity for experiencing them is from the perimeter of the individual landforms.

Because of the massiveness, height, and association in clusters, they

provide key landmarks and orientation for the visitor. The landforms here also dominate expansive vistas that are afforded in

other areas. Vegetation has a relatively minor role in defining the

visitor experience.

Upland Blackbrush Flats. This opportunity area covers most of

Willow Flats. These areas are generally flat, with some relief, and

appear sandy or rocky. They have few distinguishable geologic features. Low, dark, blackbrush dominates the landscape. The vegetation can appear to be an obstacle, and there are no obvious routes

through the areas.

Slickrock/Petrified Dunes. Most of the southern part of the park is

included in this opportunity area. It appears to be a smooth,

rounded, rolling, tan-beige, rugged, barren, rock landscape.

Depending on one's location in this area, one can see expansive vistas then move a few steps and feel much more enclosed by the

dunes. Vegetation is scarce, with pockets of piñon-juniper

87
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

vegetation and pothole gardens, and plays a relatively minor role in

the visitor experience. There are a lot of opportunities for solitude

here, and the landscape appears challenging to explore.

Broad Open Grassland Valley. This opportunity area is found in

the northwestern end of Salt Valley. There is a more or less continuous vegetative cover, primarily cheat grass. The valley is very

open and flat, with few distinguishing topographic features. There

is a moderate sense of enclosure with the valley walls off in the distance. The area appears to be uninteresting and uninviting — most

people pass through this area to get someplace else.

Rolling Topography Mixed Shrub Valley. This arid area is found in

the southeastern end of Salt Valley. There are no distinguishable

landmarks or routes through it. The landscape appears to be mildly

undulating with rounded, eroded hills. Mancos shale and yellowgreen-blue soils are present. The area is sparsely vegetated, with

saltbush being the most common plant present.

Broad Open Shrubland Valley. This area covers Cache Valley.

Similar to the above two opportunity areas, the broad open shrubland valley is perceived as being flat with a vague sense of enclosure. There are no nearby landmarks. A mosaic of substrates (shale

soil alternating with sandy soils) and a marbled mix of vegetation

are present. Although there is not a continuous vegetative cover,

shrubs dominate the landscape and can present a minor obstacle to

traversing.

Ridge/Highlands. The ridge/highlands opportunity area includes

the southwestern part of the park and the upper flanks of the

southwest side of Salt Valley. This is a rocky area with expansive

vistas and some moderately distinctive slopes and ridges that break

the area into small visual units. There are distinctive landmarks off

in the distance and some in the foreground. Although one is outwardly focused when walking through here, one also is looking

down at the vegetation to avoid it. The mix of plant communities

found here plays a minor role in the visitor experience, although at

times it can appear to be a barrier or obstacle to cross.

Wash/Canyon. Upper and lower Courthouse Wash and Salt Creek

are included in this opportunity area. The experience here can vary

from feeling tightly confined to being in a broad valley. Few vistas

are evident. The areas generally feel relatively narrow and snakelike with canyon walls. Once one is in this area it is challenging to

get out other than to backtrack. There is an obvious route along the

wash bottom. The area is interesting to explore because of the presence of (or past signs of) flowing water, seeps, and relatively thick

vegetation. There is a sense of wanting to explore what is beyond

the next bend in this area. It can be easy to walk in some parts and

difficult in other parts because of the presence of mud, quicksand,

and impenetrable vegetation.

88
Appendix A

River Canyon. This is a very scenic, attractive, sinuous landscape.

The silty waters of the Colorado River and the towering, dark red

sandstone canyon walls dominate the landscape. One feels deeply

enclosed in this canyon, with the experience being inwardly focused

along the river corridor. The play of light and shadows along the

rock faces attracts the eye. Tamarisk growing along the riverbanks

is also evident and can affect the experiences of people trying to

walk through it or take out their boats. Rugged talus slopes above

the river make walking difficult through much of the canyon.

89
Appendix B

Descriptions of the Management Zones in the Arches

VERP Implementation Plan

Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is comprised of high use trail

corridors that access prime park features. The areas in this zone

are predominately natural, but with much considerable evidence of

the sights and sounds of people. Visitors can see, touch, smell, and

hear park resources as they walk along a well-defined trail, but they

will not feel like they are far from their cars or conveniences. Paved

or hardened trails and small interpretive structures are the only

facilities present. Some trails would be accessible to visitors with

disabilities. To use this area, visitors must make a short time commitment and physically exert themselves to some degree. There are

limited opportunities for challenge and adventure, and the need for

outdoor skills is relatively unimportant. The probability of encountering visitors is very high, and moderate for encountering NPS

staff; many people may be present. No vehicles or stock are permitted in this zone.

Visitors, sites, and trails are intensively managed in the pedestrian

zone to ensure resource protection and public safety (e.g., with

fences, intensive law enforcement, and restrictions on visitor activities). Resources can be modified for essential visitor and park

operation needs, but they are changed in a way that harmonizes

with the natural environment. Except for these essential changes,

Park Service tolerance for resource degradation here is low.

Hiker Zone. The hiker zone is applied to trail corridors and areas

of a somewhat more primitive nature than those in the pedestrian

zone. The hiker zone provides a sense of being immersed in a natural landscape and feels somewhat distant from most comforts and

conveniences. Unpaved, maintained trails, and sometimes cairned

routes are the only facilities in this zone. Opportunities exist to

experience challenge and adventure. Visitors must commit a block

of time, have some outdoor skills, and expend some physical exertion to use the area. The probability of encountering other visitors

is moderate to high (although there are opportunities for solitary

experiences), and moderate for encountering NPS staff. No vehicles or stock are permitted here.

90
Appendix B

A high level of management is provided for resource protection

and safety purposes in the hiker zone (e.g., placing stones along

trail edges and restricting off-trail use and group sizes). Some

resource modifications are evident, but they harmonize with the

natural environment. The Park Service’s tolerance for resource

degradation here is low.

Backcountry Zone. This zone encompasses lightly used areas of the

park where visitors hike cross-country, along washes, or on primitive trails or marked routes. Like the hiker zone, the backcountry

zone provides a sense of being immersed in a natural landscape but

feels farther away from comforts and conveniences than the pedestrian and hiker zones. No facilities are in this zone except for a few

cairned routes and primitive trails. The use of this area requires a

relatively long time commitment and high level of physical exertion. The environment offers a moderate to high degree of challenge and adventure. Opportunities for independence, closeness to

nature, tranquillity, and the application of outdoor skills are moderate to high. The probability of encountering other visitors and

NPS staff is low. Vehicular use is not permitted, but stock use may

be permitted in certain environments.

A moderate level of management is provided for resource protection and safety purposes. Subtle onsite controls and restrictions

may be present, such as placing rocks along the trail edges, restricting off-trail use, and requiring that visitors demonstrate knowledge

of environmental sensitivity before entering the zone. A few

resource modifications may be evident, but they harmonize with

the natural environment. The Park Service’s tolerance for resource

degradation due to visitor use in this zone is very low.

To ensure that the backcountry zone remains largely without trails,

a limit has been placed on the number of miles of primitive trails

and cairned routes that can be provided for visitor access or

resource protection purposes: no more than 5 additional miles (8

kilometers) of established routes, including trails on slickrock and

washes, will be permitted in all of the park's backcountry zone.

(There are currently about 5.5 miles [8.9 kilometers] of established

routes in the zone.)

Primitive Zone. The primitive zone includes areas where very low

use is desirable to protect views seen from adjacent zones, pristine

resource areas, and the areas of the park that are difficult to access.

Visitors in the primitive zone experience an untouched, primeval

environment, devoid of the works of people. No stock are present,

and no trails are evident. The use of this zone requires a relatively

high degree of physical exertion and a long time commitment. The

environment offers a moderate to high degree of challenge and

adventure. Opportunities for independence, closeness to nature,

tranquility, and the application of outdoor skills are high. There is a

very low probability of encountering other visitors or NPS staff.

Similarly, the evidence of other visitor impacts is minimal.

91
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Management for resource protection and safety in the primitive

zone is very limited; the area is managed in such a way that onsite

controls and restrictions are minimized and those that are present

are subtle. However, offsite the management of visitors may be

intensive (e.g., eligibility requirements that must be satisfied before

one enters the zone, limits on the length of stay in the area, and

reservation requirements). The Park Service’s tolerance for

resource modifications and resource degradation here is very low.

Motorized Sightseeing Zone. The motorized sightseeing zone is a

substantially developed area. The paved roads, pullouts, overlooks,

and associated short trails and small picnic areas, parking areas,

and other facilities that support visitor touring are included in this

zone. The zone is a fairly narrow corridor. For monitoring purposes, the zone extends 50 feet (15 meters) from the edge of roads

and pullouts.

The paved roadways and associated developments in the motorized

sightseeing zone are used by visitors for touring the park, enjoying

scenic overlooks and interpretive media, and gaining access into

other park zones. Visitor attractions are convenient and easily

accessible. The visitor experience is generally dependent on a vehicle or bicycle, involves driving along a well-maintained, paved road,

and is perceived as being linear/ sequential and vicarious in nature.

Observing the natural environment is important, and there may be

a sense of adventure, but there is little need for visitors to physically exert themselves, apply outdoor skills, or spend a long time in

the area. The probability of encountering other visitors is very high,

and moderate for encountering NPS staff; many visitors may be

present. Some trails and most facilities would be accessible in this

zone.

Intensive management is provided in the motorized sightseeing

zone to ensure resource protection and public safety (e.g., with

fences, intensive law enforcement, and restrictions on visitor activities). Resources can be modified for essential visitor and park

operational needs. The Park Service’s tolerance for resource degradation in this zone is moderate.

Because the number of social (i.e., unofficial) pullouts has grown

over the past several years, it is necessary to identify the number of

pullouts that will be allowed in the zone. In August 1994 the park

staff identified 40 approved pullouts on 20 miles of paved roads,

excluding Delicate Arch, for an average of two per mile. New pullouts may be developed if there is a documented need and traffic

safety considerations permit; however, the total number of pullouts

permitted along the paved roads will not exceed 48, which would be

a 20% increase over the current conditions.

Motorized Rural Zone. This zone includes the maintained,

unpaved, two-wheel-drive roads. Like the other motorized zones,

92
Appendix B

the motorized rural zone includes narrow areas alongside the

roads.

The motorized rural zone accommodates two-wheel-drive experiences (although opportunities exist for nonmotorized forms of recreation) along unpaved roads, which gives visitors a sense of being

in the country. Although the areas are predominately natural, there

is evidence of the sights and sounds of people. A few support facilities, such as vault toilets, may be present. Visitors usually do not

need to physically exert themselves, use outdoor skills, or make a

large time commitment to use the area. Challenge and adventure

opportunities associated with more primitive types of recreation

are not very important. The probability of encountering visitors is

moderate, and it is low for encountering NPS staff.

A high level of management is provided in this zone for resource

protection and safety (e.g., with signs, barriers, and temporal

restrictions). Resource modifications are evident, but they harmonize with the natural environment. The Park Service’s tolerance for

resource degradation in the motorized rural zone is low.

Because the graded dirt roads in this zone can grow wider with

time, due to visitors driving off the roads and maintenance work, it

is necessary to specify road widths and approved pullouts. The Salt

Valley road will be maintained at a width of no more than 20 feet

(6.1 meters); the Klondike Bluff trailhead road will not be widened

unless necessary, and in no case will it be wider than 20 feet (6.1

meters). (However, necessary drainage ditches may extend into

adjacent zones.) There are currently two pullouts along the 10-mile

(16 kilometers) Salt Valley road and none along the Klondike Bluff

spur road. New pullouts will only be developed where there is a

documented need and traffic safety considerations require a pullout to get parked vehicles off the roadways. No more than eight

additional pullouts will be permitted along the Salt Valley road; no

new pullouts will be permitted on the Klondike Bluff spur road.

Semiprimitive Motorized Zone. This zone encompasses the fourwheel-drive roads in the park. Like the other motorized zones, the

semiprimitive motorized zone encompass the roads and narrow

areas that parallel the roads.

This zone accommodates four-wheel-drive experiences (although

opportunities exist for nonmotorized forms of recreation), which

gives visitors a sense of being in wildlands. Unpaved, minimally

maintained roads are the only facilities present. Although visitors

in vehicles usually do not need to physically exert themselves, they

may need to use outdoor skills and make a relatively large commitment of time to use the area. The area offers moderate opportunities for challenge and adventure. The probability of encountering

other visitors is low, and it is very low for encountering NPS staff.

93
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Management for resource protection and safety purposes is moderate in this zone. Onsite controls and restrictions are minimal, and

those that are present are subtle (e.g., berms, rocks, and vegetation). Some resource modifications may be evident, but they harmonize with the natural environment. The Park Service’s tolerance

for resource degradation in this zone is low.

As with the motorized rural zone, it is necessary to specify the

widths of the roads because they can increase with time. In an

August 1994 survey the park staff determined that the Four-WheelDrive Road averaged 9 to 10 feet (2.7–3 meters) wide (except

where it crossed the Klondike Bluffs Ridge and averaged 9 to 14

feet [2.7–4.3 meters] wide). The Willow Flats Road averaged just

over 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide. The other two unnamed road spurs

on the west boundary are maintained as two-track trails and do not

have any widenings, pullouts, or improvements. The traveled portion of all these roads will be maintained at their current widths,

except the Willow Flats road will be reduced to 12 feet wide. However, there are a number of widenings along the roads, outside of

the two tracks, where one vehicle pulls over to park, let another

vehicle pass, or bypass rocks and bad ruts. Although some of these

wide areas are necessary in certain locations due to environmental

factors, their number will be kept to a minimum (see also the later

discussion on indicators and standards). In no case will a widening

be over 12 feet wide (3.6 meters) and 30 feet (9.1 meters) long.

Sensitive Resource Protection Zone. This zone includes critical

viewshed areas where the presence or evidence of people detracts

from the park purpose of protecting both geologic features and the

natural setting in which they occur. They also are areas that have

been severely impacted by past use and where intensive restoration

activities will be required.

The Park Service tolerance for additional resource degradation due

to public use in the sensitive resource protection zone is zero. Consequently, with only a few exceptions people are not allowed in the

zone. Researchers could be allowed access to the zone under special permit, park staff could enter the zone for resource management purposes, and users that are entitled to access under federal

laws, such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, would

be allowed to enter the zone under permit. Prohibiting public use

in this zone will necessitate a very high level of management outside the zone (e.g., with fences, intensive law enforcement, and visitor education efforts).

Developed Zone. This zone includes areas with major visitor and

administrative facilities. The park visitor center, headquarters, and

administrative areas, campground, and picnic area are included in

the developed zone. Also included in this zone is the area contiguous to the campground that campers use for family recreational

activities.

94
Appendix B

Although buildings, structures, and the signs of people are predominant, there are natural elements present. The facilities are

convenient and easily accessible; there is little need for visitors to

physically exert themselves, apply outdoor skills, or make a long

time commitment to see the area. Opportunities for adventure are

relatively unimportant. Many of these areas offer opportunities for

social experiences, and the probability of encountering other visitors or NPS staff is very high.

Resources are modified for visitor and park operational needs.

Most facilities would be accessible to visitors with disabilities, and

there might be some accessible trails. The Park Service’s tolerance

for resource degradation here is relatively high. Visitors and facilities are intensively managed in this zone for resource protection

and safety purposes (e.g., with fences, intensive law enforcement,

and restrictions on visitor activities).

95
Glossary

Carrying capacity. As it applies to parks, carrying capacity is the

type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions that complement

the purpose of a park unit and its management objectives.

Indicator. Indicators are specific, measurable physical, ecological,

or social variables that reflect the overall condition of a zone.

Resource indicators measure visitor impacts on the biological,

physical, and/or cultural resources of a park; social indicators measure visitor impacts on the park visitor experience.

Management zone. A geographical area for which management

directions or prescriptions have been developed to determine what

can and cannot occur in terms of resource management, visitor use,

access, facilities or development, and park operations. Each zone

has a unique combination of resource and social conditions, and a

consistent management prescription. Different actions will be

taken by the Park Service in different zones with regard to the

types and levels of uses and facilities.

Monitoring. Measuring resource and social conditions in a zone in

order to evaluate whether or not existing conditions are within

LAC standards.

Resource. Biotic, geologic, hydrologic, aesthetic, ethnographic,

architectural, historic, and archaeological elements and features

contained in a park. The mix of these resources help shape the visitor experience in a park.

Standard. Standards define the minimum acceptable condition of

each indicator variable. A standard does not define an intolerable

condition.

Visitor experience. The perceptions, feelings, and reactions a person has while visiting a park.

96
Bibliography

CARRYING CAPACITY

Graefe, A. R., F. R. Kuss, and J. J. Vaske

1990 Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Kuss, F. R., A. R. Graefe, and J. J. Vaske

1990 Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Lime, D. W., ed.

1996 Congestion and Crowding in the National Park System. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 86-1996. St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest

Resources and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station,

University of Minnesota.

Manning, R., D. Lime, M. Hof, and W. Freimund

1995 “The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP)

Process: The Application of Carrying Capacity to Arches

National Park.” The George Wright Forum 12 (3): 41–45.

Manning, R., D. Lime, and M. Hof

1996 “Social Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas: Theory and Application in the U.S. National Parks.” Natural Areas Journal

16 (2): 118–127.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1995 Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Implementation

Plan for Arches National Park. Denver, CO: Denver Service

Center.

Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein.

1986 Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

97
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

n.d. Proceedings. Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions. May 20–22,

1997, Missoula, MT, by S. F. McCool and D. N. Cole. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-in press. U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT.

1985 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, by G. Stankey, D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Peterson, and S. Frissell. General Technical Report INT-176.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station.

Wagar, J. A.

1964 The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest

Science Monograph 7. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES

Canadian Standards Association

1996 A Guide to Public Involvement. Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada:

Canadian Standards Association. Available on electronic

disk from Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale

Boulevard, M9W 1R3, (416) 747-4000.

Creighton, James L.

1981 The Public Involvement Manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt

Books.

Also:

International Association of Public Participation

Practitioners (IAP3)

P.O. Box 10146, Alexandria, VA 22310

(703) 971-0090, (703) 971-0006 (fax)

E-mail: djsarno@aol.com

web site: http://www.pin.org/~pin

National Park Service

Denver Service Center, Resources Planning Group

P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287

98
Bibliography

ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES AND VISITORS

Land Classification

Aberley, D., ed.

1993 Boundaries of Home, Mapping for Local Empowerment. The

New Catalyst Bioregional Series. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1978 A Landscape Inventory Framework: Scenic Analyses of the

Northern Great Plains by R. B. Litton, Jr., and R. J. Tetlow.

Research Paper PWS-135. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Higuchi, T.

1989 The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. Cambridge,

MA: The MIT Press.

Zube, E. H., R. O. Brush and J. G. Fabos

1975 Landscape Assessment: Value, Perception, and Resources.

Community Development Series, Vol. 11. Stroudsburg, PA:

Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.

Tourism Planning

Gunn, C. A.

1988 Tourism Planning., 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor &

Francis.

Visual Resources

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1992 Forest Landscape Analysis and Design, A Process for Developing and Implementing Land Management Objectives for Landscape Patterns by N. Diaz and D. Apostol. Research Paper

R6 ECO-TP-043-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region.

1994 Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management.

Agricultural Handbook Number 701.Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Forest Service.

Litton, R. B. Jr., R. J. Tetlow, J. Sorenson, and R. A. Beatty

1974 Water and Landscape. Port Washington, NY: Water Information Center, Inc.

99
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Merigliano, L.

1990a “Indicators to Monitor the Wilderness Recreation Experience.” In Managing America's Enduring Wilderness Resource,

edited by D. Lime, 156–162. Proceedings of the Conference,

Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 11–17, 1989. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Extension Service, and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

1990b “Indicators to Monitor Wilderness Conditions.”In Managing

America's Enduring Wilderness Resource, edited by D. Lime,

205–213. Proceedings of the Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 11–17, 1989. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota

Extension Service, and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station, University of Minnesota.

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams, and A. E. Watson

1993 “Defining Acceptable Conditions in Wilderness.” Environmental Management 17 (2): 187–197.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1992 Defining Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standards in Wilderness Management — A Workshop Proceedings, by B. Shelby,

G. Stankey, and B. Shindler. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-305. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

MONITORING

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1983 Monitoring the Conditions of Wilderness Campsites, by D.

Cole. Forest Service Research Paper INT-302, Ogden, UT:

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

1989 Wilderness Campsite Monitoring Methods: A Sourcebook, by

D. Cole. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-259.

Ogden, UT: Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1991 Developing a Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program for Visitor Impacts on Recreation Sites: A Procedural

Manual, by J. L. Marion. Natural Resources Report

NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06. Prepared by the Cooperative Park

Studies Unit, Virginia Tech., Department of Forestry. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.

100
Bibliography

Yuan, S., B. Maiorano, M. Yuan, S. M. Kocis, and G. T. Hoshide.

1995 Techniques and Equipment for Gathering Visitor Use Data on

Recreation Sites. Missoula, MT: Technology & Development

Program, University of Montana.

MANAGEMENT ACTION

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1987 Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and

Potential Solutions, by D. N. Cole, M. E. Petersen, and R. C.

Lucas General Technical Report INT-230. Ogden, UT: Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

1993 Wilderness Visitor Education: Information About Alternative

Techniques, by J. E. Douchette and D. N. Cole. General

Technical Report INT-295. Ogden, UT: Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Manning, R. E.

1979 “Strategies for Managing Recreational Use of National

Parks.” Parks 4 (1): 13–15.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1993 Problems and Practices in Backcountry Recreation Management: A Survey of National Park Service Managers, by J. L.

Marion, J. W. Roggenbuck, and R. E. Manning. U.S. Department of the Interior–Natural Resources Report

NPS/NRVT/NRR-93/12. Denver, CO: Natural Resources

Publication Office, National Park Service.

McCool, S. F. and N. A. Christensen

1996 “Alleviating Congestion in Parks and Recreation Areas

Through Direct Management of Visitor Behavior.” In Congestion and Crowding in the National Park System, edited by

D. Lime. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 86-1996. St. Paul, MN: Department

of Forest Resources and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

Peterson, G. L. and D. W. Lime

1979 “People and Their Behavior: A Challenge for Recreation

Management.” Journal of Forestry 77 (6): 343–346.

101
� �������� ��� �������� ��� ��������

Vander Stoep, G. A. and J. W. Roggenbuck

1996 “Is Your Park Being ‘Loved to Death?’: Using Communications and Other Indirect Techniques to Battle the Park

‘Love Bug’.” In Congestion and Crowding in the National

Park System, edited by D. Lime. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 86-1996. St.

Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources and Minnesota

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

Wang, T. L., D. H. Anderson, and D. W. Lime

n.d. A Decision-Making Framework to Maintain Desired Resource

and Social Conditions in Recreational Settings. Prepared by

the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Minnesota,

for the National Park Service (in progress). On file at the

Denver Service Center.

102
Preparers

AUTHORS

Dr. Jayne Belnap, Research Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Canyonlands National Park

Dr. Wayne A. Freimund, Assistant Professor, School of Forestry,

University of Montana

Jim Hammett, Superintendent, John Day Fossil Beds National

Monument

Jan Harris, Planner, Denver Service Center

Marilyn Hof, Planner, Denver Service Center

Gary Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning and Professional

Services, Blue Ridge Parkway

Dr. David W. Lime, Senior Research Associate and Cooperative

Park Studies Unit Social Science Program Leader, Dept. of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota

Dr. Robert E. Manning, Professor, School of Natural Resources,

University of Vermont

Dr. Stephen F. McCool, Professor, School of Forestry, University

of Montana

Michael Rees, Planner, Denver Service Center

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS

Dr. David N. Cole, Research Biologist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute

Miki Stuebe, Landscape Architect, Denver Service Center

Patricia Trap, Landscape Architect, Denver Service Center

PRODUCTION SERVICES

Joan E. Huff, Visual Information Technician, Denver Service

Center

Leslie A. Peterson, Writer-Editor, Denver Service Center

Anne C. Shewell,Visual Information Specialist, Denver Service

Center

103