United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Intermountain 

Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 

Ogden, UT 84401 

Research Paper 

INT-312 

July 1983 

Campsite 

Conditions in the 

Bob Marshall 

Wilderness, 

Montana 

David N. Cole 

BOB 

MARSHALL 

WILDERNESS 

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute: Publication# 113 

113 

CITATION: Cole, David N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. Res. Pap. 

INT-312. Ogden, UT: USDA For. Serv., intermountain Forest and Range ExpeL Stn. 18 p. 

'· ~ ! . 

~ 

--~·k~J- ' ¥. '"'l. :t ~"' 

ti~~-~ ~;\ 

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Errors identified by the software have been corrected;

however, some errors may remain.

THE AUTHOR 

DAVID N. COLE is a research ecologist with Systems for 

Environmental Management, P.O. Box 3776, Missoula, 

Montana. He is working cooperatively with the Intermountain Station's Wilderness Management Research 

Work Unit at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory on the University of Montana Campus, Missoula. Dr. Cole received 

his B.A. degree in geography from the University of 

California, Berkeley, in 1972. He received his Ph.D., also in 

geography, from the University of Oregon in 1977. He has 

written several papers on wilderness campsite impacts 

and their management. 

RESEARCH SUMMARY 

Conditions were examined on campsites in low-to-midelevation forests and grasslands in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness, Mont. Camp area, bare area, and the extent of 

tree damage were evaluated. Other changes were assessed by comparing campsites to comparable control 

sites. The changes estimated ·in this way were toss of tree 

seedlings, ground vegetation, and duff, increase in mineral 

soil exposure and compaction, change in species composition, and reduction in infiltration rates. 

Trampling disturbance of groundcover vegetation and 

soils was similar in magnitude to what has been reported 

elsewhere. The unique features of these campsites were 

the large area that had been disturbed and the great 

number of damaged trees. Such damage is primarily a 

result of the prevalence of large parties with stock and the 

persistence of practices such as felling trees for tent 

poles and tying stock to trees. 

Campsites used primarily by backpackers, sites used 

primarily by private stock parties, and sites used by 

commercial outfitters in the fall were compared. Certain 

types of impact, such as percentage of vegetation lost, 

were comparable on all three types of campsite. The types 

of impact that are most extreme on Bob Marshall campsites, however, are most pronounced on those sites used 

primarily by private stock parties and commercial 

outfitters. 

Several management actions can be taken to reduce 

campsite damage. Most importantly, users must be educated about the damage resulting from felling trees and 

tying stock to trees. It would also be helpful to encourage 

the use of existing campsites in popular areas. In less 

popular areas, people could be encouraged to use undisturbed, resistant sites, such as many of the grasslands, to 

avoid seriously damaging any single site. Finally, in places 

that are frequently used by novice stock parties the Forest 

Service should consider providing corrals or hitchralls to 

reduce tree damage. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I am grateful to Robert Christian, Susan Kerns, Jeffrey 

Marion, Margaret Petersen, and John Rider for field assistance 

and to Peter Stickney for identifying some of the more difficult 

plant species. 

Campsite Conditions in the 

Bob Marshall Wilderness, 

Montana 

David N. Cole 

INTRODUCTION 

Of the recreational impacts occurring in wilderness, those on 

campsites are the most troublesome and complex to manage. 

The potential solutions to such problems are numerous, and it 

is seldom obvious which solutions are most appropriate or likely to be effective. Use rationing, limitations on length of stay 

or group size, concentrating campers on designated sites, 

dispersing campers among numerous sites, campsite closures, 

prohibition of wood fires, and visitor education are some of 

the techniques that have been used in an attempt to solve 

campsite problems. Too often the effects of such actions cannot be accurately predicted. Even more regretable, after actions 

have been taken it is seldom possible to evaluate their effectiveness because systems for monitoring changes in campsite condition are not in place. 

In the western United States, most studies of campsite condition have been conducted at high elevations; therefore, the conclusions drawn may not be applicable to campsites at lower elevations. Furthermore, previous studies have not compared the 

condition of campsites that have been subjected to very different types of use. Such informational gaps provided the impetus 

for long-term monitoring of campsites in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness, Mont., an area frequented by parties of backpackers, private individuals with packstock, and commercial 

outfitters and their clients. Specific purposes of this study were: 

(1) to document campsite condition for future monitoring; 

(2) to compare the condition of sites subjected to the three major categories of user; and (3) to test the hypothesis that lowelevation campsites are less fragile than high-elevation campsites. This report describes the study area, how the study was 

conducted, results of the study, and management implications. 

STUDY AREA AND STUDY METHODS 

The Bob Marshall Wilderness is located south of Glacier 

National Park, along the Continental Divide in Montana. At 

just over 1 million acres (408 000 ha), the Bob Marshall is one 

of the largest wildernesses in the Nation. User densities are 

moderately low (0.15 visitor-day/acre in 1981), although certain 

travel corridors and destinations do receive concentrated use. 

The area is unique in the high proportion of stock users and 

the importance of fall hunting. In 1970, two-thirds of all 

parties had packstock; about one-half of these were with outfitters. Over one-third of the use was in the fall, and about 

one-third of all parties hunted (Lucas 1980). 

We examined 35 campsites within the Bob Marshall Wilderness, selecting sites located in various parts of the wilderness 

(fig. 1). Both forest and grassland sites were examined, but all 

1 

sites were at relatively low elevations for a mountainous 

wilderness in the West-between 4,100 and 5,500 ft (1 250 and 

1 675 m) (fig. 2). Although only well-established sites were 

studied, use ranged from the most frequently used sites to sites 

used only a few times per year. We examined six camps that 

were used almost exclusively by backpackers. The most 

numerous sites were those used predominantly by private parties with stock (called horse camps hereafter). These sites, of 

which we selected 24 for study, are used less frequently by 

backpackers and by roving commercially outfitted groups. We 

also examined five camps assigned to commercial outfitters. 

Most of these sites are off the main trails, and are mainly used 

in the fall as hunting base camps. 

Each sample site consisted of both a campsite and an undisturbed control site nearby. From a fiXed point close to the 

center of the campsite, we measured the distance to the edge of 

the campsite, and to the first significant amount of vegetation 

along each of 16 transects. This defined the campsite area and 

the area of the barren central core (bare area). Tree seedlings 

between 6 and 55 inches (15 to 140 em) tall were counted 

within the camp area, excluding any untrampled ''islands''; 

larger trees were counted within the entire camp area, including 

the "islands." Any human damage to trees was noted. 

On each campsite, 15 quadrats, 3.28 by 3.28 ft (1 m by 1 m) 

square, were located along four transects. The transects 

originated at the center point and were oriented perpendicular 

to each other. The distanc~ between successive quadrats 

decreased with distance from the center point, so that the central part of the site was not oversampled. In each quadrat, the 

canopy coverages of total ground vegetation, exposed mineral 

soil, each vascular plant species, and mosses and lichens as a 

group were estimated. Coverages were estimated, always by the 

same investigators, to the nearest percent if under 10 percent 

or, in 10 percent coverage classes, between 10 and 100 percent. 

The midpoints of each class were used to calculate means for 

each variable. Plot layout and measurements are fully described 

and illustrated in Cole (1982). 

Soil compaction and depth of organic litter and fermentation 

(0) horizons (duff depth) were measured adjacent to each 

quadrat. Compaction was measured with a pocket soil penetrometer in the uppermost portion of the mineral soil after the 

organic horizons had been removed. Inflltration rates were 

measured with a double-ring in nitrometer, between 3 and 6 ft 

( 1-2 m) from the center point along two of the transects. The 

rate that the first 0.39 inch (1 em) entered the soil was called 

the instantaneous infiltration rate. After 2 inches (5 em) had 
5 

I I 

10 

To Bigfork 

N 

To Missoula 

Figure 1.-Locatlons of sample campsites within the Bob Marshall Wilderness. 

2 

\. 

2-.. 

\ 

\. 

\ . 

\ 

I 

.}· 

LEGEND 

e BACKPACKER CAMPS 

A HORSE CAMPS 

• FALL OUTFITTER CAMPS 

"'/ TRAILS TRAVELED 

- ROADS 

- •- WILDERNESS BOUNDARY 

To Augusta 
Figure 2.-The study campsites were located In forests and grasslands at 

relatively low elevations. 

soaked into the soil, more water was added. The rate that the 

next 0.39 inch (I em) entered the soil wa'i called the saturated 

rate. Both are expressed in centimeters per minute. 

On the control plots, which usually varied in size between 

165 and 330 ft 2 (50 and 100m), we estimated the coverage of 

total vegetation, exposed mineral soil, each vascular plant 

species, mosses, and lichens for the entire plot. We counted 

numbers of seedlings and took 15 duff depth and penetration resistance measurements and two infiltration rate 

measurements. 

On very large sites, where there were several discontinuous 

disturbed areas, usually holding areas for stock, we took detailed measurements in the central area used for cooking. Then 

we estimated the size of the entire disturbed area and assessed 

tree damage in this larger area. 

The amount of change that has occurred is inferred from 

comparisons of campsites and controls. I calculated both absolute change-the difference between measurements on the 

control site and mea'iurements on the campsite-and relative 

change-the absolute change expressed as a percentage of the 

measurement on the control site. Where control conditions are 

variable, relative change provides a more valid ba'iis for site-to3 

site comparisons than either absolute change or current campsite conditions. Change in species composition was measured 

with the following coefficient of floristic dissimilarity: 

FD = 0.5 E IP• - p2 j 

where P• is the relative cover of a given species on the control 

plot, and P2 is the relative cover of the same species on the 

campsite (Cole 1978). 

Two different analyses were used to determine the statistical 

significance of results. The first analysis involved testing 

whether campsites were significantly different from controls. 

The Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks test (a = 0.05) was 

used to test the null hypothesis that campsite conditions were 

not significantly different from controls (Siegel 1956). 

The second set of tests examined the differences between 

backpacker camps, horse camps and outfitter camps. The null 

hypothesis that conditions on each of these types of camp were 

identical was tested using the randomization test for two independent samples (a = 0.05) (Siegel 1956). Randomly selected 

samples of 5 of the 6 backpacker sites and 5 of the 24 horse 

sites were compared with each other and with the 5 outfitter 

sites examined. · 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

How Much Change Has Occurred? 

Campsite area on the 35 sites varied between 624 and 

6,512 feet 2 (58 and 605 m2

) (table I); the median site was 

2,352 ft 2 (216m2

). Most of the campsite area was vegetated; 

the median bare area was only 150 fe (14 m2

). Some 23 of the 

35 sites, however, had large areas away from the camping area 

that had also been disturbed, usually from holding packstock. 

About one-tenth acre (405 m2

) was disturbed on the median 

campsite. The largest site had a disturbed area of more than 

2.5 acres (10,600 m2). 

On most campsites, all of the overstory trees have been 

damaged. Typically, about 15 percent of the on-site trees have 

been felled, another 55 percent are scarred with ax marks, 

nails, and so on, and the rest have had their lower branches 

broken off for firewood. Over one-half of these trees have also 

had their roots exposed, usually from the trampling of stock 

tied to their trunks. 

The number of trees affected is sizeable, particularly when 

damage on the entire disturbed area-both campsite and stockholding area-is considered. The median number of damaged 

trees was 63 per site, but on one site approximately 500 trees 

had been damaged. Particularly disturbing were the large 

number of trees that had been felled (median of 15 per site) 

and that had exposed roots (median of 28 per site). This is 

visually obtrusive, long-term damage (fig. 3). On many areas 

with no other evidence of use, tree damage identified the place 

as a former campsite. This damage is also cumulative-each 

year newly damaged trees are added. 

Table 1.-Size of disturbance, tree damage, and change in species composition on all 35 campsites 

Statistic 

Camp 

area 

Bare 

area 

Disturbed Damaged 

area trees 

Scarred 

trees 

Felled 

trees 

Trees with 

exposed 

roots 

Damaged 

trees 

Scarred 

trees 

Felled 

trees 

Trees with 

exposed 

roots 

Floristic 

dissimilarity 

--------Square meters-------- ----------Percent on camp area---------- -------Number on disturbed area------- --Percent--

63 

31-97 

Median 

Range 

216 14 405 100 70 15 54 63 49 15 28 

58-605 0-291 58-10,600* 0-100 0-100 0-67 0-100 0-500* 0-300* 0-200* 0-100* 

·rhe highest values are visual estimates rather than counts or measures. 

Figure 3.-Cut trees provide evidence of human 

use long after trampled vegetation has 

recovered. 

The long-term importance of tree damage is reinforced by 

the lack of tree reproduction on campsites. About three-fourths 

of the campsites have no tree reproduction at all, and reproduction is very low on the other sites (table 2). In the future we 

can expect reductions in tree density and the creation or expansion of non forested areas used as campsites. 

Although the barren central core of the campsite is typically 

small, trampling hao; affected groundcover over the entire site. 

The median campsite hao; only one-third the vegetation cover of 

its paired control. Several sites have lost over 90 percent of 

their original vegetation. The composition of the vegetation 

4 

that does survive is very different from that on controls. The 

median floristic difference between campsites and controls (an 

index of change in species composition that can vary from no 

change-0 percent-to complete change-100 percent) is 63 

percent (table 1). 

To better understand the compositional changes resulting 

from trampling, I compared the relative cover of different 

growth forms on campsites and controls (table 3). The most 

pronounced change is the near elimination of shrubs and subshrubs (woody species other than trees) on campsites. Their 

median relative cover on controls was 21 percent, while their 

median relative cover on campsites was only 4 percent. Mosses 

and lichens have also been nearly eliminated on campsites. 

There has been a corresponding increase in the importance of 

graminoids (grasses and grasslike species) and forbs (herbaceous 

species other than graminoids) on campsites. Median relative 

cover values for grarninoids were 29 percent on controls and 

36 percent on campsites; for forbs values were 43 percent on 

controls and 51 percent on campsites. 

To examine the response of individual species to trampling, I 

categorized the most common native species into those that are 

particularly resistant to trampling damage, those that are particularly susceptible, and those that are neither resistant nor susceptible. Less common native species are listed in the appendix. 

I also identified species that "invaded" campsites-species that 

are always found more frequently on campsites than controls 

and that often also provide more cover on campsites than controls (table 4). The invader list includes 27 introduced species (8 

of which are annuals) and I 2 natives (8 of which are annuals). 

Three of the four most abundant species on campsites are 

common domestic lawn species-Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion), and Trifolium repens (white clover). 
Table 2.-Soil and vegetation changes on all 35 campsites* 

Soil Duff Penetration Infiltration rates 

Statistic Seedlings Vegetation exposure depth resistance Instantaneous Saturated 

Stemslha ------Percent------ em kglcm2 --------em/min--------

Campsite 

median 0 29 7.4 1.2 3.1 0.5 0.1 

range 0-560 1-84 0.3-53.2 .05-4.4 1.7-4.5 0.06-6.0 0.03-0.7 

Control 

median 600 85 0 2.1 2.2 1.8 0.6 

range 0-7,342 65-100 0-5 0.2-11.0 0.8-4.5 0.2-10.0 0.04-4.0 

Median 

absolute change 880 52 7.1 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.4 

Median 

relative change 

(%) 100 66 00 45 71 66 72 

Significance level <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

• Absolute change is the difference between campsite and control values; relative change is the absolute change divided by the 

control value. Significance was tested with a one-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks test. 

Table 3.-Relative cover of growth forms on all 35 campsites and controls*. 

Growth form 

Graminoids 

Forbs 

Shrubs and subshrubs 

Mosses and I ichens 

Campsites Control sites 

Median Range Median Range 

----------------Percent----------------

36 7-63 29 6-60 

51 15-91 43 9-57 

4 0-53 21 0-59 

1 0-27 3 0-38 

*Significance was tested with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-ranks test. 

5 

Significance 

level 

0.01 

.004 

<.001 

.002 
Table 4.-Cover and frequency of campsite "Invaders"* 

Frequency of Mean relative 

occurrence Mean cover cover 

Species Camps Controls Camps Controls Camps Controls 

Number ----- ----------------- Percent -----------------

Agropyron repens 1 7 3 2.9 3.0 3.3 1.6 

Agrostis alba 1 3 0 1.0 .0 2.3 .0 

Arabis glabra1 3 2 .2 1.0 .2 .5 

Bromus inermls 1 3 2 1.7 6.3 2.8 2.8 

Bromus tectorum 1 •

2 1 0 .7 .0 .6 .0 

Capsella bursa-pastoris 1

•

2 11 0 .6 .0 1.6 .0 

Cerastium arvense 8 1 1.2 .9 1.1 .3 

Chenopodium album1

•

2 2 0 2.2 .0 2.9 .0 

Collins/a parviflora2 5 1 .3 .4 .8 .2 

Dactylis glomera fa 1 3 1 .7 .5 .8 .4 

Descuralnia richardsonii2 4 1 2.4 .5 6.9 .3 

Epilobium paniculatum2 1 0 .2 .0 1.8 .0 

Filago arvensis 1

•

2 1 0 .2 .0 1.8 .0 

Lappula redowski/2 2 0 .6 .0 1.6 .0 

Lepldlum denslflorum2 3 0 .1 .0 .4 .0 

Linanthus septentrionalis2 2 1 .5 1.0 .6 .4 

Lychnis alba 1 2 0 1.4 .0 1.7 .0 

Matricaria matrlcarioides2 4 0 1.3 .0 5.5 .0 

Medlcago lupul/na1

•

2 3 1 2.7 2.0 4.0 1.2 

Phleum pratense1 13 3 1.4 2.7 1.8 1.2 

Plagiobothrys scouler/2 6 0 6.0 .0 10.3 .0 

Plantago major1 12 0 .5 .0 1.0 .0 

Poa annua1 •

2 4 0 3.6 .0 4.8 .0 

Poa palustrls 1 1 0 3.0 .0 1.2 .0 

Poa pratensis 1 29 14 12.4 7.6 20.0 3.2 

Polygonum avlculare 1,2 5 0 2.4 .0 6.6 .0 

Po ten til/a argentea 1 1 0 .1 .0 .3 .0 

Rumex acetosella 1 2 1 1.6 2.0 1.5 .7 

Rumex crlspus 1 3 1 1.7 .3 2.2 .1 

Saglna saginoides 1 1 4.3 5.0 5.1 2.0 

Stellar/a calycantha 1 0 .7 .0 .9 ·.0 

Stellar/a long/pes 2 0 1.2 .0 1.6 .0 

Taraxacum offlcinale 1 31 15 4.4 1.2 6.9 .6 

Thlasp/ arvense1·2 4 0 .3 .0 .5 .0 

Tragapogon dub/us 1 1 0 1.0 .0 .6 .0 

Trifolium pratense1 6 4 .6 .6 .6 .4 

Trifolium repens 1 20 14 4.0 2.9 5.9 1.4 

Verbascum thapsus 1 1 0 .2 .0 1.8 .0 

Veronica serpyllifolia 3 2 .5 .8 .5 .3 

*Species that are more common on campsites than on controls. Means are for the sites on which the species was found-not 

all 35 sites. The 1 Indicates a nonnative species; the 2 Indicates an annual. 

6 
Only nine of the native species commonly found on controls 

are resistant to trampling (table 5). These species have less 

cover on campsites than on controls, but they survive more 

often than their associates. Consequently, their relative cover is 

higher on campsites than on controls. The list includes three 

species of graminoid and various forbs, most of which have 

basal leaves, a characteristic that reduces susceptibility to 

trampling damage. One of these resistant species, Xerophyllum 

tenax (beargrass) is one of the more common understory dominants in middle and higher elevation forests throughout much 

of the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rocky Mountains. 

Twenty-four common species were categorized as highly susceptible; their relative cover on campsites was much lower than 

on controls (table 6). Many of these species are shrubs, subshrubs, or tall, leafy-stemmed forbs. Three of these-Vaccinium caespitosum (dwarf huckleberry), Arctostaphylos uvaursi (kinnikinnick), and Thalictrum occidentale (western 

meadowrue) are among the most common species on control 

sites. Sites with these species in abundance should be considered highly susceptible to vegetation loss, if used for camping. 

Table 5.-Cover and frequency of common native species that are particularly resistant to damage* 

Species 

Agoseris glauca 

Agrostis scabra 

Carex rossii 

Penstemon confertus/procerus 

Potentilla gracilis 

Smllacina stellata 

Solidago missouriensis 

Stipa occidentalls 

Xerophyllum tenax 

Frequency of 

occurrence 

Camps Controls 

Number -----

7 6 

7 6 

14 6 

20 21 

11 7 

11 14 

6 8 

12 11 

3 8 

Mean cover 

Camps Controls 

Mean relative 

cover 

Camps Controls 

----------------- Percent ----------------- 1.2 1.7 1.7 0.8 

4.3 4.4 4.9 2.3 

.5 1.1 1.7 .5 

2.4 4.4 6.0 2.0 

2.8 2.9 2.7 1.3 

1.0 3.3 3.2 1.5 

1.3 3.4 5.0 1.7 

4.9 13.4 9.4 6.2 

.7 8.4 9.4 5.2 

*Species that are less abundant on campsites than controls, but that have a much higher relative cover on campsites. Common 

species are those that are found on at least one-fourth of the sample sites. Means are for all sites on which the species was 

found-not all 35 sites. Some of the Potentllla gracilis may be P. recta, a nonnative species. · 

Table &.-Cover and frequency of common native species that are particularly susceptible to trampling damage* 

Frequency of Mean relative 

occurrence Mean cover cover 

Species Camps Controls Camps Controls Camps Controls 

Number ----- --------~-------- Percent ----------------- Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 5 18 0.4 11.8 1.1 6.7 

Aster conspicuus 11 19 .5 7.9 1.3 3.9 

Campanula rotundifolla 4 14 .1 1.6 .1 .7 

Danthonia intermedia 3 11 .2 6.6 .1 3.0 

Elymus glaucus 4 9 .2 6.4 .3 3.2 

Eplloblum angustlfollum 8 18 .2 1.8 .2 .9 

Geum trlflorum 4 7 .2 1.3 .2 .6 

Juniperus communis 2 12 .1 3.3 .4 1.7 

Koeleria cristata 5 10 .5 6.1 .9 3.1 

Lichens 2 10 .1 4.2 .1 2.1 

Llnnaea borealis 1 11 .1 8.4 .1 4.4 

Llthospermum ruderale 2 9 .4 2.2 .5 1.0 

Lupinus sericeus 5 10 .1 4.0 .3 2.1 

Osmorhiza chilensis 4 8 .1 1.5 .1 .6 

Pachlstlma myrsinltes 2 8 .1 2.9 .2 1.5 

Potentilla arguta 4 9 .1 2.3 .2 1.1 

Pyrola secunda 1 9 .1 3.1 .8 1.5 

Rhamnus alnifolia 0 8 .0 2.6 .0 1.1 

Senecio pseudaureus 10 17 .4 6.0 1.2 2.7 

Shepherd/a canadensis 0 11 .0 2.7 .0 1.4 

Symphorlcarpos a/bus 13 16 .6 8.7 2.1 4.8 

Thallctrum occidentale 9 21 .4 9.9 1.2 4.4 

Vaccinlum caespltosum 8 9 .8 24.1 4.7 13.4 

Viola adunca 5 8 .1 1.2 .3 .6 

*Species with much lower relative cover values on campsites than on controls. Common species are those that occur on at least 

one-fourth of the sample sites. Means are for all sites on which the species was found-not all 35 sites. 

7 
Table 7 lists common species that are neither resistant nor 

fragile. These include the most common plants on controls, 

mosses, Calamagrostis rubescens (pinegrac;s), and Fragaria virginiana (strawberry), as well as the leac;t susceptible of the common shrubby species, Berberis repens (creeping Oregon grape), 

Rosa sp. (rose), and Spiraea betulifolia (shiny-leaf spirea). 

In addition to removing vegetative cover, trampling also 

disturbs organic horizons, exposing the mineral soil beneath. 

Most control sites had no exposed mineral soil, while the median exposure on campsites was over 7 percent (table 2). The 

depth of the organic horizons (dufO decreased 45 percent, from 

median values of 0.8 inches (2.1 em) on controls to 0.5 inches 

( 1.2 em) on campsites. 

Trampling also compacts the soil. Penetration resistance increased over 70 percent, from median values of 2.2 kg/cm2 on 

controls to 3.1 kg/cm2 on campsites. Infiltration rates were 

reduced as a result of this compaction. Median instantaneous 

infiltration rates on campsites were less than one-third of those 

on controls and median saturated rates are only one-sixth of 

those on controls. 

Table 7.-Cover and frequency of common native species that are neither highly resistant nor highly fragile* 

Frequency of Mean relative 

occurrence Mean cover cover 

Species Camps Controls Camps Controls Camps Controls 

Number ----- ----------------- Percent ----------------- Achillea millefolium 26 25 1.0 2.9 1.5 1.4 

Allium cernuum 10 17 .7 3.6 1.4 1.7 

Anemone multifida 9 9 .2 2.6 .9 1.3 

Antennaria microphyllal 

umbrinella 11 19 .7 3.4 1.0 1.6 

Arnica cordifoliallatifolia 9 14 .7 7.8 4.4 4.2 

Aster foliaceous 12 10 1.0 4.4 2.4 2.1 

Berberis repens 19 21 .6 6.0 1.9 3.2 

Calamagrostis rubescens 15 22 2.9 29.7 8.2 15.8 

Carex geyeri 5 10 1.4 9.5 3.4 5.0 

Cirsium hookeriana 5 12 .4 2.6 .7 1.2 

Disporum trachycarpum 3 7 .1 2.0 1.0 1.0 

Fraga ria virginiana 31 33 3.1 14.2 6.5 7.1 

Ga/ium boreale 18 22 1.0 4.6 2.3 2.3 

Gentians amare/la 7 6 .1 .9 .2 .4 

Heuchera cyllndrica 6 6 .3 2.0 .6 1.1 

Mosses 21 23 3.0 23.5 6.2 10.4 

Rosa sp. 15 18 1.2 6.5 3.1 3.5 

Sedum /anceolatum 6 6 .7 2.1 .8 .9 

Senecio serra 4 10 .3 1.6 .5 .7 

Spiraea betulifolia 6 15 .6 8.1 4.3 4.6 

·common species are those that occur on at least one-fourth of the sample sites. Means are for all sites on which the species 

was found-not all 35 sites. 

How Do These Changes Compare to Those 

Found Elsewhere? 

Changes on these lower elevation sites-4,100 to 5,500 ft 

(I 250 to I 675 m)-can be readily compared with changes on 

sites in subalpine forests-7,050 to 7,800 ft (2150 to 2 400 m) 

in the Eagle Cap Wilderness in Oregon because similar methods 

were used (Cole 1982). To a lesser extent they can also be compared with backcountry sites studied in detail in subalpine 

forests in the River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho (Coombs 

1976), and the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness and Rattlesnake Wilderness, Mont. (Fichtler 1980), and with lowelevation forested sites in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, 

Minn. (Frissell and Duncan 1965; McCool and others 1969). In 

none of these other study areas is horse use as predominant as 

it is in the Bob Marshall. 

Disturbance of ground cover on the Bob Marshall sites is generally toward the lower bounds of the range found in other 

studies. The median area devoid of vegetation (14 m2

) is much 

less than the bare area on Eagle Cap sites (87 m2

), and the 

66 percent loss of vegetation is considerably less than was 

8 

found on Eagle Cap (87 percent) or Boundary Waters sites 

(85 percent). However, vegetation loss was slightly higher than 

was found on sites in the River of No Return and Rattlesnake 

Wildernesses. Thus the hypothesis that lower elevation sites in 

the Bob Marshall, with longer growing seasons, might be 

notably more resistant to vegetation damage than subalpine 

forests is incorrect. Instead there was more variation in 

resistance between plant communities within an elevational zone 

than between elevation zones. Subalpine forests with understories ~ominated by Xerophyllum tenax, as in the Rattlesnake 

Wilderness, are much more resistant than those with understories dominated by Vaccinium scoparium, as in the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness. In the Bob Marshall, several grassland sites lost less 

than 20 percent of their cover, while many of the forested sites 

with fragile understories lost more than 80 percent of their 

cover. • 

Despite the moderately low Joss of vegetation cover, the 

change in species composition on Bob Marshall sites has been 

more dramatic than has been documented elsewhere. The inva-
sion of introduced species has been particularly pronounced. 

Exotics constitute almost 15 percent of the campsite flora and 

are the most abundant species on most campsites. This invasion 

of exotics is promoted by heavy use of packstock (manure and 

feed are important seed sources) and is generally lacking on 

subalpine forest sites. 

The elimination of essentially all tree seedlings on campsites 

is a finding common to all studies and attests to the extreme 

vulnerability of tree seedlings to trampling damage. 

The increase in exposed mineral soil on Bob Marshall campsites is similar to that found on Mission Mountains sites (6 percent), but is considerably less than that found elsewhere 

(15 percent in the Boundary Waters to 25 percent in the Eagle 

Cap). The percentage of reduction in duff depth (relative 

change) is also somewhat less-45 percent in comparison to 

51 percent on Eagle Cap sites and 60 to 65 percent on Boundary Waters sites. More duff has been removed (absolute 

change) from the Bob Marshall sites, however, than from the 

Eagle Cap sites-0.28 inches (0. 7 em) compared to 0.12 inches 

(0.3 em). Apparently, more organic matter is lost from the Bob 

Marshall sites, but because the organic horizons are so thick to 

start out with, exposure of mineral soil is much less. 

In the Bob Marshall wilderness, penetration resistance typically increased 71 percent, which is less than has been found 

elsewhere: Rattlesnake, 89 percent; Mission Mountains, 139 

percent; and Boundary Waters, 220 percent. This may reflect 

the cushioning effect of thicker organic horizons or, more likely, it merely reflects inherent differences in soil characteristics. 

For example, undisturbed sites in the Bob Marshall have a 

higher penetration resistance than the campsites in the Mission 

Mountains. 

Reductions in infiltration rates, perhaps the most meaningful 

measure of the effects of soil compaction, are more pronounced on Bob Marshall sites than on Eagle Cap sites. Both 

instantaneous and saturated rates on Eagle Cap campsites were 

still more than one-half of the rates on controls. In contrast, 

instantaneous rates on the Bob Marshall campsites were less 

than one-third of controls and saturated rates on campsites 

were one-sixth of controls. 

Although disturbance of ground vegetation and soil is neither 

unusually high nor unusually low, the large size of the Bob 

Marshall sites and the amount of tree damage is unique. The 

size of the disturbed area on the median Bob Marshall site 

(4,360 ft 2 ; 405 rn2

) is about twice the size of sites in the Eagle 

Cap (2,077 ft 2 ; 193m2

) and Boundary Waters (2,830 ft 2

; 

263 m2). The size of the area,used for cooking and camping is 

similar in all three areas; the difference is the addition, in the 

Bob Marshall, of a large area disturbed by stock. 

Given the character of use in the area-two-thirds of the 

parties have stock-this may be unavoidable. But the high level 

of tree damage on these sites is avoidable. The percentage of 

damaged trees on the campsites is comparable to other situations. In fact, the percentage of trees that have been felled is 

less than on Eagle Cap sites. It is the number of damaged trees 

that is so high on Bob Marshall sites. Compared to a median 

of 12 damaged trees per site in the Eagle Cap, the median Bob 

Marshall site had 63 damaged trees and one site had about 500. 

The median Eagle Cap site had 4 felled trees and 3 trees with 

exposed roots. Median values for the Bob Marshall sites were 

15 felled trees and 28 trees with exposed roots (fig. 4 and 5). 

This high level of damage is a result of tying horses to trees 

and felling trees for tent poles-practices that are unusually 

prevalent in the Bob Marshall-as well as collecting firewood 

from standing trees and malicious or thoughtless chopping of 

trees-practices that are also common in other areas. 

Figure 4.-The large number of trees felled on this campsite Is typical of Bob Marshall sites. 

9 
Figure 5.-Exposure of tree roots is unusually pronounced on most Bob Marshall campsites 

and persists even when ground vegetation has recovered. 

How Do Impacts on Backpacker, Horse, and 

Outfitter Camps Compare? 

El~ewhere I have suggested that the type of use a site receives 

and the behavior of the campers that use it will usually have 

more effect on amount of damage than how many people use 

the site (Cole 198la). To some extent this is illustrated by certain 

types of impact being unusually pronounced on Bob Marshall 

sites despite rehtively low levels of use compared to Eagle Cap 

and Boundary Waters sites. The importance of type of use is 

also suggested by a comparison of the condition of the backpacker, hor~e. and outfitter sites that were examined. 

Before reporting the data, it is important to stress their 

• limitations. Differences in campsite condition cannot be attributed entirely to differences in type of use. Amount of use 

differed greatly, with many horse can1ps receiving more use 

than outfitter camps, which received more use than the backpacker camps. The inherent ability of the sites to resist damage 

10 

also varied. Generally, outfitter camps were located on most 

resistant sites and backpacker camps were located on least 

resistant sites. Finally, some backpackers and outfitters use 

private horse camps, and some backpackers and private horse 

parties use outfitter camps. Nevertheless, the nature of the differences between these types of sites suggests that the predominant type of use each site receives is the major determinant of 

amount of impact. 

Campsite area is smallest on backpacker sites (fig. 6), being 

generally less than one-third the size of other sites (table 8). 

This difference is primarily a result of fewer large backpacking 

parties. The lack of a significant difference in the camp area of 

horse and outfitter camps is misleading because outfitter camps 

consisted of many dispersed tent sites that were generally not 

included in the camp area meas~re. Differences in bare area are 

not significantly different, but none of the backpacker sites had 

the large bare area that a few of the horse and outfitter sites 

did. 
Figure 6.-A relatively small campsite mainly used by backpackers. 

Table 8.-Size of disturbance in relation to type of use• 

Type of use 

Backpacker 

Horse 

Outfitter 

Camp area Bare area Disturbed area 

Median Range Median Range Median Range 

---------------------------Square meters ___ _: ______________________ _ 

76 58-175 a 3 2-34 a 76 58-175 a 

251 200-404 b 13 5-291 a 456 200-1,204 b 

233 145-443 b 14 0-100 a 3,143 408-10,600 c 

• Any two sets of median and range values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 

95 percent confidence level, using the randomization test for two independent samples. 

11 
The most pronounced differences are in the size of the disturbed. area-the camp area plus other discontinuous disturbed 

areas. The median horse camp is 6 times larger than the median 

backpacker site. The median outfitter camp is 7 times larger 

than the horse camps and 41 times larger than the backpacker 

camps. These differences result from differences in party size 

(outfitter groups are generally larger than private horse groups, 

which are larger than backp~ker groups), the addition of an 

area damaged by stock on the horse and outfitter camps, and a 

Forest Service policy of spreading out facilities on outfitter sites 

(fig. 7). . .. .· . 

Tree seedling loss is generally 100 perc~nt regardless of the 

type of use (table 9)~ Damage to mature trees, however, is considerably more exten,sive 09. ; and outfitter sites. ~ssentially 

Figure 7.-Semlpermanenttent frames, woodpile, and kitchen facilities 

typical of outfitters' camp. 

· all trees on the campsites are damaged, but the number of such 

trees increases from a median of S on backpacker sites to 56 on 

horse sites and 100 on outfitter site~. A similar pattern applies 

to numbers of felled trees and trees with exposed roots, except 

that for these parameters the percentage of trees damaged is 

also lower on backpacker sites. Differences between horse and 

outfitter sites are not consistent enough to be statistically 

significant. The differences between backpacker sites and other 

sites are a function of size of the campsite, the need to hold 

stock on or adjacent to horse and outfitter camps, and the 

damaging practices of tying hor~ to trees and feUing trees for 

tent poles (generally not done by backpackers because they 

carry their own t~mt poles) or foPrrr~wood. 

Table 9.-Tree damage on campsites in relation to type of use* 

Seedling loss 

Type of use Median Range 

Backpacker 

Horse 

Outfitter 

----- Percent -----

100 100 a 

100 92-100 a 

100 100 a 

Damaged trees Felled trees 

Median Range Median Range 

Trees with 

exposed roots 

Median Range 

---------------- Number of trees in disturbed area ----------------

5 3-29 a 0 0-8 a 1 0-4 a 

56 21-180 b 8 0-33 b 25 10-38 b 

100 23-500 b 15 3-250 b 37 13-100 b 

• Any two sets of median and range values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level, using the randomization test for two Independent samples. Seedling loss Is relative change. 

12 
As was the case with bare area and seedling loss, there are Soil exposure generally increases from backpacker sites 

no significant differences between backpacker, horse, and outfitter camps in the amount of surviving vegetation cover 

(table 10). There are also no differences in absolute or relative 

vegetation change. There are, however, some small, but statistically significant, differences in the amount of change in 

species composition. Backpacker sites have experienced less 

change than horse sites. Outfitter sites have the highest floristic 

dissimilarity value (76 percent), but they cannot be distinguished statistically from either backpacker or horse sites. 

(5 percent) to horse (9 percent) and outfitter sites (33 percent). 

This corresponds with a gradient in duff depth from backpacker sites (0.9 in, 2.2 em) to horse (0.5 in, 1.2 em) and outfitter sites (0.1 in; 0.2 em) (table 12). On Eagle Cap campsites, 

these are the types of change that were most aggravated by increases in amount of use. Thus these differences may reflect 

heavier use of horse and outfitter sites as well as differences in 

type of use. 

The most pronounced vegetational difference is in the degree 

to which these sites have been colonized by introduced and annual species (table II). Introduced species account for only 

5 percent of the cover on backpacker sites compared with 

43 percent on horse sites and 61 percent on outfitter sites. Annuals, which are very rare in undisturbed places, are absent on 

most backpacker and horse sites but comprise 17 percent of the 

cover on outfitter sites. 

Differences in penetration resistance on the three types of 

sites were not statistically significant. Penetration resistance 

values were highest on horse sites, and this difference is 

reflected in significantly slower infiltration rates on horse sites 

than on either backpacker or outfitter sites. All of these differences between types of sites are less pronounced than differences between any of these sites and controls, however. 

Table 10.-Groundcover conditions on campsites in relation to type of use* 

Type of use 

Backpacker 

Horse 

Outfitter 

Vegetation cover Floristic dissimilarity Soil exposure 

Median Range Median Range Median Range 

------------------------------Percent------------------------------

26 10-59 a 62 31-72 a 4.6 0.7-13.3 a 

33 6-45 a 69 63-89 b 9.3 .7-39.1 b 

30 13-80 a 76 48-97 a,b 32.9 11.9-44.5 c 

• Any two sets of median and range values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 

95 percent confidence level, using the randomization test for two independent samples. 

Table 11.-Relative cover of introduced and annual species in relation to type of use* 

Type of use 

Backpacker 

Horse 

Outfitter 

Introduced species Annual species 

Median Range Median Range 

---------------------- Percent ---------------------- 5 1-14 a 0 0-4 a 

43 0-58 b 1 0-9 a 

61 15-82 c 17 1-60 b 

• Any two sets of median and range values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 

95 percent confidence level, using the randomization test for two independent samples. 

Table 12.-Soil condition on campsites in relation to type of use* 

Infiltration rates 

Duff Depth Penetration resistance Instantaneous Saturated 

Type of use Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range 

-------- em -------- ------- kg/cm2 ------- ---------------- em/min ---------------- Backpacker 2.2 1.1-4.4 a 2.6 2.3-4.3 a 1.0 0.5-3.3 a 0.3 0.2-0.7 a 

Horse 1.2 .1-2.1 b 4.0 2.1->4.5 a .1 .1-.5 b .07 .04-.1 b 

Outfitter .2 .1-.5 c 3.6 3.1-4.2 a .8 .1-1.5 a .2 .03-.6 a 

• Any two sets of median and range values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 95 perc~nt confidence level, using the randomization test for two independent samples. 

13 
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

My initial hypothesis that impacts on these relatively 

low-elevation campsites might be much less severe than those 

found elsewhere proved to be false. Impacts resulting from 

trampling-loss of vegetation cover and organic horizons, and 

compaction of soil-were not very different from what has 

been found elsewhere. Vegetation loss is moderately low, but 

this is. a result of the dramatic colonization of these sites by 

nonnative species. The situation is similar to many auto camp 

and picnic areas, where loss of vegetation cover is reduced by 

an invasion of introduced species (LaPage 1967; Brown and 

others 1977). Exposure of mineral soil is also low, but this 

reflects unusually thick organic horizons to start with. The 

amount of organic material lost ac; a result of trampling is as 

great here ac; elsewhere. 

Instead these sites proved in some ways to be damaged to an 

unusually high degree, primarily ac; a result of the high proportion of large parties with stock and the prevalence of certain 

camping practices. For individual campsites, as opposed to 

. campgrounds composed of numerous clustered sites, these 

camping areas are unusually large, and they have experienced 

exceptionally widespread tree damage. 

A certain amount of this damage must be accepted. In fact, 

the largest campsites are the outfitter camps and a major 

reason for their large size is a Forest Service policy that encourages outfitters to spread their facilities. Aside from reevaluating this policy, the only ways to reduce the size of these areas 

are to cut back on party size (current party size limits are 15 

hikers or riders and 35 head of stock) and to provide smaller 

holding areas for stock-hitchrails or corrals. This latter suggestion is likely to be most effective, particularly in areas that 

are frequently used. It would have the added positive effect of 

reducing the need to tie stock to trees, thereby cutting back on 

the exposure of tree roots. More visitors to the Bob MarshaJJ 

considered pole corrals to be desirable than undesirable (Lucas 

I 980), and they have already been built in certain areas. On the 

other hand, they should be built only where absolutely necessary because over one-third of the visitors surveyed considered 

them to be undesirable. 

Much of the trampling damage must also be accepted. 

Danmge to vegetation and soil is only moderate and is the 

inevitable result of use. Vegetation loss, in particular, is as pronounced on backpacker sites as on hurse camps. Because backpacker sites are less frequently used than horse sites, this 

suggests that neither reducing amount of use nor changing type 

of use is likely to substantially reduce trampling damage. The 

most effective means of minimizing these impacts is to influence where people camp. 

Of the campsites examined, trampling damage wac; least pronounced on the grac;sland sites. The median vegetation loss on 

seven campsites located either in grasslands or open forests with 

a grassy understory was only 20 percent; the greatest loss on a 

grassy site was only 48 percent. In contrast, the median loss on 

six sites located on the Abies lasiocarpa/Linnaea borealis 

(subalpine fir/twinflower) habitat type (Pfister and others 1977) 

was 62 percent, and on seven sites located on the Pseudotsuga 

menziesii/Symphoricarpos a/bus (Douglas-fir /snowberry) 

habitat type was 66 percent. Vegetation loss wac; particularly 

pronounced on the Abies lasiocarpa/Vaccinium caespitosum 

(subalpine fir/dwarf huckleberry) habitat type; the median loss 

on 7 sites was 84 percent. Thus grassland sites here, as 

elsewhere (Weaver and Dale 1978; Cole 198lb), are the most 

14 

resistant to danmge (fig. 8). The lists of resistant and sensitive 

species (tables 5-7) can be used to judge site resistance. 

In areac; that are frequently used, impacts might be minimized by encouraging camping on already well-worn sites. It is 

particularly important for parties with a high potential for 

causing damage-parties that are large, have packstock, and 

build campfires-to use well-worn sites rather than create new 

campsites. As mentioned before, in some popular areas building hitchrails or a corral would concentrate stock damage 

within a campsite. In such areas, choosing a campsite in a 

resistant location is less important than using existing campsites 

and choosing sites that are out of the way of other parties. 

Campers should still avoid particularly sensitive sites, however. 

In Jess frequently used areas, impacts might be minimized by 

encouraging parties to spread out among a large number of 

resistant campsites so that no site is used often enough to show 

evidence of use. This is particularly effective in grasslands or on 

areac; without vegetation-sites that are resistant to damage. 

Visitors should be able to select sites that show no evidence of 

previous use and to leave little trace of their having used the 

site. Parties that are not prepared to do this should use wellworn sites. Obviously used but lightly impacted sites should be 

avoided because they will deteriorate quickly with increased 

use. 

In the Bob Marshall, damage to trees is more serious than 

trampling dan1age. This damage is avoidable and unnecessary. 

Visitors should be educated so that they will not (I) hack and 

carve trees hammer nails into trees, or break off branches for 

firewood; (2) cut down standing trees-dead or alive; or (3) tie 

stock to trees. These are the actions that have damaged Bob 

Marshall sites to an unusual extent. 

Figure 8.-Early-season photograph illustrating yearly vegetation recovery on 

resistant grassland campsites. 
The purpose of not doing these things is to leave as little 

evidence of human use as possible. The ecological effects of 

tree damage are not highly significant. Very few trees are mortally wounded and the number of trees damaged, when compared to all the other trees, is of little significance. The problem is that at almost every campsite there is abundant evidence 

of use and what many consider to be abuse. Given the intent 

and spirit of the Wilderness Act, to preserve natural conditions, 

"with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable," 

every visitor should strive to avoid leaving evidence of his 

presence. 

Hacking or felling trees is prohibited in many wildernesses. 

Hacking trees, like littering and other thoughtless behavior, can 

be reduced by telling people why they should not do it. Nails 

are hammered into trees to provide campsite conveniences, such 

a'i clotheslines and places to hang things. It will probably be 

difficult to convince visitors that such conveniences are not appropriate in wilderness. The same is true of breaking branches 

off trees or felling standing trees for firewood. Visitors will 

need to accept the inconvenience of walking a bit farther to 

find downed wood rather than deface standing trees. 

It will be even more difficult to change the time-honored 

practices of felling trees for tent poles and tying horses to trees. 

Such practices did not create serious problems when few parties 

ventured into the woods. In recent years, the need to minimize 

the impacts resulting from these practices has been well recognized, but managing agencies have had little success in controlling them. 

Several wildernesses prohibit both of these practices. In the 

Bob Marshall, where this camping style is traditional, education 

is probably a more appropriate vehicle for change. Many 

parties could probably be convinced to use the standard lightweight tents that are used by backpackers and are prevalent in 

most wildernesses. Although they provide fewer of the comforts of home, they are lighter and more compact than canvas 

tents. Where condoned by the Forest Service, poles should be 

stored in plain sight, so others will not cut new ones. For this 

to work, other users need to be taught that cutting and storing 

poles is appropriate in the area, so they should not be thrown 

away or burned for firewood. This may be difficult since in 

most other areas visitors have been taught that this is not 

appropriate. People felling trees for poles should cut them 

away from camps and trails where the stumps that remain are 

not visually obtrusive. 

I have suggested that providing corrals or hitchrails at the 

most popular campsites would partly solve problems resulting 

from tying stock to trees (fig. 9). These have already been built 

in a few places in the Bob Marshall. While such facilities do 

provide a visitor convenience, they are primarily there for 

resource protection and can be justified on those grounds. 

If such facilities are provided, it might also be desirable to 

inform visitors, both at traiJheads and on maps, of where these 

facilities are located. This information will allow people that 

are bothered by such facilities to go elsewhere or at least to 

15 

~igure 9.-Hitchrails confine packstock trampl· 

tng to a small area and avoid damage resulting 

from tying stock to trees. 

know what to expect. It will also direct novices to these sites. 

This is particularly important because novices, especially those 

with stock that have had little experience with wilderness travel, 

have the greatest potential to inflict damage. Although total use 

of the site is likely to increase, per capita impact on the site 

should be reduced by the protective facilities provided and unprotected sites elsewhere will be used less frequently. Protective 

measures may need to be taken, however, to mitigate other effects of increased use, such as increased litter or human waste 

problems. 

In most places, such facilities cannot be provided. Stock parties visiting such areas should be prepared to use restraining 

techniques other than tying horses to trees. Miller (1974) and 

the USDA Forest Service (1981) provide excellent suggestions 

on effective stock-holding techniques that have less impact on 

the land. Hobbling is the best technique if stock are properly 

trained. Stock can also betted with halter ropes to a hitchline 

tied, above the horse's head, between two trees. If a cut pole is 

available, a hitchrail can be made by tying the pole between 

two trees. Picketing and staking are potentially damaging; these 

practices should be avoided unless great care is taken to avoid 

trampling damage and overgrazing. 

The keys to improved management of campsite impacts in 

the Bob Marshall are in decreasing order of importance, educating visitors on minimum impact camping techniques, influencing where people camp, and providing stock-holding facilities in selected locations. Limiting use would contribute little to 

improvement in conditions, although a reduction in party size, 

particularly in the allowable number of stock, could lead, in 

time, to a significant reduction in the size of these large campsites. With such programs in place, it should be possible to 

avoid further tree damage and to confine serious trampling 

damage to the few frequently used places where such damage 

cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of any progranl implemented should be evaluated by making periodic 

inventories of the number of campsites and their condition. 
PUBLICATIONS CITED 

Brown, J. H., Jr.; Kalisz, S. P.; Wright, W. R. Effects of 

recreational use on forested sites. Environ. Geol. 1: 425-431; 

1977. 

Cole, David N. Estimating the susceptibility of wildland vegetation to trailside alteration. J. Appl. Ecol. 15: 281-286; 1978. 

Cole, David N. Managing ecological impacts at wilderness 

campsites: an evaluation of t~chniques. J. For. 79: 86-89; 

1981a. 

Cole, David N. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the Eagle Cap Wilderness: 

some management implications. Bioi. Conserv. 20: 247-270; 

1981b. 

Cole, David N. Wilderness campsite impacts: effect of amount 

of use. Res. Pap. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; 1982. 34 p. 

Cole, David N.; Schreiner, Edward G. S. Impacts of backcountry recreation: site management and rehabilitation-an annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT -121. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1981. 58 p. 

Coombs, Elizabeth A. K. The impact of camping on vegetation 

in the Bighorn Crags, Idaho Primitive Area. Moscow, ID: 

University of Idaho; 1976. 63 p. M.S. thesis. 

Fichtler, Richard K. The relationship of recreation impacts on 

backcountry campsites to selected Montana habitat types. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana; 1980. 109 p. M.S. 

thesis. 

Frissell, Sidney S., Jr.; Duncan, Donald P. Campsite preference and deterioration in the Quetico-Superior canoe country. J. For. 63: 256-260; 1965. 

LaPage, Wilbur F. Some observations on campground trampling and ground cover response. Res. Pap. NE-68. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1967. II p. 

Lucas, Robert C. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, attitudes, and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless 

areas. Res. Pap. INT -253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; 1980. 89 p. 

McCool, Stephen F; Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr.; Cushwa, 

Charles T. The condition of wilderness campsites in the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minn. For. Res. Note 202. 

St. Paul: University of Minnesota; 1969. 4 p. 

Miller, Robert W. Guide for using horses in mountain country. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana Wilderness Association; 1974. 15 p. 

Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; 

Presby, Richard C. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT -34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; 1977. 174 p. 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral 

sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1956. 312 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Techniques 

and equipment for wilderness horse travel. 2300-Recreation, 

8123 2403. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Equipment Development Center; 1981. 42 p. 

Weaver, T.; Dale, D. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles, 

and horses in meadows and forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 15: 

451-457; 1978. 

16 
APPENDIX 

Cover and frequency of uncommon species on campsites and controls. 

Frequency of Mean relative 

occurrence Mean cover cover 

Species Camps Controls Camps Controls Camps Controls 

Number ----- ----------------- Percent ----------------- Acer glabrum 0 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 

Actaea rubra 0 2 .0 1.0 .0 .5 

Agastache urticifolia 0 1 .0 10.0 .0 5.3 

Agropyron caninum 5 5 1.5 3.1 1.9 1.5 

Agropyron spicatum 1 1 .3 5.0 .9 2.9 

Agrostis exarata 0 1 .0 3.0 .0 1.1 

Amelanchier alnifolia 1 6 .3 2.3 2.9 1.6 

Angelica arguta 1 4 .1 2.3 .2 1.0 

Antennaria racemosa 3 5 .3 2.7 .8 1.3 

Apocynum androsaemifolium 0 2 .0 7.0 .0 4.0 

Arabls holboellil 2 1 .1 .3 .2 .2 

Arenaria congests 1 1 1.2 4.0 1.3 2.1 

Arenaria macrophy/la 2 5 .3 3.0 2.2 1.4 

Artemisia ludoviciana 0 1 .0 5.0 .0 1.9 

Artemisia tridentata 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .4 

Aster chi/ensis 2 4 .4 4.3 1.0 2.2 

Aster laevis 1 2 .7 4.5 1.7 2.3 

Aster modestus 0 1 .0 5.0 .0 2.2 

Astragalus aipinus 4 2 .2 2.4 .6 1.1 

Astragalus robbinsii 0 4 .0 2.0 .0 1.1 

Bromus carinatus 0 4 .0 11.5 .0 7.5 

Bromus vulgaris 4 7 1.0 8.9 3.8 4.0 

Calamagrostis canadensis 0 2 .0 6.5 .0 2.7 

Calochortus apiculatus 3 6 .5 2.0 .6 1.0 

Carex concinnoides 3 9 .1 2.3 .3 1.2 

Carex fllifolia 1 0 5.3 .0 4.2 .0 

Carex hoodll 5 2 3.9 6.0 3.9 3.4 

Carex llmnophila 1 0 1.1 .0 1.4 .0 

Carex mlcroptera 3 1 1.8 3.3 2.4 1.3 

Carex xerantica 1 0 1.3 .0 1.8 .0 

Castilleja m/niata 1 1 .1 1.0 .2 .6 

Ceanothus velutinus 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .8 

Chlmaphila umbellata 0 3 .0 1.0 .0 .7 

Clematis ligusticifolia 3 4 .7 2.6 1.9 1.1 

Clinton/a unlflora 0 1 .0 25.0 .0 14.4 

Col/omia /inearis 2 2 .7 1.0 .8 .5 

Corydalis aurea 1 0 .1 .0 1.1 .0 

Crepls atrabarba 2 2 5.6 8.0 5.9 4.9 

Deschampsla elongata 2 2 0.7 2.7 1.7 1.0 

Epiloblum watsonii 2 2 .1 .5 .3 .3 

Equisetum arvense 3 4 .6 14.0 4.1 5.5 

Equ/setum hyemale 0 1 .0 2.0 .0 1.1 

Equisetum laevlgatum 1 1 .3 10.0 .5 4.3 

Erigeron compositus 1 0 1.0 .0 .8 .o 

Erigeron glabel/us 2 1 .7 1.5 1.0 1.0 

Erigeron spec/osus 6 6 .6 2.1 1.0 1.1 

Eriogonum umbellatum 2 4 .4 2.0 .4 .9 

Erythronium grandiflorum 4 3 .5 2.0 4.6 1.0 

Festuca idahoensis 2 4 1.6 5.4 1.3 2.2 

Festuca occidentalis 0 1 .0 25.0 .0 13.4 

Festuca scabrella 1 6 .1 11.2 .1 5.9 

Gaillardia aristata 0 2 .0 1.0 .0 .5 

Galium triflorum 1 5 .1 2.8 .3 1.2 

Gent/ana calycosa 0 2 .0 1.0 .0 .5 

Geranium viscosissimum 4 4 .2 2.2 .5 .9 

Geum macrophyllum 4 3 .5 2.4 1.1 1.1 

Goodyera oblong/folia 0 3 .0 1.3 .2 .6 

Habenarla unalascensis 0 1 .0 2.0 .0 .7 

17 
Appendix.-(con.) 

Frequency of Mean relative 

occurrence Mean cover cover 

Species Camps Controls Camps Controls Camps Controls 

Number ----- ----------------- Percent -----------------

Hedysarum boreale 1 1 .1 7.0 .2 3.0 

Hedysarum occidentale 0 1 .0 3.0 .0 1.7 

Heracleum lanatum 0 5 .0 4.0 .0 2.1 

Hieracium albertinum 2 4 .3 1.4 .4 .7 

Hieracium albiflorum 4 3 .8 1.0 1.4 .7 

Juncus balticus 1 0 .1 .0 1.1 .0 

Juncus confusus 1 2 .1 1.0 .1 .4 

Lomatium triternatum 2 1 .2 1.0 .2 .4 

Lonicera involucrata 0 3 .0 6.3 .0 3.3 

Lonicera utahensis 0 5 .0 3.2 .0 1.5 

Luzula campestris 1 0 3.7 .0 2.9 .0 

Luzula hitchcockii 0 1 .0 4.0 .0 2.8 

Melampyrum lineare 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .8 

Me/ica subulata 1 3 .1 3.0 .1 1.4 

Menzies/a ferruginea 0 4 .0 7.8 .0 5.0 

Mitella breweri 0 2 .0 3.0 .0 1.6 

Mitella nuda 0 1 .0 10.0 .0 3.9 

Muhlenberg/a filiformls 1 1 1.5 5.0 1.9 2.0 

Osmorhiza occidentalis 2 2 1.7 1.0 2.2 .4 

Oxytropis campestris 1 1 7.1 1.0 5.8 .3 

Oxytropis ·splendens 1 0 .2 .0 .3 .0 

Pedicularis contorta 0 2 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.7 

Phleum alpinum 1 0 .9 .0 .7 .0 

Poa juncifolia 1 0 8.3 .0 11.3 .0 

Poa nervosa 1 1 .5 15.0 1.8 8.7 

Poa sandbergii 0 1 .0 8.0 .0 3.0 

Polemonium pulcherrimum 2 1 1.7 1.0 11.4 .6 

Potenti/la fruticosa 1 7 .3 4.0 .4 2.0 

Prunus virginiana 0 1 .0 3.0 .0 1.2 

Pyrola chlorantha 1 2 .1 4.5 .3 2.5 

Pyro/a picta 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .6 

Pyrola uniflora 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .4 

Ranunculus uncinatus 2 1 1.0 1.5 1.2 .6 

Ribes lacustre 1 5 .1 1.8 .1 .9 

Rubus idaeus 0 1 .0 1.0 .0 .6 

Rubus parviflorus 0 2 .0 2.5 .0 1.5 

Salix scouleriana 0 1 .0 15.0 .0 8.8 

Senecio canus 3 3 .1 1.4 .2 .7 

Senecio integerrimus 5 2 .2 2.8 .6 1.3 

Senecio triangularis 0 4 .0 10.3 .0 5.4 

Sitanion hystrix 0 1 .0 2.0 .0 1.2 

Smilacina racemosa 1 3 .1 .8 .1 .4 

Sorbus sitchensis 0 2 .0 2.0 .0 .9 

Stipa richardsonii 2 4 2.4 9.0 4.2 4.4 

Tiarella trifo/iata 1 2 .1 1.7 .2 1.1 

Trisetum spicatum 0 1 .0 2.0 .0 1.2 

Urtica dioica 1 1 .3 2.5 .4 1.4 

Valeriana sitchensis 0 2 .0 1.0 .0 .7 

Vaccinium globulare 3 4 .3 14.3 2.9 9.7 

Vaccinium scoparium 5 4 .5 7.8 1.7 4.4 

Veratrum viride 1 1 .1 2.0 7.7 1.4 

Viola glabella 0 2 .0 2.5 .0 # 1.1 

Viola orbiculata 2 6 .1 4.5 1.5 2.2 

18 
Cole, David N. Campsite Conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, 

Montana. Res. Pap.INT-312. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1983. 

18 p. 

The condition of campsites was examined in the Bob Marshall Wilde.rness, 

Montana. The amount of change that has occurred on these sites was inferred by comparing campsites with comparable control sites. Trarrtpling 

disturbance-loss of vegetation, exposure of mineral soil, and compaction of 

the soil-was generally comparable to that found in other backcount~ areas. 

Campsites were unusually large, however, and tree damage was severe. Such 

impacts were particularly pronounced on sites used by outfitters and large 

parties with stock. Actions for reducing damage are suggested. 

KEYWORDS: ecological impact, campsites, wilderness, backcountry management, outfitters, packstock, Montana, Bob Marshall Wilderness 
The Intermountain Station, headquartered in Ogden, 

Utah, is one of eight regional experiment stations charged 

with providing scientific knowledge to help resource 

managers meet human needs and protect forest and range 

ecosystems. 

The Intermountain Station includes the States of 

Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and western Wyoming. 

About 231 million acres, or 85 percent, of the land area in the 

Station territory are classified as forest and rangeland. These 

lands include grasslands, deserts, shrublands, alpine areas, 

and well-stocked forests. They supply fiber for forest industries; minerals for energy and industrial development; and 

water for domestic and industrial consumption. They also 

provide recreation opportunities for millions of visitors each 

year. 

Field programs and research work units of the Station 

are maintained in: 

Boise, Idaho 

Bozeman, Montana (in cooperation with Montana 

State University) 

Logan, Utah (in cooperation with Utah State 

University) 

Missoula, Montana (in cooperation with the 

University of Montana) 

Moscow, Idaho (in cooperation with the U niversity of Idaho) 

Provo, Utah (in cooperation with Brigham Young 

University) 

Reno, Nevada (in cooperation with the University 

of Nevada) 

fr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-676·032/1010 REGION No.8