Stewardship
December 2017 | Volume 23, Number 2
by ROSE VERBOS, CARIN VADALA, PETER MALI and KERRI CAHILL
The Visitor Use Management (VUM) Framework affords managers the opportunity to describe and achieve specific outcomes – desired resource conditions and visitor experiences – and provide sustainable recreation on federally managed rivers (see https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/). The need to manage visitor use has grown in importance as recreation on US federal waters has increased in recent decades. Accompanying that increase has been a surge in expectations by the public, both in terms of what types of experiences public waters can provide and the quality of those experiences.
The VUM Framework allows US managers to develop long-term strategies for providing access, connecting visitors to key experiences, protecting resources, and managing visitor use on federally managed rivers. In addition, the Framework will enhance consistency in visitor use management on federally managed waters, since river-administering agencies will have the opportunity to adopt the comprehensive approach that the Framework offers. Here we present recommendations from the Inter- agency Visitor Use Management Council (IVUMC) for managing wild and scenic rivers as well as applications of a sliding scale of analysis, identifying management strategies, and describe the intersection of IVUMC and Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council’s (IWSRCC) recommendations for addressing user capacity under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Figure 1).
What does the Guidance do?
Agencies that oversee US federally managed lands and waters (and specifically wild and scenic rivers) are directed by law, regulation, and policy to provide opportunities for recreation to the extent it is compatible with the agency mission and does not degrade resources. The VUM Framework is consistent with the shared aspects of agencies’ laws and policies while also allowing for flexibility where differences exist. The Framework is also consistent with agencies’ established planning and decision-making processes.
Researchers and agency staff have designed and used tools for recreation and land management planning (e.g., Limits of Acceptable Change, Visitor Experience and Resource Protection, and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum). The VUM Framework is conceptually consistent with existing tools; however, the guidance expands on these tools and integrates lessons learned, providing a consistent approach for managing visitor use and recreation across agencies. The VUM Framework can be applied to many different river management settings, including those where visitor capacity (or “user capacities” on river segments designated underthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) is considered an issue. Section 3(d) (1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs US federal river-administering agencies to “address … user capacities” in a comprehensive river management plan prepared for each federally administered component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. IWSRCC is developing a forthcoming technical paper to explain this requirement and pro- vide a recommended approach for addressing user capacities on wild and scenic rivers that will complement the VUM Framework.
Applications of the VUM framework
The VUM Framework has potential utility for wild and scenic river managers and researchers in the United States and worldwide. Most applicable for managers are (1) consistent application of a “sliding scale” approach in determining the level of visitor use analysis needed, and (2) the identification of visitor use management strategies to address varying types and intensities of use in different river settings. For researchers, the VUM Framework identifies priority visitor research needs and provides opportunities for applying research to inform planning and decision making.
The Utility of a Sliding Scale
A sliding scale provides a method for determining the level of analysis required to adequately address visitor use management opportunities and issues on federally managed waters.1Previous visitor use management frameworks such as Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey et al. 1985), Carrying Capacity Assessment Process (Shelby and Heberlein 1986), Visitor Impact Management (Kuss et al. 1990), and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (NPS 1997) were uniformly complex, costly, and lengthy in application. While the VUM Framework provides a consistent process, and the process does not vary with project complexity, the sliding scale tool helps determine the level of investment of time and resources needed to make planning decisions about managing visitor use. Applying this “sliding scale of analysis” seeks to match the investment made in the analysis with the level of uncertainty and risk associated with the issues being addressed. An interdisciplinary team uses professional judgment to decide the level of analysis, which affects the investment of time, money, and other resources. The team considers and discusses the following criteria to determine the level of analysis for an issue:
- Issue uncertainty: What is the level of uncertainty about the issue being addressed? A higher level of uncertainty indicates the need for a higher level of analysis.
- Impact risk: Are there considerable threats to the quality of resource conditions and visitor experiences? Are there imminent threats to unique or irreplaceable resources? Are there threats to unique or irreplaceable visitor experiences and recreational opportunities? Answering yes to any of these questions may lead to a higher level of analysis.
- Level of controversy/potential for litigation. If an issue is likely to be litigated, a higher level of analysis is possibly required.
- Stakeholder involvement: What is the level of stakeholder interest in the issue?Engaged stakeholder groups are more likely to track progress, and this may influence the level of analysis needed.
If the team needs additional input to determine the level of analysis needed, a decision support tool can help inform the level of analysis needed for a project. The decision support tool asks a series of rating questions related to the project. The responses to the questions use a simple “high,” “moderate,” or “low” rating system, and the results of those rating questions are used in conjunction with the broad criteria above to determine the location on the sliding scale. If the overall responses to the questions are “high,” then the level of analysis needed is likely high. If the overall responses are “low,” then the level of analysis needed is likely low. However, if some of the responses to the questions are “high,” some are “low,” and some are “moderate,” the level of analysis needed for the project is likely somewhere in the middle. When only one of the broad criteria or rating questions rates out as high, carefully decide the overall level of analysis needed. For example, a high risk of controversy may mean that the level of analysis needed is also high or that the level of analysis needed is moderate and accompanied by a robust public involvement process. Document the rationale for any determination, regardless of the level of analysis needed.
Sliding Scale Example
The following example is a situation that would be considered on the lower end of the sliding scale of analysis. Consider a river located in a remote, primitive setting that has been designated as a wild and scenic river and, therefore, must have a comprehensive river management plan that addresses user capacities. Recreational use of the river is low due to the remote location and difficult access, and there is no expectation that use will increase in the foreseeable future. Currently, only about one group typically applies for a river use permit every two weeks during the summer season. The typical group size is less than eight. The group size is limited by the size of the aircraft that private parties must use to access the launch sites. Ample undesignated camping locations are available along the river, which give visitors the opportunity to disperse and avoid contact with other groups. Typically, use levels are low enough that areas recover from campsite use within one season, and previous use is not noticeable the next season. Current natural and cultural resource conditions and visitor experiences through the river corridor are within acceptable thresholds. The plan is not likely to generate controversy because the visitor access and local guide services are not likely to be significantly affected. The analysis will be based on local expert knowledge and professional judgment and will draw on plans and research from similar rivers and primitive settings. This background information regarding this issue suggests a low level of analysis needed.
Now consider an example on the higher end of the sliding scale of analysis. Consider a newly designated wild and scenic river located in a wilderness area, but one that is easily accessible and offers outstanding whitewater recreation opportunities. Numerous commercial guides operate on the river, and a high level of private use occurs. A mix of activities includes whitewater kayaking, rafting, fishing, scenic viewing, and picnicking. High use has impacted resource conditions and reduced opportunities for solitude. Potential management actions for the affected areas could include actions to limit encounters, separate potentially conflicting users (boaters and others), and address ecological impacts (user-created trails at undesignated camping locations) and related aesthetics (e.g., litter). Decisions to reduce or restrict recreation use, to maximize solitude and preserve natural resources, can affect both private and commercial users on the river. These management actions are being proposed in a revision to the comprehensive management plan. The planning process is being closely followed by multiple stakeholder groups.
These issues pose a high risk of consequences to physical, biological, social, and managerial attributes. On one hand, restricting the use levels of commercial outfitters in the area may have both positive and negative impacts. Any selected alternative is likely to result in substantial change to the recreational use of the river. While other whitewater recreation opportunities exist in the area, this wild and scenic river offers unique wilderness opportunities. However, these opportunities are threatened by the current level of use.Current resource and social conditions are approaching thresholds, according to the comprehensive management plan. Stakeholders are well organized and capable of litigation. A high level of certainty is necessary to make defensible decisions, which places this issue on the high end of the slid- ing scale of analysis.
Applying a sliding scale of analysis helps the team to determine how much time, money, and resources to invest in a project. Using the deci- sion support tool to better define level of uncertainty, risk of impacts to resources and visitor experiences, degree of stakeholder interest, and level of controversy/potential for litigation helps place the issues along the sliding scale. Ultimately, determining the appropriate level of analysis for a project is a matter of careful assessment and professional judgment.
Identifying Management Strategies
The VUM Framework can aid managers in collaboratively developing strategies for providing access, connecting visitors to key visitor experiences, protecting resources, and managing visitor use on and along rivers in the United States. In one element of VUM, “Identify Management Strategies,” the Framework guides managers to identify management strategies and actions to achieve and maintain the desired conditions of the river. Although there are many management strategies in use, a simple classification in dispersed recreation visitor management includes things such as modifying type of use, visitor behavior, attitudes, and expectations (Cole, Petersen, and Lucas 1987).
This element also assists in identification of a visitor capacity and selecting implementation plans to achieve or maintain use within visitor capacity. Visitor capacity is a component of visitor use management and is the maximum amount and type of visitor use that an area can accommodate while achieving and maintaining the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences, consistent with the purposes for which the area was established. The steps within this element help managers understand the relation- ship between existing and desired conditions and make defensible decisions about visitor use management actions, including those regarding visitor capacity. The desired outcomes of this element include documentation of the gap between existing and desired conditions and clarification of the link with visitor use, identification of management strategies and actions to achieve the desired conditions, establishment of visitor capacities where needed or required, and development of a program to monitor conditions over the long term. The identification of management actions is a matter of predicting what is necessary to meet management objectives before unacceptable impacts occur and prevent future unacceptable impacts. Monitoring data can help refine understanding about what actions are necessary to maintain and/or achieve desired conditions and improve the understanding and use of indicators and thresholds.
IVUMC and IWSRCC’s Guidance on user capacity
The VUM guidance on visitor capacity is aligned with the IWSRCC’s forthcoming technical paper on user capacities for wild and scenic rivers. The IVUMC developed its recommendation for addressing user capacity under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in collaboration with the IWSRCC. Section 3(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states: “[T]he Federal agency charged with the administration of each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall prepare a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for the protection of the river values. The plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act” (US Public Law 90-542). The IWSRCC defines “user capacity” to be the maximum amounts and kinds of visitor use as well as administrative use specific to the wild and scenic river. Administrative use specific to a wild and scenic river can be substantial and may affect the types and amounts of visitor use that may be allowed without adversely affecting river values.
Federal courts have defined the phrase “address … user capacities” to mean the maximum number of people that can be received in a designated river area without adversely impacting river values. Based on this finding, courts have required the inclusion of user capacities in comprehensive river management plans (CRMPs) for each river area and protocols for managing use according to established capacities.2
The federal river-administering agencies have also interpreted Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) as establishing a “nondegradation and enhancement policy” so that “[e]ach component will be managed to protect and enhance the values for which the river was designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses which do not adversely impact or degrade those values.” (USDI and USDA 1982). Because of these judicial and agency interpretations of the act, managers should understand that user capacities adopted in a CRMP function as management decisions to prevent degradation of river values.
Managing use levels within a visitor capacity is one of many strategies for dealing with visitor use issues. Changing visitor behavior, modify- ing where and when use occurs, or building facilities that are resistant to impacts from heavy use are all possible actions within management strategies necessary for reaching desired conditions. So, capacity is one piece of the VUM Framework needed to manage visitor use and, in some instances, is legally required (Figure 2). Capacity, therefore, is embedded in a larger framework that includes making decisions about desired conditions and other management actions.
The IWSRCC’s forthcoming technical paper provides recommended steps to address these topics for wild and scenic rivers (WSRs). The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is extremely diverse, with varying types and levels of use. WSRs range from rivers where current use levels threaten river values to those where current or projected use levels are unlikely to threaten river values in the foresee- able future. Even a single WSR may contain multiple segments with varying classifications, “outstandingly remarkable values,” uses, and user capacities. Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states “that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” (emphasis added). IWSRCC guidance assists planners in considering the protection of river values in user capacity decisions such as determining the appropriate geographic scope and scale of investment needed to understand and manage public use of a WSR corridor effectively, and making user capacity decisions that allow for varied implementation schedules to best prevent degradation of river values. Additional materials on identifying and implementing visitor capacities and user capacities are forthcoming from both interagency councils.
User Capacity Example
On a WSR with a recreation outstandingly remarkable value, a desired condition has been identified to provide freedom from the sounds and sights of others while camping. As a result, it may be preferable for some campsites to remain unoccupied. Using a threshold of maximum 80% campsite occupancy would allow the visitors most sensitive to the sights and sounds of others to camp away from others. Thus, the capacity could be expressed in terms of number of groups (e.g., with a group size limit of 15) that can be accommodated in the river corridor, which would be based on the number of campsites multiplied by 80%. For example, if a river corridor contains 10 campsites, the capacity would be 8 occupied campsites. Regarding the number of visitors, 8 campsites multiplied by 15 people per campsite equals 120 visitors per night. Include both capacity metrics (e.g., 8 campsites, 120 people per night) in the decision document for this area.
Identifying research needs
The VUM Framework and IWSRCC’s forthcoming technical paper also identify needs for science by river researchers in the United States and worldwide. Scientists are uniquely positioned to help link planners and managers to the “best available science” some of which may already exist under certain circumstances and alternatively initiate new information collection to support comprehensive planning. The VUM Framework can help inform appropriate application of existing and potential new research that informs visitor use management strategies for rivers. For example, research institutions can contribute existing data and analysis support that can aid in building the foundations of a planning process as well as summarizing existing and past conditions. New research can provide the foundation for visitor use management actions by providing input to defining desired conditions for the project area, analyzing the impacts of different visitor activities, facilities, and services as well as helping to inform the selection of indicators and thresholds, visitor capacities, and selecting monitoring protocol.
For example, comprehensive visitor perception research on wildlife viewing in river corridors could inform a variety of steps within the VUM framework. Desired social and natural conditions have been informed by investigating visitors’ perceptions of acceptable and preferred levels of impacts to resources and social conditions. Development of management action alternatives are often evaluated through finding visitors’ level of support or resistance to specific strategies. Similarly, visitor perceptions of levels and locations of crowding and conflicts can inform visitor capacity determinations. In sum, visitor research contributes to the selection of potential visitor use management strategies based on understandings of how current conditions compare to desired conditions and the effects of potential actions to accomplish objectives. It is important to note that visitor research is an important data input to inform management decisions, and river managers and planners ultimately use a variety of data sources to inform management decisions.
Conclusion
The VUM Framework, developed collaboratively by six federal agencies, has advanced agency collaboration and a professional approach to visitor use management by setting forth a framework to proactively help federal managers provide high-quality recreational experiences to those who visit protected rivers in the United States. The Framework provides clear direction and expectations about visitor use management and more specifically the legal requirements for meeting visitor capacity requirements. The utility of the VUM Framework for managers and the importance of research about protected rivers in the United States can be found in the application of the sliding scale and the identification of management strategies. Social and biophysical science on U.S. rivers can support use of the Framework with critical understanding of current conditions, public preferences, and potential benefits of alternative management actions. In celebration of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, IVUMC and IWSRCC look forward to continued success stories of visitor use management on federally managed waters.
Acknowledgments
The authors have contributed this article on behalf of the IVUMC Council. Many thanks go to all IVUMC Council members, including technical advisors that contributed to the success of the VUM Framework and this article. IVUMC Council also acknowledges and thanks the IWSRCC and specifically Steve Chesterton for his contributions to the article.
The Visitor Use Management (VUM) Framework affords managers the opportunity to describe and achieve specific outcomes – desired resource conditions and visitor experiences – and provide sustainable recreation on federally managed rivers (see https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/). The need to manage visitor use has grown in importance as recreation on US federal waters has increased in recent decades. Accompanying that increase has been a surge in expectations by the public, both in terms of what types of experiences public waters can provide and the quality of those experiences.
The VUM Framework allows US managers to develop long-term strategies for providing access, connecting visitors to key experiences, protecting resources, and managing visitor use on federally managed rivers. In addition, the Framework will enhance consistency in visitor use management on federally managed waters, since river-administering agencies will have the opportunity to adopt the comprehensive approach that the Framework offers. Here we present recommendations from the Inter- agency Visitor Use Management Council (IVUMC) for managing wild and scenic rivers as well as applications of a sliding scale of analysis, identifying management strategies, and describe the intersection of IVUMC and Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council’s (IWSRCC) recommendations for addressing user capacity under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Figure 1).
ROSE VERBOS is a visitor use project specialist at the National Park Service’s Denver Service Center in the Planning Division and has been a technical advisor to the IVUMC since 2016. Correspondence with the IVUMC Council is encouraged: https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/ Home/Contact.
CARIN VADALA is the environmental coordinator and forest planner on the Daniel Boone National Forest and has been a member of the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council since 2013.
PETER MALI is the Bureau of Land Management’s National Wilderness Program lead.
KERRI CAHILL is branch chief for the National Park Service, Denver Service Center, and chairs the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council.”
References
Cole, D. N., M. E. Petersen, and R. C. Lucas. 1987. Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions. Gen Tech Rep INT-230. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2017. Retrieved from https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/.
Kuss, F. R., A. R. Graefe, and J. J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
National Park Service. 1997. VERP, The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework: A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver, CO: USDI, National Park Service, Denver Service Center.
Shelby, B., and T. A. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen, and S. S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen Tech Rep INT-176. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
US Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture. 1982. National Wild and Scenic River System: Final revised guidelines for eligibility, classification, and management of rivers areas. Federal Register, Sept. 7: 39453, 39458–39459.
US Public Law 90-542. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968. 82 Stat. 906.”