Specifically, the six federal agencies that wrote the Interagency Visitor Use Management Framework are the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The framework incorporates collaborative adaptive management (CAM) into the issues surrounding impacts of recreational use by implementing science-based management tactics and valuing contributions from various natural resource management groups. I also applaud its emphasis on monitoring, as the step in the CAM process is difficult to resource and often falls short due to lack of recognizing its importance. Monitoring is crucial in the CAM process because it gathers the data and sows the seeds in terms of improvement foci. The structure that outlines desired conditions and indicators remind me of the optimal way to address carrying capacity. Recent research suggests a limit on the number of people that a particular area can sustain can be found through formulation of management objectives, also known as desired conditions, associated indicators and standards of quality (Manning 2010). Still, while research can help illuminate the relationships between increasing use levels and change in the recreation environment, determining the point at which change becomes unacceptable will usually require some element of management judgement, which can and should be supported by scientific information (Manning 2010). I do not support the qualification making the objectives optional. Since objectives cannot harm the effort, it does not make sense to ever leave them out. However, I support the initiative to screen potential indicators. In this step, the agencies state that professional experience, interdisciplinary input, and best available science should play a role in screening potential indicators (National Park Service). It exemplified a key understanding about CAM being incorporated into the plan as the writers value knowledge from a wide array of stakeholders. The indicators are also geared towards making the project measure more specific elements of the problem which is needed in federal projects as they are often slow-moving and vague in practice. The managers also view the monitoring stage’s role in the overall CAM process by asking the key question: Will monitoring the indicator provide useful information to inform management actions to achieve and maintain desired conditions? The managers also address the challenge arising from having monitoring aspirations that are too ambitious by determining whether the indicators can be monitored with existing staff or partners. Finally, the vast array of examples that the framework provides demonstrates its applicability in many contexts.
Reference:
Manning, Robert. Studies in Outdoor Recreation, 3rd ed.: Search and Research for Satisfaction 3rd Edition. Oregon State University Press, 2010.
National Park Service. “Interagency Visitor Use Management Council.” Accessed April 21, 2021. https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/
Comment by Fenton Kay:
Great statement, Mary. Desired conditions is an interesting topic. In my experience, agencies with different basic mandates have a tendency to define desired conditions differently. Also, within agencies, different needs can lead to different definitions. An example that comes to mind is BLM. BLM manages land for mineral production, grazing, and recreation. How can they define desired conditions that are meaningful, but fit the needs of each area?
My Comment:
It makes sense that various agencies define desired conditions by their various basic mandates. The complexity increases considering the same type of discrepancy exists within agencies. Part I of the IVUMC webinar mentioned desired conditions serve as the point of reference for all the decisions about management of visitor use (National Park Service). Having various standards for quality is going to impact amount of resources inputted into the project which is going to determine the results. So, lacking agreement regarding desired conditions would lead to a project struggling to move along. I could see a bunch of organizations coming together under a unified intention to address a problem however disagreeing about the extent to which it needs to improve. It is probably the reasoning for delays in collaboration between national governing bodies. The BLM faces a major challenge in terms of juggling multiple intentions when establishing desired conditions for multiple uses. BLM would need to prioritize limiting impact in areas that are highly sensitive and then implement the most non-invasive strategies for mineral production, grazing and recreation on the lands that can relatively handle it.
Reference:
National Park Service. “Interagency Visitor Use Management Council.” Accessed April 23 2021. https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/
Comment by Samantha Krieger:
I agree with the importance of collaborative adaptive management in the IVUMC and its established guidelines. I think that situations like the IVUMC could be expanded upon to facilitate the exchange of scientific information between federal land management agencies because these agencies have a tendency to ‘stovepipe’ at the policy and implementation level despite managing overlapping areas and/or resources. This can lead to various agencies competing for and splitting funding that is already limited, as well as confusing over-regulation or complete under the regulation of some areas due to lack of communication between managing agencies. This would allow for more holistic land management while also allowing for each individual agency to set standards for land in its care based upon their agency’s specific management goals. Great discussion this week!
My Comment:
Great point that the agencies manage a lot of the same resources and lack of communication leads to shortcomings. I am intrigued to see the principles they all agree on as reflected in the IVUMC materials. I found the paper Impacts to Wildlife: Managing Visitors and Resources to Protect Wildlife from the IVUMC particularly interesting as all the work that all these agencies do plays a role in the health of critical habitats. The document’s conclusion touches on the need to involve more scientists and land managers with wildlife ecology expertise in the face of expanding visitation (National Park Service). The writers referred to the Leave No Trace principle as a successful international education program that has been adopted by the federal land management agencies as well as many state and local public land management agencies (National Park Service). They exemplified that a strong program is one that is hammered into the mindset of visitors by managers across the entire board. There is opportunity to extend the positive impact that the Leave No Trace initiative brings by emphasizing it includes a respect for wildlife. The document goes into detail by mentioning the need to avoid sensitive areas and times (National Park Service). I wonder how visitors would respond if the urging to abide to regulations was primarily framed as a way to support the animals who live there.
Reference:
National Park Service. “Interagency Visitor Use Management Council.” Accessed April 23 2021. https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/
Comment by Kevin Ritchie:
Mary, Professor and Samantha,
Thank you for this rich discussion and Mary you really bring up some key points concerning the differentiation in the individual agencies intentions and then professor reiterated by talking about the BLM and their management of mining, grazing and recreation, which can be in contrast with each other considering the money involved with mining leases and grazing issues. However the IVUMC webinar video, which I found very informative, refers to these desired conditions regularly and refers to a sustainable way of management which I think is fair baseline for the interagency collaboration whether it be the BLM managing mining permits or the Park Service limiting capacity for the Yosemite half dome hike.