Volunteer-based recreation land management - Appalachian National Scenic Trail management model

Monitoring land use in parks is a concern for resource managers. Faced with limited budgets, management efforts concentrate on the areas with the heaviest use, while the "back 40" is untouched. Park managers have often solicited the help of quasi-public groups, or "Friends of the Park," to help provide support for parks and recreation areas. However, this help is often limited to the visitor-center staff or environmental programs for school children.

Protection and inspection of the large, undeveloped park properties is one area where a partnership between public agencies and the local concerned citizens can help park managers. One such partnership that exemplifies cooperation to the fullest potential is the working relationship between the Appalachian Trail Conference and the National Park Service.

The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (or AT) is the longest continuously maintained foot trail in the world. It stretches along the Appalachian Mountains some 2,100 miles between Springer Mountain in northern Georgia and Mt. Katahdin in central Maine.

The AT was the inspiration of regional planner Benton MacKaye, who proposed the idea in "The Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning" in the Journal of the American Institute of Architects (MacKaye, 1921). Shortly after his proposal, a group of Boy Scouts cleared the first mile of trail near Bear Mountain, New York. In 1937, 15 years later, the trail was completed when volunteers blazed the last mile on Sugarloaf Mountain in Maine. From its humble beginnings to present day, the volunteer work ethic made the AT a possibility (Floyd, 1979).

The original plan was further developed in MacKaye's seminal work, The New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning (MacKaye, 1962), which sought to build a "dam" to the encroaching urban landscape. The AT greenway provides habitats for wildlife as well as recreation opportunities for the large neighboring population. This greenway corridor is also important to the health of the trail since it provides a buffer from neighboring land uses.

In 1968, the National Trails System Act recognized the importance of the trail and, through an amendment to the act in 1978, provided funds to secure a permanent right of way (ROW) or "dams" that would preserve the route and character of the corridor (Foster, 1987). The law enhanced the working relationship between the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) and federal land management agencies, principally the National Park Service (NPS). In 1984, the NPS took an equally historic step by delegating to the ATC and its member trail-maintaining clubs the responsibility of managing NPS-acquired AT lands. This formalized a long-term relationship that has made the AT one of the best hiking experiences available to the American public and a model for other long-distance trails in the world. In fact, the 2,100-mile Appalachian Trail is the only National Park system area created and managed by volunteers (Sloan, 1986).

The School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University recognized the lack of research on long-distance trails and held a conference, publishing the proceedings in the late 1970s (Burch, 1979). The report highlighted future research and management needs for the Appalachian Trail. Of particular note in the proceedings were the volunteer trail workers, individuals found to be so important in the history of the AT This support, as well as public financing, was plentiful during the 1960s and '70s, but waned during the economic slump of the '80s. A resurgence occurred in the mid-'80s, when the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO, 1986) reintroduced the need to develop partnerships in order to maintain and protect outdoor recreation opportunities in America. Organized and well-in formed volunteer initiatives in the area of public land monitoring would play a pivotal and crucial role within this framework of public and private partnerships. This article seeks to highlight one such partnership as well as identify some of the issues necessary to undertake greenway monitoring for other large expanses of open space.

Monitoring

Monitoring recreation land is a recognized element of resource planning and management (Stankey et al., 1985). Monitoring recreation resources is necessary since changes occur over time and, as a result of these changes, managers must adapt policies to meet administrative mandates. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) is perhaps the best known of planning models and is utilized by the U.S. Forest Service for large expanses of public lands throughout the country (Stankey et al., 1985). Monitoring is built into the LAC model, providing valuable feedback to management.

Yet, monitoring of public lands is often dependent on paid personnel. Most management attention is directed toward areas where the most visits occur. A more sustainable arrangement in the tradition of the PCAO mandate is the long-time partnership already in place along the Appalachian Trail.

The purpose of AT monitoring is to provide regular field inspections of corridor lands. The volunteer monitors are the eyes and ears of the ATC and NPS. While AT maintainers are responsible for trail clearing, a monitor inspects the greenway through which the trail traverses. It often involves bushwhacking or trail-less hiking to cover the hundreds of acres of greenway lands. As is the case with any land manager -- public or private -- the main concern is protecting the land against unwanted uses, which might include timber theft, dumping, overuse, and misuse (Berkshire Chapter, Appalachian Mountain Club, 1991). Furthermore, there is a need to be aware of environmental changes in the landscape such as insect deforestation, storm damage, or unnecessary erosion.

In Massachusetts, the AT stretches about 90 miles between the Vermont and Connecticut borders along the Berkshire Mountains. The Massachusetts AT corridor is anchored by Mt. Greylock to the north and Mt. Everett to the south. Details of the route are found in the "Appalachian Trail Guide for Massachusetts-Connecticut" (ATC, 1995). There are essentially two landowners of AT lands in Massachusetts: the National Park Service and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management (DEM). Both agencies participate in the land-acquisition effort. State forest lands constitute a third land-management agency, where the AT corridor traverses more expansive areas of public ownership.

For purposes of trail monitoring, 37 sections of two to three trail miles (approximately 800 greenway acres) have been allocated amongst an armada of volunteers. These individuals are solicited from ATC and Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) members and share a common interest in protecting the Appalachian Trail. Three section coordinators (northern, central, and southern segments of the AT in Massachusetts) help organize and assist the monitors in their task. The chair of the AT Committee, Berkshire Chapter, AMC, oversees the group of volunteers and reports to the AMC and ATC.

Methods

For monitoring, the ATC has classified corridor lands in terms of priority. This ranking is necessary as the frequency of monitoring visits varies according to the level of threat. High-priority lands include areas where access or past problems make abuse more likely, while less accessible lands rank lower. Sections of newly cut trails or relocations are particularly vulnerable to impacts. These properties need inspections twice a month to twice a year. Table 1 lists the characteristics that make a parcel high priority.

Table 1. Hot Spot Factors that make corridors high-priority.

Easement

Special-use permits

Ungated powerline crossing

Ungated dirt roads

National Park Service-owned structures

Adjacent development, logging, or mineral extraction

Adjacent active ATV/ORV area, rifle range, or car park

Conflicting use of the land (including ORVs and horseback riding)

Trespass (dumping, camping, timber theft)

(Source; Berkshire Chapter, Appalachian Mountain Club. (1991)

Less intense infractions threaten moderate-priority lands. For example, tracts that have no hot spots (Table 1) are considered moderate unless they are very remote. An annual inspection will probably be enough.

Low-priority lands have low risks and can be inspected once every two or three years. These lands may be remote or have minimal land-impact infractions. Boundaries on steep or otherwise inaccessible areas rate a low priority; however, initial and thorough inspections should still take place. A minimum level of monitoring should be established for each priority category. Exceeding the minimum levels is desirable and encouraged if program participation and enthusiasm are strong.

Once priority classification of the corridor is set, field inspections can take place. Depending on the presence of known or suspected problems and the priority of need, monitors can determine what type of inspection is appropriate. More often than not, a combination of methods may be necessary.

Types of Inspections

The boundary hike is the most comprehensive type of inspection and is required for initial inspections. It is important to walk the entire boundary during one visit, if possible, to get the big picture of the properties. This aids in subsequent inspections, especially if a hot spot is discovered that will need constant monitoring. Extensive note taking and photography will support and document the findings.

On later inspections, the monitor can combine some boundary walking with a simple trail hike. This type of monitoring is useful for sections that have a combination of high- or medium-priority boundaries and low-priority sections. The monitor will follow the trail through the low-priority sections and concentrate on parcels threatened by outside use. This also allows the monitor to get a feel for the interior of the corridor.

Finally, one might consider a simple trail hike. In the winter, the monitor can view the corridor up to 600 feet on either side of the trail in deciduous forests. A simple trail hike may suffice for narrow corridors.

Conducting the Inspection

Some basic map and compass work is necessary for conducting the inspection. This paper will not go into the details of map and compass work; interested readers may refer to Kjellstrom's Be Expert with Map and Compass (1976). The monitor must be comfortable with map and compass since he or she will be traversing property lines away from the trail and other well-traveled areas. It is also important to remember to account for magnetic declination when following legal boundary descriptions contained in deeds, since the bearings are typically based on true North. However, this is not always so in many older deeds, which may use magnetic North as a bearing reference. In either case, attention to the northern reference is wise.

Appalachian Trail corridor lands are presently being surveyed and blazed to provide monitors with up-to-date and accurate information about the properties. One must then visit the property with the AT segment map, the survey map, and compass. Under ideal conditions, the monitor may follow the survey blazes fairly easily, but experience tells us that the boundary is often obscured by plants (especially bushes with thorns), and survey blazes fade over time. Initial inspections may take all day, but once the monitor becomes familiar with the corridor, the inspections will take less time. The monitor may only need to visit the "hot spots" on the majority of future visits. Shortcuts along old logging roads can reduce travel time to a particular spot.

However, some sections of the AT remain unsurveyed, and the monitor has only the deed information to follow in conducting the inspection. Following an unmarked corridor boundary requires a little more skill and patience. Fortunately for AT monitors, some segments contain old landmarks that may still exist, making the job a bit easier. An old stone wall may mark a boundary or even the edge between a field and the woods. The monitor will soon realize it may be easier to walk parallel to the property line, especially in steep or heavily vegetated terrain.

Because the sight of an individual bushwhacking off the trail will strike some adjacent landowners as strange, introducing oneself as the AT section monitor will ease suspicions. Once the neighbors understand the role of protecting the corridor, the monitor may even enlist landowners as additional "eyes and ears" for the AT. Neighbors of the greenway become additional partners in the management scheme.

Report Preparation

A necessary component of monitoring is record keeping. While some volunteers consider paperwork a hassle, it is vital for tracking problem areas and informing professional land managers. The documentation may also become legal information in the prosecution of crimes committed on corridor lands. Besides the monitor report (see Appendix A), sketch maps, photographs, and other support evidence will provide the best information for trail monitors. It is important to keep copies of all reports submitted, since they may be lost or misplaced as volunteers come and go.

Discussion

Periodic and regular field inspections can be fun and provide excellent exercise for the volunteer monitor. The best time of year to monitor recreation corridors is between fall and spring, when the leaves are off the trees and visibility is maximized. Late spring is the mud season for much of the country, so be careful not to trample on young plants. However, some of the best things about this season include the lack of insects, cooler temperatures, and the experience of walking in the Appalachian woods.

Final Thoughts

There are tremendous opportunities for this type of land management in the future. As additional lands become protected for open space, traditional land-management agencies may become financially strapped to properly oversee these properties. The partnership described in this article represents one way that citizens can become involved in the management of public lands. Besides the obvious saving of public tax dollars, there are two distinct advantages to this partnership. First, it strengthens the bond between public and private agencies and provides an opportunity for all parties to better understand the needs and issues related to protecting our natural resources. Second, there is the satisfaction one gets from bushwhacking in the woods, knowing that he or she can have fun, exercise, and help protect the Appalachian Trail.

As more parks establish citizen partnerships, we can expect the ties to strengthen even further. These "Friends of the AT" become advocates to ensure the continued protection of public open space and greenways.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

References

Appalachian Trail Conference. (1995). Appalachian Trail Guide to Massachusetts-Connecticut, Harpers Ferry, WV: ATC.

Berkshire Chapter, Appalachian Mountain Club. (1991). Handbook for Corridor Monitoring of the Appalachian Trail in Massachusetts. Unpublished.

Burch, W. (1979). Long distance Trails: The Appalachian Trail as a guide to Future Research and Management Needs, New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Curnan, S., Wong, J, and Peterfreund, L. (1979). A description of trail volunteers in two trails clubs, in Long distance Trails: The Appalachian Trail as a guide to Future Research and Management Needs, Burch, W., ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Floyd, T. (1979). Volunteers on the Appalachian Trail. National Parks & Conservation, 53(2) 20-22.

Foster, C. (1987). The Appalachian National Scenic Trail: A Time to Behold. Harpers Ferry, WV: Appalachian Trail Conference.

Kjellstrom, B. (1976). Be expert with map and compass. NY: Scribner.

MacKaye, B. (1921). The Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Architects. October.

MacKaye, B. (1962). The New Exploration: A Philosophy of Regional Planning. Urbana: U of I Press.

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. (1986). Executive Summary. Washington, DC: USGPO.

Sloan, C. (1986). Trail Blazers. National Parks, 60(11-12), 24-30.

Stankey, G. Cole, D. Lucas, R. Peterson, M. and Frissell, S. (1985). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Report INT-176. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.

Appendix A. Massachusetts Appalachian Trail Corridor Inspection Report

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Special thanks to Greg Knoettner, former New England field assistant, Appalachian Trail Conference, and Rick Wagner, former Appalachian Trail Committee chair, Berkshire Chapter, Appalachian Mountain Club, for their assistance.

COPYRIGHT 1998 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group