BACKCOUNTRY RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO TRAILS IN MOUNT ROBSON PROVINCIAL PARK by Paul A. Way B.Sc., University of Northern British Columbia, 2000 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (RECREATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 2004 © Paul A. Way 1^1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition 395 W ellington Street Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada 395, rue W ellington Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-28367-7 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-28367-7 NOTICE: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada ‘The battle fo r wilderness is not over with designation - it is ju st beginning. J. Bradley (1993) 11 Abstract Mt. Robson Provincial Park serves as a destination for local, regional, and international visitors while also conserving representative and unique natural resources. Trends such us increasing urbanization, globalization, affluence, and changing values toward nature have radically increased the popularity, the importance and the number of parks of protected areas like Mt. Robson Provincial Park. Research, commencing in the 1970s, indicates that large numbers of visitors threaten backcountry recreation resources within the park. Park staff have responded with increasing management attention in high-use areas, and implementing visitor restrictions. This thesis uses a systematic approach to evaluate the effectiveness of facility and visitor management in resolving impacts to backcountry resources. Specifically, it compares a high-use/ management trail (Berg Lake Trail) to a low-use/management trail (Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail). An integrated, multi-parameter survey established 71 paired plots where data was collected on 32 indicators of trail related resource conditions, management features, and locational/ ecological attributes. While trail width and the proliferation of soeial trails increased with use, other impaets, such as vegetation trampling, and trail incision did not increase with the number of visitors. Some impact indicators, such as wet muddy sections, and exposed rocks and roots, improved with use, a key indication that management, locational and ecological factors are important considerations for managing backcountry resources. These findings are ineorporated into a new model for managing backcountry recreation resources. Ill Table of Contents Abstract 111 Table of Contents List of Tables iv vi List of Figures vii List of Plates vii Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Introduction Research Objectives viii Chapter 2 1 6 Study Rationale 7 Study Area Ecology 10 11 15 The Berg Lake Trail Chapter 3 Mount Fitzwilliam Trail Summary 21 Introduction Parks and Protected Areas in a Context of Global Change 23 24 “More than Empty Shells?” Current Issues in Wilderness Management The Baekcountry Recreation Experience Recreation and Conservation; Paradox or Symbiosis? Recreation and Conservation in the Backcountry 25 18 Trail Impact Assessment and Monitoring Methods Backcountry Management and Planning Erameworks Literature Review Summary 28 29 32 37 44 56 61 63 Research Methods Trail Survey Method 65 65 Selection of Impact Indicators The Survey Process 68 72 75 78 79 Backcountry Trails; vital facility inevitable impacts Eactors Influencing Trail Conditions Chapter 4 Data Analysis Chapter Summary Chapter 5 Results 79 Trail Segments Trail Ecology and Location Descriptions 82 86 Impact Indicators (Part I) IV Impact Indicators (Part II) Vegetation Management Features; Types Frequency and Condition Ecological and Human Factors Chapter Summary Chapter 6 Discussion Impact Indicators (Part I) Impact Indicators (Part II) Vegetation Management Features Influencing Factors Implications for Managing Backcountry Recreation Resources Backcountry Recreation Resource Management; Toward an Integrated Approach Chapter 7 Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Research Conclusions Recommendations Future Research References Appendix I Draft Backcountry Monitoring Manual Appendix II Survey Plant List Appendix III Plot-by-plot summaries 95 102 106 112 115 115 130 137 137 139 149 157 157 160 164 167 183 209 213 List of Tables 2.1 Important Human Use Management Events 13 2.2 Information Summary by Trail 21 3.1 Common Forms of Backcountry Visitor Impacts 33 3.2 Characteristics of Trampling Resistant Vegetation 42 3.3 Trail Related Impacts 44 3.4 Influencing Factors 46 3.5 48 3.6 Influence of Topographic and Climatic Factors on Trail Conditions Influence of Vegetation on Trail Conditions 50 3.7 Influence of Soil on Trail Conditions 53 3.8 Influence of Use Factors on Trail Conditions 56 3.9 Comparison of Trail Survey Techniques 61 4 .1 Assessment Parameters (station data) 70 4.2 Continuous Survey Indicators 71 4.3 Vegetation Indicators 71 5.1 Trail Segments 80 5.2 Use Level and Management Indicators 81 5.3 Trail Ecological and Construction Variables 83 5.4 Trail Ecological and Location Variables 84 5.5 Trail Impact Indicators by Trail Segment 87 5.6 On Trail and Control Soil Penetration Resistance 89 5.7 On Trail and Control Soil Moisture Content 90 5.8 Frequency of Areas with Unacceptable Impacts 92 5.9 Length of Wet and Muddy Areas 93 5.10 Unofficial Trails 94 5.11 Differences in Species Richness by Growth Form 96 5.12 Species Richness by Trail Segment 98 5.13 Relative Ground Cover 99 5.14 Floristic Dissimilarity Index 99 5.15 Plants Found in Only Trailside or Control Quadrats 101 5.16 5.17 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Management Features and Effectiveness Berg Lake Trail Management Features and Effectiveness 103 105 5.18 Ecological Factors and Trail Degradation 108 5.19 5.20 Ecological Impacts by Ecological and Construction Variables Impact Indicators and Use Level 109 III 5.21 Segment Rankings for Each Impact Indicator 112 5.22 Key Findings 114 VI List of Figures 1.1 Conceptual Framework 5 2.1 Mount Robson Provincial Park 14 2.2 Berg Lake Trail Map 15 2.3 Berg Lake Trail Profile 17 2.4 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Map 19 2.5 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Profile 20 3.1 Literature Review Flow Chart 24 3.2 Change in Campsite Impact Parameters 34 3.3 Effects of Wear by Hikers, Motorcycles and Horses 45 3.4 Contemporary Management Planning Framework 62 4.1 Diagram of the Survey plot 72 5.1 Tread Substrate Characteristics by Trail Segment 85 6.1 Integrated Approach to Backcountry Recreation Resource Management 153 List of Plates 4.1 Trailside vegetation Quadrat 73 4.2 Trail Tread Measurement 73 4.3 Locator Tag 74 4.4 Control Quadrat 74 4.5 Using the Measuring Wheel 75 6.1 Berg Lake Trail Widening 116 6.2 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail 116 6.3 Change over time Muddy Sections (1974) 141 6.4 Change over time Muddy Sections (2003) 141 6.5 Change over time Soil Erosion (1974) 142 6.6 Change over time Soil Erosion (2003) 142 6.7 Change over time Durable Surfaces (1974) 143 6.8 Change over time Durable surfaces (2004) 143 7.1 Mt. Robson Provincial Park Gate 165 Vll Acknowledgements There are a number of people whose assistance and support should be acknowledged. First, my supervisor Sanjay Nepal provided vital guidance throughout the process. I enjoyed working with you and I will always remember the conversations on the road and in the backcountry. The members of my supervisory committee, John Shultis, for being a long-term mentor, friend and teacher since 1994, and Lito Arocena for reviewing the thesis and providing vital comments on the quantitative data and soils. The staff at the Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection in Prince George and at the park also provided background information and logistical support. The National Science and Engineering Research Council funded this work. I would also like to thank the founders of Mount Robson Provincial Park (the second park in BC) for their forethought in conserving the area for future generations to enjoy, and study. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Laura, for initially supporting my decision to return to university and her continuous support throughout the process. Vlll Chapter 1 Introduction On July 31, 1913 Conrad Kain, William Foster, and Albert McCarthy stood atop Mt. Robson, the first to successfully climb the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies (BC Parks, 1990). “Gentlemen, that is as far as I can take you” (Tanod 2003 pp. 18) Kain is rumored to have said to his companions as they gazed from the peak to see the newly created Mount Robson Provincial Park (MRPP) sprawl out below them. But the world below was changing, and they were part of these changes. MRPP, created to protect the sublime mountain scenery and fuel the growing tourism industry, was the second park in British Columbia and by 2004 it would be part of a system with 815 other parks and protected areas across the province (WLAP 2004). The railway, which brought the mountaineers and their fellow Alpine Club of Canada members to the park, was part of an expanding network providing fast, modern transportation. Railway development, and the highway which followed, were designed to bring natural resources to growing urban centers and bring visitors from urban centers to enjoy natural areas. The new urban citizen also had different values, viewing nature with fascination rather than fear, and wished to appreciate rather than conquer the wilderness (Nash, 1982). The climbing equipment that Kain and companions carried was still rudimentary, but was the start of an industry that made outdoor equipment lighter, more durable and less expensive, resulting in making the outdoors safer, and more comfortable. These changes were leading to a tremendous boom in the popularity of MRPP and parks across North America. Today in MRPP, many mountaineers try to stand were Kain and companions stood in 1913. While only a handful are successful each year, tens of thousands visit the other baekcountry areas for a day, or longer, searching for a taste of the wonder, excitement, challenge and beauty that inspired Kain, Foster and McCarthy 90 years ago. However, there is now intensive land and resource development in areas surrounding MRPP and it is becoming clear that visitors to park and proteeted areas degrade the natural areas with visitation, and the facilities and infrastrueture they require (Leung and Marion, 2000; Liddle, 1997; Searle, 2000). Specifically, park visitors trample vegetation, degrade soils, displace wildlife, reduce water quality, fragment ecosystems, and influence the environment in other negative ways. M RPP’s dynamic, sublime landscape connects with Jasper National Park to form part of the greater Yellowhead ecosystem. This region is under stress from front eountry facilities and inevitable highways, railways and utility corridors that divide the ecosystem. This leaves the question of are we loving the parks to death? It is in this context of inereasing use of parks and protected areas and the desire to preserve the natural values located there, that the field recreation ecology emerged. The field of reereation eeology has evolved as the science of understanding, assessing, and mitigating human impaets on recreation settings with the goal of preserving wilderness resources (Leung and Marion, 2000). Recreation ecology is crucial to improving our understanding of how to balance recreation and conservation in parks and protected areas. This body of knowledge attempts to provide a scientific base to the complex and value laden decisions of managing the human presence in ecologically sensitive areas. Since its development in the 1970s, recreation ecology has conducted a large number of stress and response studies and has begun to generate an understanding of how natural systems respond to human induced stress. However, ecosystems react to human presence in complex and diverse ways; so there remains significant work to be done to sustainably achieve the dual benefits of visitation and use (Buckley, 2000; Liddle, 1997). This thesis is about using science to find ways of maintaining the experience visitors seek in the backcountry while managing the impacts to the natural resources located there. This thesis builds on current recreation ecology knowledge by assessing backcountry visitor impacts along two backcountry trails in MRPP. Park staff has responded to the pressures of increasing use through constructing facilities, imposing regulations, distributing use and restricting use. In the 1980s, a new trail (the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail) was constructed in an attempt to disperse visitors from the popular Berg Lake Trail. This trail receives less use, is more primitive, and receives less management attention than the Berg Lake Trail. Specifically, this research conducts a natural experiment by comparing a high-use/management trail to a low-use/management trail to determine the role of use and management and evaluate the effectiveness of past management decisions. This should provide better information for future decision making at MRPP and at other parks and protected areas. Furthermore, the integrated multi-parameter trail survey, that combines point sampling and continuous techniques, will update and improve the existing monitoring program on the high-use trail while establishing baseline conditions on the low-use trail for future monitoring. The backcountry in Mount Robson Provincial Park receives about 15,000 visitors per year because it provides outstanding recreation opportunities. Its preservation values also serve an important function. The use and preservation values are sensitive to ecological degradation and can be best managed through a conditions based approach, which this study will help achieve. Figure 1.1 illustrates the conceptual framework of the thesis showing the flow of the thesis research and how it fits into the broader topic of park and protected area management. The boxes show the topic areas and the arrows show the linkages between the topics (items connected by solid arrows are covered in the thesis, while those connected by dotted arrows are not). It starts by looking at park and protected area management; the role people play as visitors and citizens, the top row of boxes. The first key issue is the relationship between reereation and conservation; are these two park values in conflict or does a symbiosis exist between the two? Parks and protected areas provide both the ecological and soeial setting necessary for an outdoor recreation experience and the ecological setting provides the conservation benefits of the park. Internal threats (e.g., recreation and non- conforming activities), and external threats, (e.g., global change and boundary issues) are considered the two main categories of threats to park ecosystems. This thesis will look at one internal threat; recreation as reereation is considered a conforming use of MRPP. As will be detailed in Chapter 3 - Literature Review, most backcountry impact research focuses on campsites and trails. This study will focus on impact processes, influencing factors and impact assessment and monitoring methods as they relate to backcountry trails. A key consideration is the Recreation Vs Conservation Park and Protected Area M anagem ent Symbiosis or Con­ flict? Soils, v e^tfltion, wildlife, w ater people Social Setting Ecological Setting External Threats Internal Threats Boundary issues Global Change Recreation Campsite Related Impacts Nonconforming uses Trail Related Impacts Impact Processes Influencing Factors hnpact Assessm ent & M onitoring M anagem ent Techniques Legend Focus o f this research Conditions-Based Planning Value & Science-based considerations Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework N (^ a focus o f this research role of managerial, ecological and location attributes in mitigating or exaggerating impact intensity. Lastly, the recreation ecology questions are considered in the context of contemporary backcountry management and planning models (conditions based management) and the implications of applying this model for park and protected area management in general. 1.1 Research Objectives The broad research goals of the study are to improve the relationship between visitors to backcountry areas and the associated natural resources by applying the science of recreation ecology. Specifically, it surveys the ecological impacts of outdoor recreation related to the Berg Lake and Mount Fitzwilliam trails, collecting baseline data on vegetation species and cover along the trail corridor, trail impact indicators including trail width, depth, and cross section, and a census of problem areas and management features in use on the trails. This information was analyzed to provide information that will help direct the management of MRPPs backcountry areas and improve the management of other backcountry areas. It will further the understanding of trail related impacts by improving impact assessment and monitoring methods, enhancing the understanding of the role of management, ecological and locational attributes in managing ecological impacts and assist in understanding long term changes by collecting baseline data suitable for a longitudinal research study. Specific research questions include: 1) What are the impacts o f backcountry trails and trail use on vegetation and soils (measured as trail incision, trail width, cross section and vegetation cover and composition)? 2) How are the type, level and extent o f impacts affected by ecological, locational, managerial and use factors? 3) What management practices and techniques are in use on the two trails? 4) How does the level o f management affect trail conditions and ecological impacts? 5) What methodological lessons can be learned from applying this survey in MRPP? 1.2 Study Rationale The Berg Lake trail of MRPP is the flagship backcountry area in E C ’s Parks. As a result, its management has attracted attention, creating a context where visitors, public, and researchers scrutinize management decisions made in the park. Roemer (1974) conducted a study of ecological impaets on the Berg Lake Trail and vicinity noting trail degradation (muddy sections and soil erosion), vegetation trampling and consumption of firewood as management problems. Later, in 1992, Thurston identified ecological degradation, visitor conflict and crowding as a result of the 20,000 annual visitors using the Berg Lake trail corridor. Based on the recommendations from this study, a monitoring program was implemented on Berg Lake trail in 1996, along with a visitor quota system around the same time (Bhandary, 2002). Bhandary reassessed the monitoring program in 2002 and concluded that weaknesses in the monitoring program were limiting the program’s potential contribution to park management. Baekcountry conditions are not formally assessed on the Mount Fitzwilliam trail. These problems provide the site-specific contributions of this research to MRPP; however the potential also exists to improve management at other baekcountry areas by gaining a better understanding of the role of managerial, ecological, locational and user factors. This research takes advantage of a natural experiment created in the 1980s when management employed a dispersal strategy developing a low-use, lowmanagement trail to reduce use on a high-use, high-management trail (Pers. Comm. Victor Bopp.) Therefore, this comparison provides valuable insight into how ecological impacts vary between these two backcountry environments and the limitations of the dispersal recreation strategy at managing recreation resource impacts. Furthermore, it provides a more accurate inventory of trail conditions than has been completed before. In the long term, it will contribute to the understanding of human and nature interactions and be part of a bona fide monitoring program that will help incorporate science into the management of the Berg Lake and Mount Fitzwilliam trail corridors. 1.2.1 Thesis Organization This thesis is organized in eight chapters and three appendixes. This chapter has provided a conceptual framework explaining how this research is situated in the field of park and protected area management. The broad research questions were described, followed by a study rationale, which outlines how this research builds on past research in M RPP’s backcountry. Chapter Two provides an introduction to the study area’s soeial and ecological contexts and a time line of key events. This is followed by more detailed information on Berg Lake and Mt. Fitzwilliam trails. Chapter Three briefly covers the recent trends in outdoor recreation and tourism and the broad context of wilderness and recreation management, discussing the issue of trail impaets, influencing factors, and trail survey methods. Chapter Four describes the methods used in this study, the indicators and how they were selected. This is followed by the presentation of the results in Chapter Five. The trails are divided into six different segments for more detailed analysis. This chapter reports the ecological and locational attributes, followed by impacts to soil, and vegetation. Relational analysis of data on trail conditions and user, ecological and locational characteristics are presented as well. Chapter Six discusses the main findings in detail and the implications of these findings to the broader managerial, user and policy issues. recreation It proposes a new model for the management of backcountry resources. Finally, Chapter Seven provides a summary and recommendations for management and further research are included as well. References and three Appendixes (Trail Monitoring Manual, Survey Plant List, and Plot Summaries) are provided at the end of the thesis. Chapter 2 Study Area 2.1 Introduction The study area for this thesis is the backcountry of Mount Robson Provincial Park (MRPP), specifically the Berg Lake and Mount Fitzwilliam trails. This 220,000hectare, United Nations Environment, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated World Heritage Site is located approximately 3.5 hours drive East of Prince George, British Columbia, on Highway 16. MRPP attracts international, national, provincial, regional, and local interest because of its significant recreation and preservation values (WLAP 2004). In November 2003, The Honorable Joyce Murray, Minister responsible for BCs Parks, reaffirmed the ‘dual mandate’. The strategic goal is to attract investment and create jobs by encouraging nature-based tourism in BCs Parks while also maintaining conservation and wilderness protection values (WLAP, 2003a; WLAP, 2003b). As part of the BC park system, MRPP will continue to have the dual objectives of conserving representative natural systems and providing recreation opportunities (BC Parks, 1992). This chapter provides a brief description of the biophysical and socio­ economic setting of MRPP followed by a detailed description of the two trail networks. 10 2.2 Ecology The ecology of MRPP characterizes that of the North Continental Ranges and provides, along with Jasper National Park, an almost complete cross section of the Rocky Mountains (BC Parks, 1990). The climate is characterized by severe seasonal differences. Its mountainous topography influences local precipitation and temperature variations due to the rain shadow effect (Gadd, 1995). The mean annual temperature is 2.8° C. The warmest month is July with a mean temperature of 15.2° C and an annual precipitation of 630 m m \ A typical summer day is showery and overcast with a temperature between 12-15C° (BC Parks, 1990). The park contains the headwaters of the Fraser River, as well as a provincially significant salmon run. The geomorphology of the region is characteristic of folded sedimentary strata influenced by Pleistocene glaciations (Yorath, 1990). Soils are primarily Lithic but also include Brunisolic, coarse textured sand and gravels, and Podzolic soil orders. Lea and Maxwell (1989) identified the following four vegetation zones in the park: Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH), Sub-boreal Spruce (SBS), Englemann Spruce SubAlpine Fir (ESSF) and Alpine Tundra (AT). A complete Flora of Mount Robson Provincial Park was completed in 1975 (Chang, 1975). There are five blue listed (threatened) plant species, one red listed (endangered) plant species and a red listed caribou population (BCDC, 2003). The most recent plant observations in the park took place in 1979, so ' Statistics represent valley bottom conditions at the Robson Ranch near the west gate ( 800m asl Long. 119° 16’ Lat. 53° O' N). 11 there may be more endangered plant species. The area has a rich fauna including Mountain Goats, Bear (Black and Grizzly), Caribou, Moose, Deer and other small mammals. The Yellowhead Pass serves as a transcontinental transportation corridor for Highway 16, CN rail, and pipelines. The closest communities to the park are McBride and Valemount in BC and the town of Jasper in Alberta. A visitor center with basic services and a park field office are located inside the park. MRPP also preserves human historical values, as the Yellowhead Pass has a long history as an east-west travel route, and was used by the First Nations, the ‘overlanders’, and the fur trade. There are archeological sites within the park (not marked on public maps), thought to be secure if the ground remains undisturbed (BC Parks, 1992). Table 2.1 provides a summary of significant events related to the development of MRPP. MRPP follows a pattern similar to many other parks and protected areas where the area received little use until there was railway access, and then a tremendous increase with the construction of road access resulting in challenges arising from rapidly increasing visitation. Park management responded to increasing use with trail and campground improvements, low impact camping education, rules and regulation for the backcountry, research initiatives, and creating an alternative to the popular Berg Lake Trail. 12 Table 2.1 Important Human Use Management Events Date/ Period Event Pre-1900s Area is relatively unused for outdoor recreation. Early explorers, settlers and Eirst Nations used the area as a travel corridor 1911 Construction of the Canadian Northern Railway 1913 Mount Robson Provincial Park designated Alpine club of Canada sets up temporary mountaineering camps in the Berg Lake area W hile controversy surrounds the first accent of Mt. Robson, credit is generally given to Conrad Kain in 1913. 1913 Berg Lake trail and rustic cabins constructed to support tourism in the area. 1970 Yellowhead highway opens 1974 H. Roemer completes a report on recreation impacts on the Berg Lake Trail 1980s Mount Fitzwilliam Trail is constructed as an alternative to the Berg Lake Trail to distribute use. Berg Lake Trail undergoes major rehabilitation, which included using small machines (tractor) to reconstruct substantial sections o f trail, and building shelters and establishing designated campgrounds (Bopp Pers. Comm. 2003). 1992 T. Thurston completes a Masters Thesis on the Berg Lake Trail and initiates a backcountry monitoring system in partnership with BC Parks. Mid 1990s Quota system implemented for overnight visitors to the Berg Lake Trail 2002 • K. Bhandary completes Masters Project. Recommends enhancing the monitoring program. 13 \ B erg L ake Trail M t. Fitzw illiam Trail Mt Robson Provincial Park m Figure 2.1 Mt. Robson Provincial Park (adapted from BC Parks, 1992) 14 2.3 The Berg Lake Trail Built in 1913, the 22 km Berg Lake Trail network continues to be the most popular access for backcountry recreation in the park. The trail network includes seven campgrounds, three shelters, and three additional side trails (WLAP, 2003c). Each year about 15,000 visitors are drawn by the Rocky Mountain scenery to hike the trail; of this about 4000 camp overnight (WLAP, 2001; unpublished data cited in Bhandri 2002). Visitors are primarily hikers, but also include mountain bikers and equestrians. The main recreation activities are primarily hiking, but also mountain biking, mountaineering, photography, and limited horseback riding through special permit (WLAP, 2004). The Berg Lake Trail E nd S u rv ey REAR6UAR0 LaMê y g ; y[w»if fWAr \ ROBSON,-^ *0*" j. r" : Cirque 0M4E p K inney L a in S tu rt S u rv e y CAMPION B«rg LoK« Traimeod Park eodquorters Figure 2.2 The Berg Lake Trail Map (adapted from BC Parks, 1992) 15 The trail climbs from the valley bottom to Berg Lake nestled at the foot of Mount Robson, the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies. It traverses through old growth Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) to Kinney Lake. It then follows the Robson River through the Valley of a Thousand Falls, a series of spectacular waterfalls. There are tremendous views of Mount Robson, Whitehom Mountain and other peaks. The developed trail ends after paralleling the shores of Berg Lake, so named for the icebergs calving from the Robson Glacier, with a magnificent view of Mount Robson and the Robson Glacier in the background. Other trails continue into alpine meadows and glacial moraines. Arguably, part of the appeal lies in the trail traversing dynamic landscapes consisting of outwash plains, flood plains, alluvial fans and talus cones, that allow for these tremendous views. This setting provides the awe-inspiring scenery, humility, and challenge that are hallmarks of the Canadian Rocky Mountain backcountry experience. There are few comparable backcountry opportunities in Western Canada that provide relatively easy access to a mountain setting (Thurston, 1992). Figure 2.3 shows the profile of the surveyed portion of the Berg Lake Trail. The trail undulates without gaining elevation, with the exception of one hill before Whitehorn campground, before climbing steeply in a section known as the ‘emperors staircase’. The trail then levels off as it follows the shore of Berg Lake. 16 Figure 2.3 Berg Lake Trail Profile 1600 — Rob«on P a ss 1400- Bio-geo-climatic zone: Englemann Spruce Sub-Alpine Fir * 1200 - Bio-geo-climatic zone: Interior Cedar Hemlock 1000 Kinney Lake outlet 0km 4km 8km 16km Distance from start of survey Elevations from altim eter readings The Berg Lake Trail is in the ‘Natural Environment’ zone, where protection of scenic values and provision of backcountry recreation are the main management goals (EC Parks, 1992). This zone accepts some level of human impacts as a trade off with providing recreation opportunities. Thurston (1992) describes the Berg Lake trail corridor as ‘backcountry’. A quota system was implemented in the mid 1990s to reduce crowding and help protect the natural environment. There are two fulltime rangers stationed on the Berg Lake Trail during the summer months, who 17 conduct routine maintenances and up-keep. There is also a volunteer work party that spends about a week conducting trail and campground maintenance most years. The popularity of the Berg Lake Trail combined with its sensitive resources has resulted in ecological degradation, visitor conflict and crowding (Thurston, 1992; Bhandary, 2003; Reomer 1974). 2.4 Mount Fitzwilliam Trail Visitors who are willing to traverse the 14 arduous kilometers of the Mount Fitzwilliam trail are rewarded with spectacular views, wide-open spaces, alpine scenery and wilderness solitude. Commencing at Yellowhead Lake, this trail was developed in the 1980s as an overflow for the popular Berg Lake Trail. The facility consists of about seven kilometers of constructed trail and seven kilometers of undeveloped trail (although the vegetation has been cleared and route markers established). The trail climbs steadily through mature pine and spruee forest with only limited views, so it is best suited for overnight baekpacking to reach the main attractions in the alpine meadows and the basin at the end of the trail. But local day hikers and mountain bikers do occasionally use the trail. It has two campgrounds. Rockingham Creek Campground is located at about the midpoint, and a wilderness 18 camp with limited developments is located at the end of the trail (WLAP, 2003e). The M t Fitzwilliam Trail 0» ie R N E \ Rink X ^ J a s p e r N ationol ' \ yslujwhi*o Pork PA SS Y ELLO W H EA D MTN Porto! Lake Yttl0^h9Od Lakm 16, •Jasper_ 10 km f Mt. Fitzwilliam Trailhead Alberta F in w ifiia ^ Q S A . f F ro se r C ro ssin g \ j ^ L u cern # (w i mti* sta rt Surrey ^ ' Lak»$ “ .... British Colum bia End survey Figure 2.4 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Map (Adapted from BC Parks, 1992) The trail network is managed as a ‘Wilderness Recreation’ zone, with a ‘pristine’ and an ‘undisturbed’ environment. The number of visitors was approximately 362 people in 2003 (WLAP, 2003d) counted by a self-registration system. The trail is inspected about once a year and receives limited maintenance when absolutely necessary. On a preliminary field visit during the summer of 2002, it appeared as if many visitors stayed over night at the Rockingham Creek Campground and day-hiked to the tarn at the trail end (-14 km return). The trail ends in a basin surrounded by easily accessible peaks, and a route around the lake, which provides access to other points of interest. There are opportunities for off trail travel and exploring the alpine areas at the end of the trail. Visitors can climb, or scramble up summits around the alpine lake or traverse to Jasper National Park, 19 Alberta. The final 2.3km is very steep, rocky and arduous as it traverses rock falls, boulder fields, and snowfields, which last into July. Figure 2.5 shows the profile of the survey portion of the trail. Figure 2.5 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Profile Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Profile Alpine L ake: Bio-geo-climatic zone : Alpine Tundra 1800 — E 1G 00/ Rockingham Creek Campground Bio-geo-climatic zone: Englemann Spruce and Sub Alpine Fir — 1400- Bio-geo-climatic zone: Sub-Boreal Spruce 1200 — H wy 16 E o E E E Distance from start of survey Elevations from altim eter readings While still a worthwhile destination, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail serves as primarily a regional destination, popular with visitors from Edmonton, Prince George and nearby towns. Furthermore, with only 362 visitors in 2003 it cannot be considered to have appreciably decreased the number of visitors on the Berg Lake trail, the primary rationale for its construction. Nevertheless, the limited number of 20 visitors provides opportunities for greater solitude in a more rustic setting than on the Berg Lake Trail. 2.5 Summary The Berg Lake Trail and Mount Fitzwilliam Trail provide good examples of two types of backcountry trails that characterize those found in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Both trails have spectacular mountain scenery, clear fast flowing Table 2.2 Information Summary by Trail Berg Lake Trail Number of trail survey plots Total length Mount Fitzwilliam Trail 31 40 22.03 km 13.63 km Surveyed length 17.88 12.94 Elevation range 980m -1690 1125m -1900 Elevation change 710 775 Vegetation types^ ICH, ESSF SBS, ESSF & AT Total visitors per year 15,468' 362^ Total overnight visitors 3,656' iiL Hikers (90%), Mt. Bikes^ (10%), Horses (trace) 2 days/ week Hikers (90%), and Mt. Bikes^ (10%) 8 2 Hybrid reservation system for overnight users® (98 tent pads/ night -2 5 0 people) All sections of trail are patrolled weekly None The trail is patrolled annually. typically in the spring. Level of Trail Construction High Low Date first constructed 1913 1980s Use Types Public Helicopter Access Campsites Use Rationing/ Allocation System Maintenance/ Assessment Schedule none ‘ Based on W LAP 2001 unpublished park data. Based on self-registration numbers from September 2002 to September 2003. ^ Mountain Bikes can travel to kilometer 8 on the Berg Lake Trail There is illegal Mountain Bike use on the first 7km o f the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail ^Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH), Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS), Englemann Spruce Sub-Alpine Fir (ESSF), Alpine Tundra (AT) ®The hybrid reservation system takes reservations, with all unreserved sites on first come first served basis. A percentage is reserved for standby visitors. 21 streams, and sub-alpine and alpine vegetation. They provide opportunities to experience the backcountry of Mount Robson Provincial Park with different levels of challenge, spontaneity and solitude. Table 2.2 compares the attributes of each trail. 22 Chapter 3 Literature Review The literature review chapter is presented in the following sections. First, the recent trends in tourism, outdoor recreation and parks are followed by current trends in parks and protected area management, and the contributions of recreation ecology studies to park research. The role of trails and trail impact processes are characterized as trail degradation, impacts to vegetation and visitor behaviors. This section is followed by a description of key influencing factors with a summary of the knowledge of trail impacts and their effects. Trail impact assessment and monitoring goals and techniques are described in the following section ending with a brief outline of some relevant planning and management frameworks. Figure 3.1 provides a flow chart of the topic covered in this chapter and how they relate to the research questions. 23 Literature Review Fiow Chart Literature Review Topic Research Objectives and Questions How can recreation ecology improve the rela­ tionship between people and park ecosys­ tems? (broad research objective) Parks, People, and Sustainability ' What is the significance o f recreation impacts to park ecosystems? (broad research objective) r does this relate to the backcountry rec­ reation experiences? (broad research objec­ tive) Recreation and Conservation Experiences Ecology What are the impacts of backcountry trails and trail use on vegetation and soils? (Question 1 on P. 7) How are tfie type, level and extent of impacts affected by ecological, locational and use factors? (Question 2 on P. 7 What lessons can be learned from applying this methodology in Mount Robson Provin­ cial Park? (Question 5 on P. 7) ItackcoKi itiy Trails Imp acts Influencirig I-actors "ra:l Impact .Assessment a 1r How can conditions based management be used to improve the management of backcountry resources? (broad research objec­ tive) Park Planning and Management Frameworks What management tactics and techniques are in use on the trails? (Question 3 P. 7) r Management Tactics and Techniques -► How does the level of management (i.e., Mt. Fitzwilliam vs. the Berg Lake trail) affect trail conditions and ecological im­ pacts? (Question 4 P. 7) Figure 3.1 Literature review flow chart 3.1 Parks and Protected Areas in the Context of Global Change Nash (1982) argues that urbanization and technological development isolate modern societies from the natural world, driving an interest in visiting and protecting nature during leisure time. Wilderness provides a welcome contrast to the industrialized world by providing primeval setting for outdoor recreation (Cole, 2000a), preserving nature, and showing human restraint in a time of overarching human domination of nature (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). 24 There is pressure to designate more wilderness areas, to provide more outdoor recreation and tourism opportunities, and to protect more natural systems as part of sustainable development. However, the land base is finite and there are other competing resources uses. 3.2 “More than empty shells?” Current Issues in Wilderness Management Wilderness management begins with designation of a park or protected area.' Wilderness management challenges include the maintenance of environmental quality, preservation of natural processes, management of visitors and addressing inevitable activities that are unsuitable in a park setting. It is necessary to reconcile and address these internal and external threats in order for parks and protected areas to he more than what Marshall (1969 cited in Hendee and Dawson, 2002) calls ‘Empty Shells’. Wilderness preservation involves making a decision to maintain an area of land near the natural end, as opposed to the developed end, of a continuum of land uses (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). For the purposes of this discussion, wilderness includes parks and protected areas which have been legally designated as such. MRPP is managed under the British Columbia Park Act (Royal Statutes of British ' It is common to use parks and p ro tected areas interchangeably in this context (see Eagles and McCool, 2002). In a more precise definition, parks are all areas set aside for public enjoyment including those in or near urban areas. Protected areas are defined by the lUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) as an “area dedicated to the protection and enjoyment o f natural and cultural heritage to maintain biodiversity and ecological life support services” (1991, p.29 in Dearden and Rollins 2002). 25 Columbia, 1996), which allocates powers for the designation of land for the protection of natural resources and provision of outdoor recreation. A commonly cited legal definition of wilderness is found in the United States Wilderness Act, which defines wilderness as “an area of the earth...that is untrammeled by man (humankind), where man (humans) are themselves just a visitor who does not remain (cited in Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Legally defined wilderness can be contrasted with sociologically defined wilderness, which is individually defined. The sociological definition suggests that wilderness is different things to different people; however it is typically a natural, primeval, and untrammeled landscape (Cole, 2000a). Each person can decide on the degree of naturalness; for example, some urbanites may consider small areas of natural land with many facilities and developments as wilderness, while others may insist that wilderness areas be larger and more isolated. There are social, economic and other costs of park designation which come from limiting how wilderness resources can be developed or not, in an industrial sense, developing them at all. The cost of limiting development, primarily forestry, mining, and urbanization, must be justified. Newsome et al. (2002) suggest that the justifications for wilderness follow one of two types of approaches, depending on whether one follows an anthropocentric or ecocentric worldview. The anthropocentric world-view perceives humans as stewards and therefore responsible for management of the earth’s resources. This worldview values wilderness because of its economic (e.g., tourism), social (e.g., recreation), and physical (e.g., clean air) 26 benefits to humans. In contrast, the ecocentric worldview sees humans as part of, not managers of their environment. While both groups value wilderness, unlike the anthropocentric worldview, the ecocentric worldview values the intrinsic benefits of wilderness to all species. In reality, managers find themselves addressing a mixture of both worldviews, where they see the human value of wilderness, but also need to recognize some peoples’ desire to preserve natural values as a show of restraint and to practice the precautionary principle^. These two worldviews are at the heart of wilderness preservation and, at an applied level, create many of today’s complex wilderness management challenges (Newsome et al. 2002). Wilderness management is about reconciling ecosystems, visitors and management needs (Cole, 2000b). Healthy ecosystems preserve nature and provide a natural setting for outdoor recreation. They are constantly in flux, and are affected by global change and neighboring land uses. Visitors enjoy the setting, but they can also degrade the setting if there are too many visitors, visitors practice depreciative behaviours, or the setting is poorly managed (Cole, 2000b). Managers steward ecosystems and visitors to preserve both ecosystem integrity and high quality visitor experiences. Managers are also responsible for another management dimension: meeting broader social and fiscal goals. BC Parks, for example, aims to generate revenue for the provincial treasury, promote private investment and create jobs in the province from the development of commercial natural area tourism ^ The precautionary principle suggests that decision makers should error on the side o f conservation when decisions are made without complete knowledge. 27 developments in parks while satisfying the public’s preservation goals on the same land base (WLAP, 2003a). Park management are tasked to protect ecological and visitor interests in the development of these opportunities. Ecosystem and visitor management strategies, whether direct or indirect management approaches, typically involve managing humans with the use of restrictions. While some visitors recognize the value of management, it has been argued that wilderness should be a place of minimum tool policies, and therefore, there should be as few restrictions as possible and those that are required should be justified (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Dissatisfaction over past management strategies has resulted in greater public scrutiny of management decisions and therefore an increased demand for professional science-based management in order to achieve these broad, and at times competing goals (Cole, 2000b). The interaction between ecosystems and visitors, or the relationship between recreation and conservation is the focus of this research, and is discussed further in the next section. 3.3 The Backcountry Recreation Experience A key purpose of backcountry recreation management is to maintain high quality experiences for the visitor (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Most visitors to backcountry areas seek an experience characterized by sense of freedom, challenge, solitude, risk and spontaneity (Cole and McCool, 2000). The quality of the visitor’s experience is affected by the condition of resources (the primary focus of this research), other visitors, and management activities. Experience quality variables 28 include the level of satisfaction, number of encounters or perceptions of crowding (solitude), or conflicts with other users (Manning and Lime, 2002). The level of visitor satisfaction is often a concern for managers because it is affected by the other variables listed above. This means that visitors come with a set of expectations and the level of satisfaction is the difference between how their experience compares to their expectations (Eagles and McCool, 2002). Providing destinations and facilities that meet the visitor’s expectations can enhance visitor satisfaction. But encountering more visitors (loss of solitude) or poorer conditions than expected can reduce satisfaction (Manning, 2003; Lynn and Brown, 2002; Cole at al., 1997). The implication for backcountry managers is that they must provide settings that facilitate expected natural resource and social conditions. 3.4 Recreation and Conservation: Paradox or Symbiosis? The literature has established that increasing and ehanging recreational use(s) are a threat to the natural environment (Leung et al., 2001). These changes can potentially degrade the ability of these settings to provide the wilderness benefits, both commodity and non-commodity values, that society desires from its parks (Liddle, 1997; Hammitt and Cole, 1998). While increasing use is often seen as a threat to wilderness beeause of its impact, it can also be seen as an opportunity to build support for greater preservation through visitation (Newsome et al., 2002; Eagles and McCool, 2002). 29 The view that recreation poses a threat to wilderness values is often referred to in the popular media as ‘loving the parks to death’. It can be considered to be a conflict between the two dichotomous goals of preservation and recreation; however, given the mutual reinforcement of recreation and environmental values, this is also potentially considered a symbiotic relationship (Newsome et al., 2002). In other words, people create parks, so preservation needs broad social support to justify its existence along side other competing land uses (Eagles and McCool, 2002). The need for broad social support has contributed to the competing goals and expectations for parks, furthermore; these goals and expectations change over time with social values, partisan politics, and economic conditions (Searle, 2000). In a Canadian context, a recent realignment of national park policy towards greater protection of ecological integrity (Dearden and Rollins, 2002; Parks Canada, 2000) may have made the public more aware of the importance of maintaining healthy park ecosystems at the provincial level as well. This has resulted in additional visitor restrictions, ecosystem monitoring, and high profile management plans (such as the Banff Bow Valley Study, 1996), rather than removing people or developments from parks. Despite the popularity of parks, their increasing size, and complex management challenges, most park agencies in Canada are facing a funding crisis (Searle, 2000; WLAP, 2003b; RSP, 2002). BC Parks have seen their funding decrease, despite a doubling of it land mass, since 1994 (Findlay, 2002). Funding from ‘voted sources’, otherwise known as direct appropriations from government. 30 has decreased by $11 million, or about a quarter of its funding, since 1992 (WLAP, 2003b). Fiscal restraint creates new ehallenges and restricts the solutions park management can implement (Shultis, submitted for publication). For example, unprofitable visitor education services vital to visitor management techniques, like low impact camping programs, remain absent in E C ’s parks since the summer of 2001 (Riccus and Burgess, 2002). Limited funds also reduce the field presence of park staff, which is thought to be the most effective and welcomed visitor management tool (Flammitt and Cole, 1998). In BC, there is now about one field staff person for every seven parks (Riccus and Burgess, 2002). This means that park management strategies must be cost effective and management effective. It is in this context that recreation ecology has emerged as a scientific approach to addressing human environment relationships in recreation and park settings. Interest in recreation ecology studies is increasing, as this field is crucial to understanding the various issues that arise from high levels of use in wilderness areas (Leung and Marion, 2000). The goal is to understand and explore meaningful ways to mitigate impacts, preserve wilderness resources and provide recreation opportunities. W ork in this field has been centered on understanding impacts to wildlife, water, soils and vegetation. Table 3.1 shows a list of visitor related ecological impacts. The previous assumption that increasing impacts were a direct result of increasing use and the associated carrying capacity management models are being replaced with a new understanding of human-nature relationships. This new approach recognizes that some level of impact is inevitable. Research has also 31 shown that the amount, type and severity of impacts are influenced by environmental and human factors (Section 3.7). This implies that any management action that seeks to regulate or control visitor impacts should consider the environmental characteristics of the area where recreation occurs. This is particularly the case on hiking trails which usually traverse a broad range of topography and have similar use along the trail, but the trail’s condition varies widely based on environmental characteristics (Leung and Marion, 2000). This finding has resulted in a large number of studies that assess the role of varying locational and environmental factors, summarized by Leung and Marion (1996). 3.5 Recreation and Conservation in the Backcountry The impacts of visitors in the backcountry, a semi-primitive area where there is only non-motorized access (Thurston, 1992), are the focus of this literature review. Leung and Marion (2000) reviewed the large number of recent visitor impact studies. Their findings on the specific impacts on vegetation, water, soil and wildlife are summarized in Table 3.1. While recreation and conservation management in the backcountry has focused some attention on water-based recreation, it has been primarily centered on the two main backcountry facilities: campsites and trails. Of campsites and trails, campsites have been the focus of most monitoring programs, because they receive the highest level of impact (Leung and Marion, 2000). This monitoring has utility to managers because it assists in management decision-making. Common campsite monitoring methods include (Hammitt and Cole, 1998) photographic techniques, which can be 32 Table 3.1 Common forms of Backcountry Visitor Impacts. Type of effect Direct effects Indirect/ Hprivfitivp effects Soil Ecological Component Vegetation Wildlife Water Soil compaction Reduced height and vigor Habitat alteration Introduction of exotic species Loss of organic litter Loss of mineral soil Loss o f ground vegetative cover Loss of fragile species Loss of habitats Increased turbidity Introduction of exotic species Increased nutrient inputs Loss of trees and shrubs Tree and trunk damage Introduction of exotic species Wildlife harassment Increased levels of pathogenic bacteria Altered water quality Reduced soil moisture Reduced soil pore space Accelerated soil erosion Composition change Altered microclimate Accelerated soil erosion Modification of wildlife behavior Displacement from food, water and shelter Reduced health and fitness Reduced reproduction rates Increased mortality Reduced health of aquatic ecosystems Composition change Excessive algal growth Composition change Altered soil microbial activities Source: Leung and M arion (2000: 24) systematic or otherwise, with the goal of recording change by reviewing changes in the photos from year to year. Another monitoring method is condition class estimates, where each campsite is assigned a rating, typically one through five, based on a number of impact parameters. At the most detailed and rigorous end of the campsite-monitoring spectrum are multiple parameter systems, which assess a wide variety of variables including vegetation cover, campsite area, soil compaction and others. Samples are often permanently marked for precise reassessment. Research on the rate at which cam psites becom e degraded, using these m ethods, has concluded that impacts are typically curvilinear or asymptotic (see Figure 3.2) with the exception of mineral soil exposure, which relates more linearly with use. 33 Figure 3.2 Change in campsite impact parameters M 60 ■ S V cgttM ion L o a Cosipotition ^ T r e c Seedling L « i * Organic Liner Los* MEipoMëScM ♦ SoH Compaoion 3 10 13 20 23 30 33 40 43 30 33 60 Nights/Year T o a l Change K piescnB (bedifkrcncc between indkaïof mcMuies a k en on undisturbed conaol plot* *nd on withôO wnNnenighlsofviûiniionm m num lly Thw s,npp«oK hnniiely70X oflhevegeim tioalow ih»ioccunoiicnm p«iM itceivmgôlKnighis^earhmsmhendyocetgredmAefoidylOn^ghiis^fcnr. Source: Leung and Marion, 1995 Weaver and Dale (1978) found a similar relationship between use and impact on trails (See Figure 3.3). The significance of this finding is that use is not a good predictor of impact because once initial change has occurred each additional visitor creates successively less marginal impact. From a management perspective, this finding suggests that use reduction strategies will be relatively ineffective at reducing impacts. For example, to achieve a ten percent average reduction of impact, (solid black line in figure 3.1), there would have to be a reduction of about 50-nights/ year of use or about an 80 percent reduction in use. Displacing a large number of visitors will only result in a small (-10% ) improvement in conditions. 34 Cole (1987), in a review of North American recreation ecology studies, found that direct recreation related impacts typically covered only a small area, less than about 0.5% of the wilderness area. Leung and Marion (2000) had similar findings in their study of backcountry impacts in Great Smoky National Park, USA. As a result, direct backcountry impacts, particularly to vegetation and soils, are relatively small compared to larger resource management issues, such as forestry, energy development or frontcountry recreation facilities; however, backcountry impacts should not be dismissed. Although small, they are significant to wilderness management because of the fragility of preserving wilderness integrity (Cole, 1987), uncertain effects of increasing use (Cole, 2001a), increasing use in previously unused areas (McMillian and Larson 2000), uncertain extent of secondary impacts (Parks Canada, 2000), and restoration difficulties (Marion, 1991). In short, visitor impacts can limit the ability of a park area to meet both its recreation and preservation goals. Backcountry impacts, as shown in Table 3.1, are spread out over a large area and have significant primary and secondary effects (Parks Canada, 2000). Trails, like roads, can fragment wildlife habitat. For example, in Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, each valley has either a road or a trail which occupies critical valley bottom habitat (Parks Canada, 2000). Runoff from trails can increase sediment and nutrient deposition in water bodies (Leung and Marion 2000), trigger catastrophic mass wasting events (Root and Knapik, 1972), and have secondary effects on terrestrial and aquatic systems (Cole, 2000c). 35 While the spatial dimensions of backcountry impacts to wildlife and aquatic systems is beginning to be quantified, the significance of the problem is less known (Newsome et al., 2002). The types of impacts associated with trails will be detailed in Section 3.6. While the total area impacted by recreation use is small, the increasing human footprint and amount of impacts are concerns for resource management agencies. These impacts degrade recreation experiences and overall ecological integrity (ecosystem parts and processes) of the area (Parks Canada, 2000). Trails often provide access, either by design or through the proliferation of unofficial trails, to sensitive areas, such as shorelines, alpine vegetation and wildlife viewing areas (Marion et al., 1993). Only a small number of visitors can quickly eradicate rare or endangered species if confined to a small area (Buckley, 2000). As shown in Banff National Park in Alberta, there is solid demand for outdoor recreation in the mountain parks. Between 1950 and 1995, visitation to Banff National Park increased over five percent a year. Predictions based on the 1995 growth rate estimate that there could be over 19 million visitors to the park each year by 2020 (Banff Bow Valley Study, 1996). BC Parks had over 24 million visits in 2001 (Dyck and Selhee, 2002) and there is increasing pressure to develop the parks as generators of economic growth through increased development of commercial venues, expanded use by nature-based tourism operators, and entrance fees (WLAP, 2003e). This will likely bring more people and escalate demand for facilities, resulting in an expanded facility footprint in the wilderness areas. Furthermore, McMillan and Larson (2000) found that new and increasingly popular activities, such as rock climbing, are 36 impacting areas that once acted as refugai protecting plant and animal biodiversity in the past. These factors cumulatively add up to complex management challenges for backcountry areas and facilities. A further concern in backcountry management is that degraded areas require restoration, which presents special challenges in wilderness settings. The desire to maintain wilderness character creates an unresolved naturalness versus wildness dilemma as well as increased costs as discussed by Cole (2000a; 2001a). A better approach is to sustainably manage backcountry resources avoiding the costly, ethical dilemma of restoration. 3.6 Backcountry Trails; vital facility, inevitable impacts Trails are a fundamental part of most park and wilderness areas. In a park setting, they facilitate access to various types of non-motorized recreation activities in the backcountry. Hiking is the most common recreation activity in such areas. A 1994 survey of British Columbians found that 60% use park trails for day hiking and 15% for backpacking (BC Parks, 1994). Trails and campgrounds provide the setting where visitors spend most of their time; therefore, trails that are in poor condition reflect on the condition of the rest of the park (Marion and Leung, 2001). Poor trail conditions can also lead to greater conflict between different users, as visitors make judgments about the relative impact of different transportation types and user groups (Symmond et al., 2000; Marion, 1994) and trail impacts have been shown to have a negative effect on hiking experiences (Lynn and Brown, 2002). 37 Trails also provide environmental protection by concentrating use on already disturbed sites (Marion, 1994). In a survey of National Park Service managers (Manning et al., 1996), trail impacts were found to be their ‘most pervasive management problem.’ As a result, impact assessment and monitoring programs (lA&M) have been developed to understand the relative effect of influencing factors and to identify and remedy trail degradation problems. 3.6.1 Trail Impacts In general, trail impacts can be considered any undesirable visitor related biophysical change of the wilderness resource (Leung and Marion, 2000). Trail related changes occur to a variety of resources; most notably, they can produce locally severe changes to vegetation and soils and facilitate depreciative visitor behaviors. Trail impacts occur in zones (Liddle, 1997). A core barren area of exposed mineral soil is located at the center of the trail. This area is bordered, on the outside, by an area of trampled and trampling resistant vegetation. On the outer-most edge, there is a periphery zone that is relatively undisturbed, but still considered in a trail management context beeause it provides the trailside scenery or vista into the undeveloped portion of the park (Hultsman et al., 1998; Hellmund, 1998). As stated earlier, visitors’ perception of the quality of backcountry areas may influence their overall perception of the resource management regime for the park; therefore, it is important to maintain the quality of such areas. 38 3.6.2 Trail Degradation Trail degradation refers to the deteriorating condition of the trail itself, often a positive feedback mechanism^, which once initiated, leads increasing problems even if the stress is removed (Cole, 2000b). Continuing deterioration can result from continued use or from natural processes (Marion and Leung, 2001). Backcountry trails can be considered more of a non-renewable, than a renewable resource (Marion, 1991) because once built, the trail surface can only recover from deleterious processes, such as erosion, through natural processes such as soil formation that occur slowly by human time scales. Therefore, it is typically less expensive in the long-term to avoid and prevent trail degradation rather than repair and restore after the fact. This is particularly true in backcountry areas in mountain environments where minimum tool construction methods require the use of unobtrusive technology for maintenance and repairs during a short, overlapping tourist and construction season (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). Many impact parameters indicate that the forces causing stress to the trail system are greater than the resisting forces; therefore, the trail is in disequilibria and (or) has a worsening trail degradation problem. If the impacting forces are not addressed, the trail will continue to deteriorate, potentially to an unusable state; however, if these parameters are assessed regularly and the appropriate action is ^ P ositive feedback is an effect that reinforces itself and will continue after the stress is removed. Contrast with negative feedback, which after being stressed, generates forces that move a system toward equilibrium (Marsh and Grossa 2002). 39 taken, trail deterioration can be managed. An example indicator of a worsening trail deterioration problem is the development of multiple treads. Research has shown that these are the initiating steps of a process where a braided trail develops over time into an excessively wide trail (Root and Knapik, 1972). As trail incision and surface roughness increase, hikers are increasingly motivated to walk off trail further widening trails and impacting vegetation (Marion and Leung, 2001). In this case, the presence of a braided trail can be seen as an early warning of a worsening degradation problem. Similarly, soil compaction and loss of organic matter are measurable indicators of a potential erosion problem that will be explained more in the next paragraph. Soil compaction also has the secondary effect of reducing plant growth, particularly tree seedlings (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). While some processes occur without human involvement, erosion is influenced by use (Wilson and Seney, 1994). Forces due to trail traffic loosen material, which is then removed by the process of Hortonian Overland Flow, which occurs when runoff exceeds infiltration rates (Marsh and Grossa, 2002). Erosion, a positive feed-back mechanism, creates a channel which in turn attracts more water, which has more power to move more material, creating a deeper channel and so on. Through experimentation, Wilson and Seney (1994) determined that sediment is detachment limited rather than transport limited. This means that significantly more material will be removed on a trail with traffic, particularly traffic that loosens the soil (e.g., horses or wheeled traffic), than in a trail system with no traffic. The removal of surface material will likely proceed to rock and root exposure and 40 potentially excessive incision (Sutherland et al., 2002). With current knowledge, it is difficult to distinguish between deterioration that will stabilize at an acceptable condition and a system that will deteriorate to unacceptable or unusable state (Marion and Leung, 2001). In the case of soil erosion, soil compaction can be measured and used to predict this problem, as increased soil compaction decreases infiltration rates and increases overland flow (Sutherland et al., 2001). 3.6.3 Vegetation Impacts Trampling occurs when a force is applied to vegetation (Liddle, 1997). Over time, this can change floristic composition and reduce average height and percent cover. Seed transport mechanisms occur because trails act as conduits for moving exotic propugules along trailside from both humans (e.g. boot soles) and domestic animals. Domestic animals, particularly horses, can transport seeds in a variety of ways including in fecal matter, lost feed and by being attached to the fur and carried then deposited (e.g., in the form of burs) (Marion, 1994). Many exotic plants quickly establish themselves in disturbed environments (Barbour et al., 1999) like those found along trails. A combination of these factors leads to changes in floristic composition, but because these changes are a result of plant lifeform, morphological, and phonological characteristics, the changes can be predicted to some extent (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). The following (Table 3.2) outlines the characteristics of trampling resistant vegetation. 41 Table 3.2 Characteristics of Trampling Resistant Vegetation 1. A low growing rather than erect stature and growth form. 2. A tufted growth form. 3. Arming with thorns and prickles. 4. Leaves in a basal cluster (rosette). 5. Stems that are flexible rather than brittle or rigid. 6. Small thick leaves. 7. Flexible leaves that can fold under pressure. 8. Intercalary meristems as opposed to apical meristems. 9. Hemicryptophytes or cryptophytes that can regrow aboveground vegetative structures from a below ground perennating bud. 10. Ability to produce vegetativly from suckers, stolons, rhizomes or corms as well as sexually from seeds. 11. A rapid rate of growth 12. The ability to reproduce when trampling pressure is low. Source: Hammitt and Cole (1998: 56) Both negative and positive feedback mechanisms influence vegetation changes. One negative feedback mechanism occurs as trampling, or trail construction, reduces the vegetative cover and disturbs the soil. Exposed soil provides niche opportunities for reuderal plants that are specialized in colonizing freshly exposed soil (Liddle, 1997). Some types of vegetation, such as lichens, are found to increase in cover and abundance with low to moderate levels of use. This is thought to be because of increasing sunlight; however their success declines rapidly, even with moderate levels of use (Liddle, 1997). Vegetation that is adapted to low-light conditions may benefit in the short term from greater light but cannot out compete high-light species in the long-term (Grime, 1979 cited in Barbour et al., 1999) creating trailside environments with weedy, homogenous vegetation. At worse, this can displace rare or endangered species, or it can remove these species from the trailside, diminishing visitor experiences. 42 Positive feedback occurs when the development of social trails reduces plant cover and encourages further use. Also, trampling can remove organic matter, and its important cementing properties, facilitating further soil erosion. The seed bank can be lost or severely reduced (Zabinski et al., 2000), further slowing the recovery process. Vegetation also plays an important role in confining use to trails and reducing trail widening (Bright, 1986). 3.6.4 Visitor Behavior While even the most thoughtful visitors impact the natural environment (Leung and Marion, 2000), there is tremendous variability across different activities and different behaviors within superficially similar participants. The term depreciative behavior is often used to describe visitor actions that reduce the value of the setting. Categorizing behaviors as depreciative requires a mixture of scientific analysis and value-based decisions. The controversy over the relative impact of different activities has led to comparisons studies, particularly as advancing technology (e.g., snowmobiles), and changing tastes are influencing the popularity of different types of activities, such as mountain biking which were studied by Thurston and Reader (2001). Different activities cause different responses to the environment they occur in (Liddle, 1997). This is a key influencing factor that requires more research to further understand the relative impact of current activities and to better prepare for changing tastes and technology. 43 While activity classification can be controversial, there is more agreement about what activity behaviors are depreciative; these include littering, cutting switchbacks, and damaging trees (Marion, 1998). In addition, excessively large groups have been found to have a greater impact than the equivalent numbers in a modal group size of two because of grouping together for rest stops and traveling two abreast (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). More rigorous research in this area is required. Table 3.3 provides a summary of trail impacts. Table 3.3 Trail Related Impacts Trail Degradation Impacts to Vegetation Visitor behaviors Trail Widening Development of Multiple Treads or Braiding Soil compaction Exposed roots and/ or exposed rock Loss of organic matter Increasing/excessive incision Introduction of exotic species Trampling Compositional change from trampling Reduction in height and cover Cutting Switchbacks High impact activities Tree damage Littering. Unofficial trails Source; Adapted from Leung and Marion 1996; Hammitt and Cole 1998; Newsome et al. 2001. More information on the relative influence of different behaviors will be discussed in the next section on influencing factors. 3.7 Factors Influencing Trail Conditions Previous research has found that trail impacts are generally correlated to the number of visitors in a curvilinear relationship (Leung and Marion, 2000) as shown in Figure 3.3. The significance of this finding is that use itself is not a good predictor of the amount of impact. Also, because a large reduction of use is required to obtain a reduction in impact, carrying capacity approaches that attempt to reduce the number of visitors are largely ineffectual at reducing ecological impacts, except 44 at only low levels of use when initial disturbances occur. As a result, more research is required that acknowledges that while use inherently causes impact, other locational, environmental and human factors are more significant in predicting impact overall (Leung and Marion, 2000). Qrm##l«nd Slope 100 Motofcydw IHof### , 4 ^ ' 500 Level Slope 100 100 50 50 - ■ 500 1000 1^ 600 1000 Number of peeeege# The effects of w ear by hikers (A), motorcycles (#) and horses (#) on the trail width of level and sloping, grassland and forest sites (Weaver and Dale, 1978). Figure 3.3 The effects of wear by hikers (A), motorcycles (e) and horses (■) on trail width of level and sloping, grassland and forest sites. Note the diminishing amount of impact with increasing use. Source; W eaver and Dale (1978) )n different ;ed increase impacts, then trail degradation would follow a pattern where the greatest degradation occurs near the trailhead (well used area), decreasing toward the terminus as some visitors turn around, from fatigue or poor weather trail conditions (Lance et al.. 45 1989). Existing studies indicate that this pattern is not occurring, a likely suggestion that different environmental and human factors do influence trail conditions. Influencing factors can be summed up as being either environmental or human-related. Two over arching environmental factors are climate and geology, which in turn influence topography, soil, hydrology and vegetation (Leung and Marion, 1996). Environmental factors largely affect the setting’s resistance, ability to withstand impact, and its resilience, or ability to recover after impact has occurred. User related factors are user type, intensity and timing (called phenology). The main influencing factors are summarized in Table 3.4. Factors are interrelated Table 3.4; Influencing Factors. Topographic Slope Slope position Alignment Elevation Proximity to water Environmental/ Locational Environmental Vegetative Precipitation Seasonal effect Growing season Vegetation type Vegetation density Successional stage Soil Type Texture Moisture Content Infiltration capacity Stoniness Surface roughness Human Related Management Site hardening Trail construction Trail maintenance Trail location Phenology- timing of use User Based Factors Group size Method of transportation Depreciative behaviors Source: Leung and Marion 1996; Nepal 2003; Newsome et al. 2002 and, by necessity, divided somewhat arbitrarily. For example, trail location is classified as a management decision based on influencing environmental factors; this demonstrates the inherent intertwining of environment and human factors. 46 3.7.1 Environmental Factors Table 3.5 summarizes how topographic and climatic variables influence trail impacts. The research results shown in Table 3.5 suggest that the steepness of the trail and the amount of moisture are the underlying topographic factors which contribute to the type and severity of trail degradation. Trails that traverse steep terrain are more susceptible to erosion related problems, which include increasing incision, and/or undesired deposition, and rough trail treads (Helgath, 1975; Nepal, 2003; Weaver and Dale, 1978, Bratton et ah, 1979; Welch and Churchhill, 1986; Pounder, 1985, Leung 1995; Farrell and Marion, 2001). The undesirable effects of steep slopes can generally he managed by increasing the alignment angle of the trail making it more perpendicular to the prevailing slope, when possible, using side hill construction as necessary (Leung, 1995; Bratton et al., 1979; Marion, 1994) or developing trails that follow the topographic contour. Side hill construction can have the undesirable effect of interfering with the infiltration of water on the slopes, or seepage, which can result in muddy or eroded trails (Farrell and Marion, 2001). This can he addressed through the use of side ditching, culverts, water bars and 47 Table 3.5 Topographie and climatic factors influencing trail conditions Variable Slope Response Increasing erosion with slope Location Rocky Mountains, US; Mt. Everest National Park, Nepal Pacific Northwest, US Citation Helgath, 1975 Nepal, 2003 W eaver and Dale, 1978 Bratton et al., 1979 Great Smoky, US Mature and successional forests, meadows Cairn Gorms Scotland, U.K. Baffin Island, Canada Bayfield, 1973 Welch and Churchill, Norway, Artie Tundra. Pounder, 1985 Pat Sin Range, Honk Kong Torres del Paine, Chile, Mountain Leung, 1995 Farrell and Marion, Interior, Alaska, U.S. Permafrost. Jubenville and O ’Sullivan, 1987 Obua and Harding, 1997 Coleman, 1981 1986 2001/2002 Greatest erosion > 15-17% slope >17-18% erosion increases more rapidly Kibale National park, Uganda, Forests & Grasslands English Lake District, UK US Great Smoky, Mature and successional forests, meadows Bratton et al., 1979 Leung, 1995; Leung and Marion, 1999 Slope position W ider trails in upper slope positions Pat Sin Range, Honk Kong; Great Smoky, US Elevation Trails at higher elevations erode more severely Positive relationship with trail Depth Great Smoky, US; Marion, 1994 Mt. Everest National Park Nepal, 2003 Appalachian Trail in Great Smoky, US Burde and Renfro, Bratton et al., 1979; Leung, 1995 1986 Trail Alignment Greater degradation on trails that directly ascend slopes US Great Smoky; Pat Sin Range, Side Slope Narrower treads in areas with steep side slopes Great Smoky, US Bratton et al., 1979; Leung, 1995 Proximity to water Greater trail width due to wetter Soils Trails close to stream banks and areas of ground water were more greatly damaged Great Smoky, US Marion, 1994 Rocky Mountains, Canada Great Smoky, US Root and Knapik, 1972 Marion, 1994 Torres del Paine, Chile, Mountain Farrell and Marion, Honk Kong 2001/2002 Precipitation Positive relationship: Trail depth and soil loss Appalachian Trail in Great Smoky, US Burde and Renfro, 1986 Seasonal Effect Highest levels of trail erosion occurred in summer Rocky Mountains U.S. Forest under-story veg. or meadows Dale and Weaver, 1974 Growing season Shorter growing season 4 mountain regions across, US; leads to longer recovery time Source: Compiled from various sources as noted in column 4. 48 Cole, 1995 drainage ditches. Trails at higher elevation tend to be more degraded due to a combination of factors including more open vegetation encouraging lateral spread, shorter growing season, and other climate extremes (Nepal, 2003; Marion 1994; Burde and Renfro, 1986). Trailside vegetation plays important roles in managing and mitigating trail impacts. When dense enough, it constrains visitors to the trail surface, but conversely, when its open, or meadow-like, visitors spread out widening the trail (Bright, 1986) or create more informal trails (Farrell and Marion, 2001/2002). Vegetation can also reduce soil loss by providing organic matter that cements the soil together (Sutherland et al., 2002). A third important aspect of vegetation is the potential for plants species to be used as indicators of a certain set of locational factors such as climate patterns or soil types and parameters, which may not be otherwise observable. These certain plant species can act as indicators of areas that are suitable (e.g., well drained sites), or not suitable (e.g., high rainfall or wet organic soils) for trail construction (Cole, 1987; Roemer, 1974). It is important to both maintain trailside vegetation for its benefits to trail management and to understand the complexities of ecological restoration. Table 3.6 summarizes the main findings of the trail literature regarding vegetation changes and impacts. 49 Table 3.6 Influence of vegetation on trail conditions Location Variable Response Vegetation Type W ider trails in forested areas than in meadows No effect of vegetation type on soil loss W ider trails in forested areas than in meadow at low use levels; at high use levels pattern is reversed Trails more susceptible to erosion in mesic than xeric forest types Vegetation Density Cairn Gorms, U.K. Interior, Alaska, U.S. Permafrost. Rocky Mountains U.S. Forest under-story vegetation or meadows Great Smoky, US Great Smoky, US Selway-Bitterroot, US, Montane forest; Great Smoky, US More informal trails at medium use levels in grasslands W ind beaten (Alpine tundra) areas were less impacted than vegetated subalpine areas. Torres del Paine, Chile, Mountain Alpine and Sub Alpine in Japan Negative relationship with soil loss Vermont, US, Boreal Forest. Hikers more confined on trails in dense vegetation Hikers may avoid areas with vegetation that quickly grows over the trail Central Texas, US, evergreen forest; Norway, Artie Tundra. Successional Stage Great Smoky, US Trails in mature forest had greater impact than those in successional forest. Source: Compiled from various sources as noted in column 4. Citation Bayfield and Lloyd, 1973 Jubenville and O ’Sullivan, 1987 Dale and Weaver, 1974 Helgath, 1975 Bratton et al., 1979 Cole, 1983 Burde and Renfro, 1986 Farrell and Marion, 2001/2002 Yoda and Watanabe, 2000 Teschner et al., 1979 (cited in Leung and Marion, 1996) Bright, 1986 Pounder, 1985 Bratton et al., 1979 A number of soil parameters have been studied on backcountry trails including soil texture, soil moisture levels, infiltration capacity, stoniness, and organic carbon content (see Table 3.7). The studies shown in Table 3.7 range from field observations to more detailed lab-based analysis of nutrient status and shear strength (Sutherland et al., 2002). The challenge with soil-based analysis is to understand the role of parameters that can be easily assessed in the field because the requirement of detailed lab analysis would likely further inhibit the use of soil 50 parameters to direct trail management. Soil texture and parent material, based on landform type, are important considerations when constmcting trails because local materials are typically used in such constructions. Both of these parameters can be assessed before trail construction to locate trails on medium textured loamy soils as opposed to homogenous fine-textured or organic soils (Bryan, 1977; Leung and Marion, 1999). The presence of large coarse fragments, a result of geomorphology of the area, can cause hikers to walk around obstacle thus resulting in widening of that interrelate with the hydrology of the area, such as amount of precipitation and slope drainage processes. Less water is generally positive; however, when unavoidable, managers must use the following three approaches; use side-ditching and trail layout to prevent water from reaching the trail tread; design a tread surface that encourages water to run off by crowning the trail tread and using water bars or drainage dips; use or locate the trail on a very coarse texture material such as gravel, where water will not puddle on the surface. Table 3.7 also shows that the amount of precipitation, soil texture, and organic carbon content are further considerations as they have the potential to both exaggerate or mitigate the effects of water on the trail. While current findings, shown in Tables 3.5 through 3.7, indicate that specific habitats and landforms are more susceptible to impacts, managers need to consider a large amount of, at times, conflicting and counterintuitive information. For example, while many studies conclude that erosion increases with slope, and depends on the amount of use, soil type, rainfall and vegetation, it is not possible to 51 conclude that slopes should be avoided entirely because trails in flat topography ean suffer from a different set of problems. These include wet organic soils that are easily turned into quagmires even with low levels of visitor use (Cole, 1987; Calais and Kirkpatrick, 1986). Operationally challenging terrain eannot always be avoided because trail loeational planning is further eomplicated by the need to provide access to attraction and recreation features in an efficient manner in order to prevent the proliferation of unofficial trails. Furthermore, some studies (Bratton et al., 1979; Coleman, 1981) suggest that certain slopes, for example >17-19%, cross a threshold where erosion becomes much more severe (Bratton et al., 1979). Leung and Marion (1996) argue that steep slopes can be managed through proper trail alignment. The ability of improvements in trail alignment to manage slope-related problems is an area that requires further research. Research summarized in Tables 3.5 through 3.7 suggests that problems associated with flat areas can be addressed through improving the trail surface with board walks or imported gravel, restricting activities with a high weight to surface area ratio, and adapting the timing of use to drier times of the year. It is important to note that many of the influencing factors are primarily loeational. These factors cannot and should not be examined in isolation, for many variables such as slope, landform position and aspect interact with several physiographical variables that combine 52 to influence trail conditions. Table 3.7 Influence of soil on trail conditions Variable Soil Texture Location Response Citation Finer texture led to greater incision Grovelsjon in N. Sweden. High Mountain Plateau; Baffin Island, Canada Bryan, 1977; Welch and Churchill, 1986 Soil with homogenous texture had greatest incision Organic soil related positively with muddiness Grovelsjon in N. Sweden. High M ountain Plateau Grovelsjon in N. Sweden. High Mountain Plateau; Great Smoky, US New Zealand Bryan, 1977 Soil with organic topsoil was subject to profile truncation and more compaction Trails on Colluvial Fans had higher occurrence of muddiness Trails on alluvium and till were more eroded than those on colluvium and bedrock Rocky Mountain national park USA, - Montane Land Forms Bryan, 1977; Leung and Marion, 1999 Stewart and Cameron, 1992 (cited in Leung and Marion 1996) Summer, 1986 Rocky Mountains, Canada Root and Knapik, 1972 Positive relationship with erosion Cairngorms, Scotland, Montane; Great Smoky, US Rocky Mountains, US, Alpine Tundra Bayfield, 1986; Leung and Marion, 1999 Willard and Marr, 1970 Infiltration Capacity Positive relationship with trail width Appalachian Trail in Great Smoky, US Burde and Renfro, 1986 Stoniness Negative relationship: trail depth Grovelsjon in N. Sweden. High Mountain Plateau; US, Meadows and Forest Bryan, 1977; W eaver and Dale, 1978 Roughness Large stones on trail encouraged lateral spread Roughness of adjacent areas had a negative relationship with trail width Norway, Artie Tundra. Pounder, 1985 Scotland, U.K. Bayfield, 1973 Soil Moisture Positive relationship with trail width Hawai’iloa Trail, O ’Ahu Reduced incision, compaction and overland flow on soils with H a w a ii higher organic carbon content in the soil Source: Compiled from various sources as noted in column 4. Organic Carbon Content 53 Sutherland et al., 2002 Tables 3.5-3.7 illustrate that there has been a great deal of research attention given to the role of environmental factors on trail related impacts. Resource managers must have the ability to understand these complex processes when considering trade-offs in implementing indirect and direct management. Indicators of resistant sites, such as low slope angle, or plant species that prefer well-drained soils, can be used to relocate trails and other facilities there, perhaps using the spatial analytical techniques of a Geographic Information System (GIS) (Nepal and Nepal in press). Further site-specific research is required to develop more specific thresholds similar to what has been done with slope (i.e., 15-18% threshold by Coleman, 1981; Bratton et al., 1979). Even factors beyond management control, such as climate, can be considered when implementing indirect and direct management approaches. Knowledge of climate norms, for example, can be used to direct management controls such as seasonal restrictions on use. As shown in the above example, focusing management attention on understanding the biophysical characteristics of the site can lead to long-term management approaches that are less intrusive than implementing regulations and potentially displacing visitors after the fact. 3.7.2 Use Factors The human dimension of trail management concerns use type, use intensity, and timing, combined with different direct and indirect management actions (Newsome et al., 2002). There are a variety of ways to describe and classify visitors 54 for consideration of their relative impact on the natural environment. These can include the method of transportation and user attributes (Table 3.8). The research findings shown in Table 3.8 indicate that different methods of transportation have different types and amount of impact. Hiking appears to result in the least amount of impact compared to other activates mainly because of a relatively low weight per surface area ratio (Cole and Spildie, 1998; DeLuca et al., 1998; Liddle, 1997). Visitors notice these impacts and are aware that different activities cause different amounts of impact (Symmond et al., 2000). They then typically blame other user groups for their decreased safety, increased difficulty of travel, and reduced overall satisfaction, which is a potential cause for conflict between various user groups (Symmonds et al., 2000, Marion et al., 1993). This has led managers to close sites to certain activities, with or without the support of any scientific evidence. Scientific trail assessments have begun to confirm that trail location, design and construction are effective in mitigating trail degradation (Leung and Marion, 1999). The implementation of management actions and the consideration of influencing factors require that managers have an understanding of these issues, supported with effective impact assessment and monitoring programs. 55 Table 3.8 Influence of use factors on trail conditions Factor Amount of use Increasing impact at low levels of use Method of Transportation Walking Horse Location Citation Torres del Paine, Chile, Mountain Farrell and Marion, 2001 Various Hammitt and Cole, Response Typically lowest impact, but, may vary by minimum impact knowledge Greater impact than hikers causing quagmires, greater loss of ground cover and wider trails Horse impacts stem from large weight upon a small surface area, particularly shoed horses. 1998 Rocky Mountains U.S. Forest under-story veg. or meadows Rocky Mountains, US, Forest under story erect vs. Low shrubs Montana, US, Forest Various Dale and Weaver, 1974 DeLuca et al., 1998 Liddle, 1997 Cole and Spildie, 1998 Lama Similar to hikers impacts Montana, US, Forest Deluca et al., 1998 Mountain Bike Trampling effects were found to be similar to hikers S. Ontario, Canada, Deciduous Forest Thurston and Reader, 2001 Motor Bike (2 wheels) Faster and more severe impacts than hiking even at low speeds Rocky Mountains U.S. Forest under-story veg. and meadows W eaver and Dale, 1978 Method of transportation comparison User attributes Hooves and feet generate more sediment than wheels Great Smoky National Park, US W ilson and Seney, 1994 Group Size Ecological impacts are likely similar to small groups if they remain on the trail tread. Anecdotal no specific location Hammitt and Cole, 1998 Shoe type N ot found to be significant 4 mountain Regions across, US; Hubbard Brook; US Cole, 1995 M ay increase the impact to vegetation height 4 mountain Regions, US; Cole, 1995 More effective than drainage dips' Great Smoky, US Leung and Marion, Not significant Hiker weight Kuss, 1983 Management Actions W ater Bars Trail Construction 1999 Leung and Marion 2000 Not tested Kibale National park. Obua and Harding, Uganda, Forests & 1997 Grasslands 1 T-V • . _ . _ T _ Drainage dips are areas of trail purposely made lower to allow water to drain. W ater bars are cross ditches. Source: Compiled from various sources noted under column 4. Phenology Greater resilience to impacts during growing season. 56 3.8 Trail Impact Assessment and Monitoring (lA&M) Methods Knowledge about the impacts to soil and vegetation in wilderness originated in a variety of fields including plant ecology, range management and forestry. The methods used commonly include trampling studies, which have a longer history but are still in use, or newer in situ trail surveys. There is a need to dissect the trail use/impact relationship, because research shows that it is complex, and non-linear phenomenon (Liddle, 1997). Research shows conflicting results with regards to the importance of different influencing factors (Nepal, 2003). Trampling surveys are briefly discussed, because of their important, but limited contribution to the area of trail surveys. This analysis is followed by a more in-depth examination of trail based impact assessment. 3.8.1 Trampling Experiments Trampling surveys have been used primarily to gain an understanding of stress and response in controlled conditions and are then extrapolated to the natural setting (Monz, 2002). The first, and most common, approach is to assess the reaction, resistance and resilience of natural plant communities to human trampling in a variety of habitats (Cole, 1986). Cole and Bayfield (1993) developed standard procedures for experimental recreational trampling of vegetation. This type of experiment has also been used to compare the relative impact of different activities on vegetation and soils as in the case where Thurston and Reader (2001) compared the impacts of mountain biking and hiking. Deluca et al. (1998), and Cole and 57 Spildie (1998) also used trampling experiments to assess sediment yield from trails. Experimental trampling studies have firmly established that the relationship between use and impact varies in different habitats on campsites and trails. This is one of the few areas where the differences in stress response between habitats are relatively understood (Buckley, 2000). Trampling surveys do not typically address environmental, managerial, and use factors, and are not used to monitor and describe wilderness conditions or plan for maintenance or development planning. 3.8.2 Trail Surveys Trail surveys involve looking at trails that are undergoing actual activity in a wilderness area. Trail research began in the 1970s with many detailed studies documenting the type and nature of impacts and the influence of relational factors. This led Cole (1987, p .165) to say that trail research had matured and that “little further research on trail management (was) needed.” In some ways this was true as indicated by the relative absence of trail research during the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, increasing use, awareness of ecological concerns, and types of use has led to a greater need to monitor and understand trail impacts using increasingly complex and rigorous methods (Marion and Leung, 2001). These methods include sampling-based rapid surveys, problem-based rapid surveys and permanent point surveys (Newsome et al., 2002; Marion and Leung, 2001). These survey methods collect data on multiple indicators to describe existing trail conditions, identify deteriorating trail conditions, provide information to mitigate unsustainable 58 situations and increase the knowledge about trail degradation. Assessments can be based on sample, census and/or an integration of sampling and census measurements. Each requires a trade-off to achieve their varying goals effectively and efficiently, but all use detailed quantitative and rigorous empirical techniques to increase knowledge and support decision-making. The following materials are commonly used in trail assessments: GPS, altimeter, clinometer, rangefinder, measuring wheel, measuring tape, soil pocket penetrometer, pocket size soil moisture and pH meter, flag pins and magnetic pin locator. Tools and methods range from low to high sophistication to allow their application by crews with correspondingly varied skills and resources. Sampling-based rapid surveys involve systematically locating non­ permanent sampling points along the trail. This system collects data on multiple parameters, such as width, incision, and other detracting features (Cole, 1983). Measurements concerning trail width and trail incision have been refined significantly over time (Leung and Marion, 1999; Marion and Leung, 2001; Farrell and Marion, 2001/2002). This system is best suited for determining the overall condition of the trail and identifying major changes in condition (Cole, 1983). Sampling points are not permanently established, so it is more difficult to distinguish between changing trail conditions and natural variability along the trail. This system is useful if the purpose is to examine the overall condition of the trail without reference to specific points, features and location specific attributes. 59 The problem assessment method, developed and tested by Leung and Marion (1999), is an efficient and effective means of determining the presence and extent of trail impacts by collecting information on management problems such as excessively muddy sections, excessive trail width, water on trail, unofficial trails and soil erosion (Marion and Leung, 2001). The data set is typically based on presence or absence of conditions, but can also include quantitative measurements of the lineal extent of problems, information that can be useful for planning (Marion and Leung, 2001). This method is particularly ideal for planning because the census of the entire trail, at the rate of about 2 miles and hour, quickly generates data on how many and what type of repairs are required (Leung et al., 1997). For example after completing this survey in Great Smoky National Park, (Leung et al., 1997) management can base next year’s maintenance planning on the survey findings that there was approximately 1000 ft/mile of wet soil. Resurfacing requirements can then be incorporated into next year’s planning and budgeting. The permanent point sampling survey method establishes, and marks, survey points at set intervals that can be reassessed to detail any changes that may have occurred (Thurston, 1992). As with the rapid survey method, trail parameters typically include width and incision, but can include soil bulk density, aspect, trail alignment, vegetation changes, tread surface characteristics and other trail attributes. Sampling points are permanently marked so changes on variety of indicators can be recorded with the highest level of precision amongst the three methods. Table 3.9 compares the strengths and weaknesses of the different data collection techniques. 60 Table 3.9 Comparison of Trail Survey Techniques Survey Type Rapid survey method Sampling methodology Sampling Problem assessment method Census Permanent sampling method Sampling Key Parameters Best Use Weakness W idth and incision, but ean include others e.g. Soil type, vegetation type, slope, aspect, etc. Identifies predefined unaceeptable conditions (e.g., erosion, water on trail, multiple treads. etc.). W idth and incision, but can include others e.g. Soil type, vegetation type, slope, aspect, etc. Quickly describes trail conditions and identifies major changes Primarily a management tool for quickly surveying trails. Cannot detect small changes Describes trail conditions and precisely identifies subtle changes. Samples only a small portion of the trail, can be time consuming Doesn’t generate averages on trail width/incision Source; Newsome et al. (2002) A combination of these three methods is proposed for the examination of trail impacts in MRPP. 3.9 Backcountry Management and Planning Frameworks Backcountry monitoring programs, including trail impact assessment and monitoring, provide an important contribution to prescriptive, conditions-based, wilderness planning frameworks. Backcountry planning models go through a cycle where ideal conditions are identified, indicators are selected, conditions are monitored and management actions are implemented if conditions are unsuitable. Figure 3.4 outlines a contemporary conditions-based planning model. Monitoring models typically follow one of two approaches; either a ‘carrying capacity’ type approach or an ‘acceptable change’ or related approach. A carrying capacity approach uses an understanding of the relationship between the number of people and the amount of impact to determine the maximum 61 number of people that can be allowed (McArthur, 2000). Select indicators o f resource and social conditions Specify Standards for Indicators -* Monitor conditions Establish prescriptive management objectives 4- Compare conditions to standards Figure 3.4 Contemporary Planning Framework Source: Leung and Marion (2000: 41) iraiiiEWorii,--------Source: Leung and Marion 2000 Standards Exceeded Standards not exceeded Evaluate and identify causal factors Select and implement management action (s) This approach has been criticized because of its failure to produce an ideal number, and as a result it has fallen out of favor amongst resource managers. The acceptable change type approach, which includes Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and Visitor Impact Management (VIM) programs, recognizes that some impact or change is inevitable. It focuses planning and management efforts on understanding and describing preferred conditions then monitoring for differences between preferred and actual conditions (McArthur, 2000). Both methods rely on science to support value-based decisions (Manning and Lawson, 2002). A stakeholder approach that involves a variety of interests groups can bring greater accountability, legitimacy and result in better support for values-based decisions (Newsome et al.. 62 2001). Ultimately, many planning models fail when it comes time to interpret broad stakeholder/management goals and ideas into prescriptive actions and desired conditions on the ground (McArthur, 2000). As a result, planning frameworks need solid scientific data and monitoring programs to support and implement the planning process. If unacceptable differences between preferred and actual conditions are detected managers can implement indirect or direct management techniques. The research attention focused on this area has resulted in a number of publications directed at problem solving approaches to manage wilderness conditions (Leung and Marion 2000). Management guidebooks include Hammitt and Cole (1998), Cole et al. (1997) and Cole et al. (1987). Management actions typically are centered on the following five approaches (Leung and Marion, 2000): 1) modification of use related factors; 2) modification of environmental factors; 3) site selection and development; 4) site maintenance; 5) site facilities and site closures. As outlined in the study area chapter, and study rationale, this research occurs in the context where there are differences in management strategies between trails with an over arching management strategy to disperse use to the low-use trail. 3.10 Literature Review Summary Demand for quality outdoor recreation opportunities is increasing concurrently with the desire to conserve and protect natural resources. Wilderness managers find themselves in the center of the relationship between recreation and 63 conservation. Whether recreation is, on balance, good for wilderness or a threat to its existence, will depend on the capabilities of management to reconcile ecological, visitor and social needs. One area of concern are trails, which play a vital role in outdoor recreation experiences. Trail impacts increase with the number of users and include trampling damage to vegetation, trail degradation and depreciative behaviors, but impacts do not increase in proportion to the greater number of visitors. Recreation ecology has begun to understand the nature of these impacts and develop assessment methods. Three types of trail impact assessments are rapid surveys, which are non-permanent sampling assessments, the problem assessment method, which is a census of substandard areas, and the permanent-point-sampling method, which is a permanent sampling system, and allows for more precise re­ measurement. Each of these systems has drawbacks therefore an integrated approach is proposed for MRPP. 64 Chapter 4 Study Methods This research applies an integrated multiple parameter methodology to study the Berg Lake and Mount Fitzwilliam Trails in MRPP. A brief summary of the survey methodology is presented first, followed by more detailed descriptions of sampling methods, sampling interval and rationale, and the parameters assessed. Lastly, the data management and statistical analysis are described. More detailed procedural descriptions of how each parameter was measured are described in the trailmonitoring manual (Appendix I). 4.1 Trail Survey Method The survey established permanent sampling points along both trails, and used a modified continuous assessment to measure indicators on trail conditions, ecological impacts, ecological attributes and vegetation parameters. A trail manual was finalized prior to commencing the survey, outlining the procedural steps to establishing sampling points, measuring parameters and recording data. The manual was updated after completing the survey to reflect actual procedures used, and how site-specific exceptions were addressed. 4.1.1 Sampling Method Sample points were distributed systematically along the trail, with randomly selected starting interval of 17m. Three new databases were created, using the 65 Statistics Package for the Social Sciences Release 12.0 (SPSS, 2004), which allowed for data summaries and relational analysis within sections of each trail and between the two trails, of managerial, user based and environmental factors. This approach is based on Cole (1983) and further refined by Leung and Marion (1999 and 2000) Marion and Leung (2001), Marion and Farrell (2001/2002), Marion (unpublished) and Thurston (1992). Spacing for the systematic-random sample points was established along the trail with the use of a measuring wheel. There is debate between using a systematic sampling approach or a purposeful sampling approach. Both approaches can be used to test the research questions; however the systematic approach has been universally applied by Marion’s (see Leung and Marion, 1999 and 2000; Marion and Leung, 2001; Marion and Farrell, 2001; Marion, unpublished) research in trail surveys. It provides an overall survey of trail conditions so summaries can be made of trail width, depth and cross section. This research is thus a regional case study application of M arion’s trail survey methods. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were collected using a pocket size Global Positioning System (GPS). The distance to the first sample point (17m) was chosen from a random number table (available from www.radomnumber.org). The modified continuous survey focused on the number of occurrences of multiple treads, qualitative assessments of management actions, and the lineal distance of problem areas and management actions. Two purposely- located plots were developed in problem areas on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, after an 66 initial assessment of the entire trail system. There were no suitable locations for problem-area plots on the Berg Lake Trail. The local knowledge of the park staff was used to assist in choosing problem areas. Problem-area plots will help to establish baseline conditions in these locations that are showing evidence of poor conditions and appear at risk of rapid degradation. The two locations were chosen because they showed evidence of being in poor condition already, with high tread width and trail braiding, and were in sensitive wet areas. Establishing both systematic-random and problem area plots, and keeping them separate for analysis, allowed for a description of overall trail conditions while establishing sample points for longitudinal surveys and future monitoring. 4.1.2 Sampling Interval Past research indicates that a sampling interval of about 500m is appropriate for this type of survey. Sampling interval is typically determined by one of two approaches (Leung and Marion 1999). The first approach is to select a desired interval and divide the length of trail by the interval, or secondly, select the desired number of sample points and divide the length of the trail by the number of plots. This survey used the latter. Leung and Marion (1999) found that sampling intervals between 100 and 500m provide statistically valid estimates of trail condition while finding a balance with efficiency. Therefore, a 450m sampling interval was selected for this study. 67 At the 450m sampling interval, there were 40 sampling points along the Berg Lake trail and 29 sampling points along the Mount Fitzwilliam trail with two purposely located plots for a total sample size of 71 plots. It was not possible, or appropriate to collect data on all the indicators at all the plots. This number of plots was manageable at a rate of 4-5 plots a day and is similar to that of other studies (Cole, 1983; Farrell and Marion, 2001/2002). 4.2 Selection of Impact Indicators Data on a wide variety of parameters was collected with the goal of being able to accurately assess and understand the effects of the influencing factors identified during the literature review (refer to Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8). The parameters assessed in this study are described in Table 4.1 (station or plot data), 4.2 (continuous survey data) and 4.3 (vegetation plot data). Indicators were selected based on their ability to meet three criteria. First, indicators had to reflect the measurement target or the variable being measured. For example, slope and aspect were used as indicators of topography. Second, impact indicators had to be sensitive to change, ideally more sensitive to change than the overall system being measured, in order to predict the impact in time for management to respond, rather than just measure and describe the impacts. This is commonly referred to as the ‘canary in the coal m ine’ approach (Newsome et al. 2002). Third, the amount of available surveyor time and skills, and the costs of instmments had to be considered when selecting indicators. This meant that they 68 could be assessed using tools and instruments that met the project budget, that the surveyors could learn the necessary skills (e.g., plant identification and soil texturing) to assess the variables, and the indicators could be measured quickly enough that the two trails could be surveyed during one summer. All the indicators were assessed only once over the course of the summer, using instruments available at most forestry equipment supply stores, with two surveyors with at least Bachelor of Science Degrees in the natural sciences. 69 Table 4.1 Assessment Parameters (station data) Variable Variable description Instrument Measurement Scale Units/ Value Distance U.T.M. Distance from trail head U.T.M. coordinates for each plot Continuous Continuous Meters U.T.M. Tread width Width of trail that receives 95% of traffic. Measuring wheel Garmin etrex 12 channel GPS Tape measure Continuous cm Maximum Incision Deepest portion of the trail Tape measure Continuous cm Trail Cross Section Surface area of soil loss Cord (rope) and Ruler Continuous cm^ Trail Alignment Index of difference between trail and aspect directions. The percent contribution of different substrates to the total trail surface. Number of damaged trees 5m either side of the plot, 2.5 m on either side of the trail Non-constructed trails 5m either side of the plot Trails that parallel the main trail 5m either side of the plot Soil texture class Magnetic Compass Continuous Ocular Estimate Continuous Observation Frequency Angle 0°-90° Percent by category Actual count Observation Frequency Actual count Observation Frequency Actual count Hand texturing with texture triangle Observation Nominal Texture Class Name Actual count Moisture Point TDR (Time Delay Reflectometery) Soil Penetrometer Continuous Substrate Characteristics Damaged trees Informal trails* Secondary treads* Soil Texture Exposed Rocks and Roots* Soil Moisture‘s Soil Penetration Resistance‘S Vegetation Type Trail Gradient A count of the number of exposed rock or roots over a 5m segment of trail. Moisture content of the soil. Measures the relative compaction of the soil. (SPR) Bio-Geo-Climatic Zones Continuous Continuous W ater content by weight (%) kg/cm^ Nominal Average slope of the trail Vegetation inventory maps and GPS Clinometer Continuous One of four zone names. Slope (%) Steepest slope of the landscape. Clinometer Continuous Slope (%) Slope direction of landscape Magnetic Compass Nominal Observation Nominal Side-hill Construction Elevation Location of trail plot in relation to topographic position (Valley Bottom, Ridge Top, or Mid-slope. ) Have cut and fill techniques used in trail construction Height above sea level North, South, East or West Category of trail position Observation Nominal Yes/No Topographic Map Continuous Meters Use Types An estimate o f the amount of use. From park statistics Ordinal Count Ordinal/ frequency Count Landscape Slope Aspect Trail Position Amount of Estimate from park Total number of visitors per year. Traffic statistics Measurements were taken at a control site parallel to each sample point. ‘ Indicates sample was taken over an area of trail 70 Table 4.2 Continuous Survey Indicators Variable Variable description Informal trails Secondary Treads Non-constructed trails Times when a trail parallels the main trail Areas where repairs are needed Running water on trail or signs of running water on trail Areas where there are many treads Unassisted stream crossings Problem areas Running water Trail braiding Stream fords Length of problem areas Site hardening point features. Location of site hardening features Management Feature Rating Instrument Distance of problems An identification of a management feature Distance from trail head for each feature Qualitative assessment of its effectiveness (Not-at-all Effective, Marginal, Effective) Measurement Scale Units/V alues Observation Observation Continuous Continuous Count Count Observation Continuous Count Observation Continuous Count Observation Continuous Count Observation Continuous Count Measuring wheel Observation Continuous Meters Nominal Count Measuring wheel Observation Continuous Meters Ordinal Ranking Measurement Scale Units/V alues Nominal Names Percent contribution to Percent Table 4.3 Vegetation Indicators*' Variable Variable description Instrument Species inventory* Name of plant species Relative cover estimates Percent cover of each type ground cover totaling to 100% Im X Im quadrat Im X Im quadrat 100% Frequency The frequency of each plant Im X Im Frequency Actual count species quadrat Height Average height for each Tape measure Continuous cm species Measurements were taken also at a control site 5m perpendicular to the trail. ' A complete plant list is located in the appendix. Salix, Graminea, Carex, Lichen and Mosses were not keyed to the species level. 71 4.3 The Survey Process The survey, including the continuous survey and permanent sampling points, were completed concurrently in steps. Plates 4.1-4.4 show photographs of the processes. Figure 4.1 Survey Plot in Nearby Tree Trail Tread Permanent Nails Trailside Quadrat. C o n tro l Quadrat Trail Plot Crossection view T ,= 0 Interval Fixed Point Fixed Point Transect Area’ = (Transect 1 + Transect 2) x Interval x .5 Area*= A ’+A^ + A^ +A^ +A^ First, the sample point was marked with one nail on each side of the trail and a marker tag positioned in nearby tree. Plots were then geo-refereneed with the GPS 72 (Fig 4.1). Point-based parameters, (e.g., cross section) were assessed first at each sample point. Parameters that require area-based assessments, (e.g., exposed rocks and roots) were completed as an average, assessing the area 5m ahead and 5m behind along the trail. Trailside assessments (i.e., the Im^ trailside vegetation transect) were established parallel to the sample point, at the nail on the left side of the trail. Control sites for soil penetration resistance (SPR) and vegetation diversity and cover were also located adjacent to the marked sample point on the left side, 5m from the nail. Measurements on SPR^ and vegetation were taken at the control point and on the trail. Data were recorded on pre-made field cards (see trail manual). Plate:4.1 Trailside Quadrat Plate: 4.2 Trail tread measurem ents Plate 4.1 (left) shows the location of the trailside vegetation quadrat at plot F2. Plate 4.2 (right) plot F24. Measuring tread width, MIC and cross section. ' Soil penetration resistance and bulk density are measurements of the reductions in pore space o f the soil. SPR is often used, as in this survey, because it is a quick and easy measurement, that is responsive to change, however it is difficult to convert between the two (Liddle, 1997). 73 Plate 4.3 shows the locator tag located the closest tree at plot # B29on the Berg Lake trail . Plate 4.4. shows an example control quadrat 5m from the trail tread on the Mt. Fitzwilliam trail. 74 ^ ; s i* » ' Once data collection was completed for a sample point, the measuring wheel was used to establish the next sample point using the interval distance. E« route to the next sample point, continuous trail data (e.g., the number of social trails and qualitative assessment of management actions) were collected. The trail monitoring manual in Appendix I contains more specific and detailed information, along with pictures and diagrams, on data collection procedures, which were followed to ensure consistency in measurements. Plate 5.5 shows a research assistant using the measuring wheel on the Berg Lake trail. 4.5 Data Analysis Data analysis followed processes that have been applied previously in the literature (Marion, unpublished). Analysis consisted of creating three trail databases in SPSS 75 (release 12.0): station database, vegetation database, and continuous database. Each database contained data from both trails. SPSS was used to calculate mean values for soil penetration resistance and soil moisture, and total cross-section values. Three types of data compression were completed after the survey. Each plot was assigned a vegetation-cover type of forest, meadow/open or roek/gravel from the photographs. Vegetation-cover type was ranked into three categories in reverse successional order from near climax type areas, (i.e., forests) with an over story of trees, to meadow/open, and primary successional stages (i.e.. Rocky/gravel), where there was a large amount of exposed rock in the control plot. Soil texture was recoded and ranked into five texture classes based on the percent composition of silt, sand and clay, using the soil texture triangle (Liddle 1997). Aspect bearings were taken in the field and were recoded into the four cardinal directions (i.e.. North, East, South, and West). The Floristic Dissimilarity Index (EDI) based on Cole (1982) was calculated for each plot. It calculates a value between 0 and 100 that describes the differences in species composition and relative plant cover between the trailside and control plots. This survey adapted the EDI by also considering types of ground cover. (1982) approach only considered plant species. EDI is calculated as follows: Floristic Dissimilarity = 0.5 (Z \ Pjs-Pc | ) Where, Pts Trailside relative ground cover Pc Control Relative ground cover 76 Cole’s Each trail was divided into segments based on their unique attributes; topography, trail construction, and the amount of use (see Chapter 2 and 5 for more details). Each plot was assigned a segment name. The trail name, segment name and plot number was included with all the information, so three levels of analysis, plot, segment, and trail, could be completed. The ‘merge’ process on SPSS was used for comparisons between databases. The trail databases were the data sources for the rest of the data analysis. Once the trail databases were completed, different types of analysis were performed including descriptive statistics of trail impact, locational and environmental variables. Correlation tests between degradation variables and environmental and managerial variables were conducted to examine the relationship between the variables. Summary tables and graphs were created showing averages, standard deviations, and modal values as appropriate, as done by Cole (1983). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test for between trail differences (SPSS, 2003). Residuals plots (SPSS, 2003) were preformed with each analysis to ensure the statistical assumptions for the ANOVA were met. Paired T-tests were used to compare values between experimental and control sites. Spearman’s Rank Correlation and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient were used to test correlation between impact indicators and ecological/ locational factors. The frequency and effectiveness of management actions was assessed qualitatively to examine which types of management actions have the greatest chance of success. Also, the frequency and lineal extent of problem areas were calculated. 77 4.6 Chapter Summary An integrated survey approach that combines permanent sampling points with a continuous assessment was used in the survey. A wide range of indicators of ecological impacts, ecological attributes and human characteristics were collected. SPSS was used to create three trail databases to form the basis of the data analysis. Post-hoc analysis included creating vegetation-cover type variables and collapsing soil texture and aspect into fewer categories. The results chapter will show the data analysis at the segment, trail and aggregate levels. 78 Chapter 5 Results The results chapter is presented in seven sections. The introduction describes the data structure and how the trails were divided for analysis and presentation of results. Section 5.2 describes the ecology and location of the trails. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 compare the indicators of ecological impacts on each segment and trail. Part I examines the impacts on soil using a variety of soil indicators, trail related problems, and the proliferation of unofficial trails. Section 5.4 describes changes in vegetation composition and ground cover. Section 5.5 describes trail related maintenance features used, their distribution and their effectiveness in trail impact management. Section 5.6 looks at how trail degradation and vegetation change correlate with ecological, management and use related variables. Lastly, section 5.7 synthesizes the main findings of the trail impact analysis. 5.1 Trail Segments For the purposes of analysis and reporting results, the trails were divided into segments based on certain criteria that distinguished it from the other trail sections. Each trail segment was assigned a name, ranging from one to six, the first letter of the trail name was added to the number for clarity in linking the trail segments to their trail ( ‘B ’ for Berg Lake and ‘F ’ for Mt. Fitzwilliam Trails). The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail contains segments IF and 2F; segment IF is a constructed trail and segment 2F is an undeveloped route beyond the Rockingham Creek campground. 79 Segments 3B, 4B, 5B and 6B are on the Berg Lake Trail. Segment 3B commences at the start of the survey and runs until the end of the Kinney Lake Flats (4.618km). It is distinguished because of the large number of day users and its relatively flat topography. Segment 4B contains the trail from the start of the hill before Whitehorn Campground and runs to the bottom of the ‘emperors staircase’ (to 7.259km) and it is distinguished by its rolling topography. Segment 5B is the ‘emperors staircase’, and was designated as such because of its steep average trail grade (15%). Segment 6B contains the rest of the trail, which runs primarily along gravel and open forests. Table 5.1 provides the background information on lengths and the frequency of survey plots. Trail Name Segments Begin-end distance km* Total length km Mt. Fitzwilliam Mt. Fitzwilliam Berg Lake IF 0-5.548 2F 5.548- 3B Berg Lake Berg Lake Plot numbers Distinguishing factors/ rationale S j4 8 Number of surveyed plots 13 F1-F13 Trail Construction 7.391 16/18 F14-F31* Undeveloped route 0-4.618 4.618 11 B l- B ll 4B 4.618- 2.641 6 B12-B17 Elevation/ use level/ trail grade Topography 5B T259 7.259- 12.939 8 B18-B25 Trail grade L308 10.567 Berg Lake 6B 15 B26-B40 Trail grade 10.5677.31 17.877 Distances are from the start of the survey to the end of the survey on each segment. ' F30, F 3 1 plots are purposely located plots The Berg Lake and Mt Fitzwilliam Trails are significantly different in the number of visitors, the level of trail construction and the amount of ongoing maintenance and management attention (see Chapter 2 for more details). Therefore, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail with its 400 visitors, and annual minor maintenance and 80 inspection schedules can be considered low use and receiving little management attention. The Berg Lake Trail, on the other hand, with more than 15,000 visitors per year supervised by two fulltime on-duty rangers can be considered high use and highly maintained (see Table 5.2). Table 5.2 Use-Level and Management-Attention Indicators Indicator Annual Use Overnight Use Percentage of Constructed Trail Fee Inspection Schedule Minor Maintenance Interval Major Maintenance and Repair Interval Committed Staff Resources Visitor Information and Education Use Rationing/ Allocation System Visitor Registration Berg Lake Trail (High management & highuse) 15,461' Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail (Low management & low use) 362f iiT 3,656' 100% 50% $5/person/night Greater than once a Week Weekly Annual None Annual Annual No scheduled interval 4 full time rangers (June to August) No committed staff Visitor center for pre-trip information Educational video Hybrid reservation/ first come first served approach Laser counters for all users Trailhead sign No rationing /allocation system Self registration for all users Visitor registration center for overnight visitors Itinerary Other regulations Planned Itinerary Eire restrictions No dogs on overnight trips None Fires allowed below alpine Total Number of Management 31 82 Features Management Features per 4.6/km 2.4/km Kilometer 12 Number of Different Types of 7 Management Features Based on 2001 unpublished data. (WLAP 2001) ^ Based on self registration numbers from September 2002 to September 2003 ^From survey data (see also Tables 5.16 and 5.17). 81 Both trails contain beginning sections that were excluded from the survey. The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail contains a 700m section where the trail follows a service road on top of a natural gas pipeline. The Berg Lake Trail begins with a 4.5km section of service road (open to park vehicles only), which is used as a frontcountry trail, so it was also excluded from the survey. 5.2 Trail Ecology and Location Descriptions This section summarizes the ecological and locational variables using the trail plot data. Results of topographic, construction, ecological and locational attributes are discussed, followed by an analysis of tread substrates characteristics. 5.2.1 Topographic and Construction Variables Topographic variables included trail grade, landscape slope, and elevation. Average trail grade ranges from a low of 4% on segment 6B to a high of 15% on segment 5B with an average of 9% over the entire survey. Mean landscape slope ranges from a low of 17% on segments 2F and 6B to a high of 33% on segment 4B. The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail starts at a higher elevation (1125m), and quickly rises to a higher maximum elevation (1900m) than the Berg Lake Trail. Table 5.3 summarizes topographic and construction related information. Construction variables include trail alignment and side-hill construction. Segment IF was better aligned than the undeveloped segment (2F). Segment 5B 82 (Emperor’s Staircase) had the lowest alignment value, the highest elevation change, and steepest trail grade. The undeveloped section had no plots with side-hill construction. Segment 5B had the highest ratio (50%) of plots with/without side-hill construction. Table 5.3 Trail Ecological and Construction Variables Trail Grade % Landscape Slope % IF 11 28 2F 8 17 Plots with Side-Hill Construction Yes No / / 6 7 0 16 Alignment' Elevation m Min Max 62 1125 1590 50 1620 1900 3B 8 27 5 6 65 980 1000 4B 9 33 3 3 43 1050 1160 5B 15 29 6 2 41 1156 1630 6B 4 17 6 9 58 1640 1690 Mt. Fitzwilliam 10 22 6 22 56 1125 1900 Berg Lake 9 23 20 20 55 980 1690 Total 9 23 26 42 55 980 1900 1A Aligment number between 0 (poorly aligned) and 90 (well aligned) 5.2.2 Trail Ecological and Locational Variables Table 5.4 shows trail related ecological and locational variables including soil particle size, aspect, vegetation-cover type, and landform position. Plots on Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail had predominantly sandy soil, followed by silt, loam and organic soils. The Berg Lake Trail was also mainly sandy, followed by loam, with only one plot located on organic soil. The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail plots were located on North and W est aspects, while the Berg Lake Trail plots were located predominantly on South and West aspects. The Berg Lake plots were more frequently located on more 83 meadow/open and rocky/gravel terrain than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, where the plots were mainly in forested sites. The open/meadow and rocky/gravel plots on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail were primarily in segment 2F. The Berg Lake trail is located generally in a valley bottom position while the Mt. Fitzwilliam is mostly in a mid­ slope position. Segments 3B and 6B are primarily in valley bottom positions, while 5B is more often in a mid-slope or ridge top position. Table 5.4 Trail Ecological and Locational Variables^ 0 C Si L S N E S W Vegetation-cover type’ F MO RG 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 2 4 4 4 7 2 3 4 1 2 I 5 9 2 5 1 1 10 11 3 8 1 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 2 2 3 2 4 0 4 2 5 8 4 6 6 6 2 1 4 12 12 10 8 2 7 3 22 1 4 0 3 0 5 5 0 2 3 1 1 7 2 2 5 5 2 0 9 7 8 6 3 4 3 4 14 3 5 3 0 5 2 8 I 6 0 1 14 21 8 14 17 28 1 12 7 9 19 23 13 25 20 42 8 13 12 14 16 23 14 28 10 18 Soil Texture Class' IF 2F 3B 4B 5B 6B Mt. Fitzwilliam Berg Lake Total Aspect i 'Soil texture class: O organic; C clay; Si silt; L loam; S sand (see Section 4.5) ^Cover type: F forest; M meadow/open; RG rock/ gravel ’slope Position: V Low/ valley bottom; M Mid-slope; R Ridge top 84 Landform Position’ V M R 5.2.3 Tread Substrate Characteristics Figure 5.1 Tread substrate characteristics by trail segment %Root# % tOCK % w ood I Mean 85 Figure 5.1 shows the mean tread substrate characteristics by trail segment. Most of the tread substrate on the constructed trails was either the existing substrate or material that was easily transportable from a nearby location. Segments 4B, 5B and 6B have high proportions of rock as a trail substrate. Segments IF and 2F, have more organic material (25% and 16%). Segment 2F, lowest use and undeveloped has the greatest proportion of vegetation (11%) on the trail tread. 5.3 Impact Indicators I This section presents data on the indicators of trail based ecological impacts, but does not include vegetation impact indicators, which are presented in Section 5.4. The results presented in this section are trail width, incision, cross-section, types of exposures, and SPR. It also includes the frequencies of trail impact problems in terms of the length of wet and muddy sections. The last section summarizes results about the number of informal trails and secondary treads. 5.3.1 Soil Impact Indicators Table 5.5 summarizes tread width, maximum incision (current tread), cross section, exposures and SPR on the trail. A one-way ANOVA test (SPSS, 2003), was used to compare means between trails. 86 Mean trail width varied from a low of 70cm on segment 2F to a high mean trail width of 150cm on segment 3B. The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail had a mean overall trail width of 76cm; a standard deviation of 23cm, a minimum trail width of 43cm and a maximum tread width of 126cm. The Berg Lake Trail had a mean tread width of 150cm, a standard deviation of 41cm, a minimum tread width of 59cm, and a Table S.STrail impact indicators by trail segment Segment Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev IF 82 ±19 3 ±2 153 ±88 2F 70 ±25 6 ±5 165 ±136 68 3B 150 ±53 5 ±3 482 ±321 4B 114 ±33 9 ±3 590 5B 118 ±26 9 ±4 6B 110 ±36 5 76' ±23 150% 113 Berg Lake Survey Total Maximum Incision (cm) Cross section (cm^) Exposed Rocks and roots Mean Stdev 0 0 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail Width (cm) Trail SPR* kg/cm^ Mean 4.1 Stdev 1.1 34.6 1.5 0.7 2 2.3 4.7 0.6 ±280 30 1&5 5 0 580 ±278 40 323 5 0 ±4 407 ±375 27 3T 9 5 0 5' ±4 160' ±116 38.' 429 2.8' 1.6 ±41 6' ±4 472^ ±316 23' 28T 4.92 0.4 ±100 5.8 ±4 358 ±337 29 35.9 3.9 1.6 *Means followed by the same numbers in the same column are not significantly different (p < 0.5) one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). Soil Penetration Resistance (SPR) maximum of 856cm. In the case of the Berg Lake Trail, one plot was over 8m wide and was considered an outlier, and excluded from the analysis as it was almost three times the next largest tread width measurement of 260cm. There were differences in mean trail width by trail segment. The low-use trail, Mt. Fitzwilliam, was narrower than the high-use Berg Lake Trail. Segment 87 3B, the highest used of all segments, was wider than all the other segments on the Mt Fitzwilliam and Berg Lake Trails. Maximum incision in the survey plots ranged from zero centimeters, where the trail retained its crowned cross-section, to a maximum depth of 17cm on the Berg Lake Trail. The mean maximum incision was similar on both trails, five centimeters (SD± 4cm) on the Fitzwilliam Trail and six centimeters (SD ±4cm) on the Berg Lake Trail. There were no other significant differences in maximum incision. The mean cross section was 160cm^ on the Fitzwilliam Trail and 472cm^ on the Berg Lake Trail. The results of a one-way ANOVA showed the cross section was higher on the Berg Lake Trail. The combined number of exposed rocks and roots, referred to as exposures, was the highest on the undeveloped segment (2F) of the Fitzwilliam Trail and second highest on the steepest section of the Beg Lake Trail (5B). The low-use constructed segment (IF) had no exposures. SPR was always higher on trail than off trail and it was significantly lower on the low-use trail and lowest on the nonconstructed segment, although the control values varied slightly. The median SPR value for the Berg Lake Trail was beyond the maximum measurable capacity of the 88 pocket soil penetrometer, which is 5 kg/cm . The SPR values for on trail and control plots, and the difference between them, are presented in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 On Trail and Control Soil Penetration Resistance (SPR) IF Median kg/cm^ Trail Mean kg/cm^ Stdev. >5 4.T I.l Median kg/cm^ Control Mean Kg/cm^ St.dev. .65 0.9" 0.6 2F 1.6 1.5* 0.7 0.6 0.7* 0.3 3B >5 4.7* 0.6 0.7 0.7* 0.3 4B >5 5 0.0 1.7 1.7 l.I 5B >5 5* 0.0 0.9 0.9* .18 6B >5 5* 0.0 0.7 0.9* 0.6 Mt. Fitzwilliam 2.1 1.6 0.7 ().8" Berg Lake >5 4.gf' 0.4 0.8 Total >5 3.9* 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9* 0.5 Means followed by the same numbers in the same column indicates that the trails are not significantly different (p < 0.5) one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). * Indicates that the on-trail and control means for the same segment/trail/ total are different using a paired T-test (p < 0.5). Maximum value measurable with the pocket penetrometer is 5 kg/cm^ Table 5.6 shows that the SPR values were typically above the maximum measurable value with the pocket penetrometer because the median value for the Berg Lake Trail was at the maximum of 5 kg/cm^. The SPR values were lowest on the undeveloped segment of the Mt. Fitzwilliam trail. However, comparisons of SPR between trail segments and between the two trails should be considered cautiously because the control SPR values were different on the MT. Fitzwilliam Trail. Table 5.7 shows that the moisture content in the control site was typically slightly higher than on the trail, with the exception of the undeveloped segment. 89 Soil moisture readings on the trail and at the control site were taken at the same time at each plot. However, it was not possible to conduct all of the readings on both the Berg Lake and Mt. Fitzwilliam trails on the same day. Readings were taken on the same days for each segment. An attempt was made to calibrate the soil moisture meter by comparing a more accurate gravimetric technique. Following this method, individual soil samples were collected at a later date, and then oven dried to obtain more accurate moisture content. The soil moisture results should be interpreted cautiously because of the absence of significant correspondence between TDR soil moisture readings and gravimetric measurements. This may indicate a low level of accuracy in the moisture meter. The results show that segment IF and 4B have the greatest difference between on trail and control moisture contents. The undeveloped segment had higher soil moisture content on the trail than on the control. Table 5.7 On Trail and Control Soil Moisture Content % (Mass basis) Control Difference St.dev Mean St.dev 5.7 IF 1&8* 7.1 7.0 -1.2 2F 19.3 7.6 6.8 3B 7.3 0.0 5.7 6.3 4B 4.5 6.6 8.8 6.3 5.3 0.3 5B 10.8 5.5 4.1 0.7 6B 4.6 6.6 Mt. Fitzwilliam 15.5' 8.4 1.9' 7.6 7.9% Berg Lake 5.3 0.96' 5.4 Total 11.4 7.9 1.4 6.5 9.9 8.7 Soil Moisture content measured in percent by weight Difference =(Control-TraiI) 'M eans followed by the same numbers in the same column indicates that the trails are not significantly different (p < 0.5) using a one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). * Indicates that the on-trail and control means for the same segment/trail/ total are using a paired T-test (p < 0.5). Soil moisture readings were taken at the same time at each plot, however readings occurred on different days on each different trail segment. Soil moisture readings could not be calibrated to gravimetric measurements using lab analysis, which may indicate low accuracy of soil moisture readings. Trail Mean 5.1* 20.6 7.2 4.2 9.7 5.9 13.7' St.dev 4.2 10.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 5.0 11.1 4.2 Mean 90 5.3.2 Continuous Impact Indicators Table 5.8 shows impact problems including running water/standing water, signs of running water, quagmires, trail braiding and other trail problems. Results are shown as totals and their frequency per kilometer. As shown in Table 5.8, trail segments 2F, 4B and 5B show the greatest presence of trail related problems per kilometer. The two highest values, segments 2F and 4B, were above average with 1.8 and 2.7 problems per kilometer. The Mount Fitzwilliam Trail suffered most from running water on the trail, with 0.54 occurrences per kilometer of both standing or running water and signs of running water. Segment 2F, the lowest use and least developed segment, suffered the most from quagmires and muddy sections than any other trail segment with 1.08 quagmires per kilometer. On the Berg Lake trail, the segments 4B and 5B are the segments with the most problems per kilometer. These two segments are the steepest and in mid-slope to ridge top landform positions. Segments 3B and 6B, which are primarily in valley bottom, show the lowest frequency of trail related problems. 91 The presence of water on the trail and muddy sections is affected by the weather and season. The Fitzwilliam Trail was surveyed in June during the typically cool, overcast and wet (frequent rain/snow showers) weather. Segments 3B and 4B were surveyed in July during wet (frequent rain showers) weather and 5B and 6B were surveyed in late July in abnormally hot and dry weather. Table 5.8 Frequency of areas with unacceptable impacts______________________________________ Other Running/ Segment Signs of Quagmires Trail Braiding Total Problem Areas IF 2F 3B 4B 5B 6B Fitzwilliam Berg Lake Total / // k m 0 1 0 0 I 1 I 2 3 0 0.13 0 0 0.3 0.13 0.07 0.1 0.1 Standing W ater on Trail during survey //k m / 5 2 0 7 0 0 7 7 14 1.08 0.27 0 2.7 0 0 0.54 0.39 0.45 W ater on Trail Trail Impaet Problems / /km / //k m / //k m / //k m 5 2 0 0 0 1 7 1 8 0.9 &27 0 0 0 0T 3 0.54 0.01 0.26 0 8 0 0 4 1 8 5 13 0 1.08 0 0 1.2 0.13 0j& 0Ü# 0.42 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.13 0 0.1 0.06 10 13 0 7 6 4 23 17 40 1.1 1.8 0 2.7 1.8 0.5 1.8 1.0 1.3 The problems tallied in the survey included signs of running water, puddles and muddy sections. Puddles, muddy sections and running water were combined with signs of running water to address the influences of weather differences. The total distance with puddles, muddy sections and running water ranges from zero meters on segment 3B to 1733m (219m/km) on segment 2F, the undeveloped route, at the highest elevation (Table 5.9). The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has more than 100 times more problems per kilometer of trail problems than the Berg Lake. On the 92 Berg Lake trail, segments 4B and 5B again showed the greatest length of wet and muddy areas. Table 5.9 Length of Wet and Muddy Areas IF Total Length m 490 m 88 m/km 2F 1733 m 219 m/km 3B 0m 0 m/km 4B 14 m 5 m/km 5B 8m 2 m/km 6B 2m 0.27 m/km Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail 2223 m 172 m/km Berg Lake Trail 24 m 1 m/km Total 2247 m 73 m/km m/km 5.3.3 Informal Trails and Secondary Treads Table 5.10 shows the number of informal trails and secondary treads by trail segment. The Berg Lake Trail has substantially more informal trails (2.41/km) and secondary treads (1.07/km) than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail with 0.31 informal trails per kilometer and 0.23 secondary treads per kilometer. The highest frequency of informal trails and secondary treads were on segments 5B and 6B, segments that parallel natural attractions. Segment 5B overlooks water falls and 6B follows the 93 shoreline of Berg Lake, however; segment 3B follows the shoreline of Kinney Lake and has substantially less informal trails and secondary treads. Table 5.10 Unofficial Trails (Informal Trails and Secondary Treads) Secondary Treads Informal Trails Segment / //k m IF 1 0.18 2F 3 0.41 3B 6 1.30 4B 2 0.76 5B 15 4^3 6B 20 2.74 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail 4 Berg Lake Trail Total / 2 1 6 4 6 //k m 0^6 0.14 1.30 1.51 1.81 1.92 0.31 14 3 0^3 43 2.41 30 1.68 47 1.53 33 1.07 5.3.4 Section Summary Trail degradation data show a mix of results where the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail is worse than the Berg Lake Trail on some indicators and vice versa. The Mt. Fitzwilliam shows lower values on the following indicators: cross-section, trail width, informal and secondary treads, and SPR. However, segment 2F shows poorer values than the others on the following indicators: exposures, incision, and the length of problem areas. The size of the problem areas on the Berg Lake Trail is smaller but there are more point-based problems, wider trail width and higher crosssection values. 94 5.4 Impact Indicators II: Vegetation The survey identified 29 different plant families and 97 different species keyed to the species or genere level in the 68 one square meter quadrats. Specifically, there were five species of ferns, 52 species of herbaceous plants, including sedges and grasses, and 38 types of woody plants, including trees and shrubs. Forty-five herbarium samples were collected, mounted, labeled and stored. A complete plant list is provided in the appendix, which contains common names, Latin name, species author, family, growth form classification and herbarium inventory (Appendix II). Chuang (1975) completed a flora of the park identifying 633 taxa, so this survey contained about 15% of the parks floral diversity in the 68 plots, which works out to 136m l This section shows increases in species richness by plant growth form (Table 5.11), and by segment (Table 5.12), changes in ground cover (Table 5.13), Floristic Dissimilarity Index values (Tables 5.14) and the presence or absence of plants from trailside or control plots (Table 5.15). 5.4.1 Increases in Species Richness Tables 5.11 and 5.12 show how species richness increased at trailside quadrats as compared to the control quadrats. Table 5.11 shows how species richness varied by life form, woody species, herbaceous. Ferns/ Moss/Lichen/Fungi and exotic species, on each Trail. Table 5.12 shows how total species richness varied by each segment and trail. 95 Table 5.11 Species Richness By Growth Form Berg Lake Trail Side Mt. Fitzwilliam Control Trail Side Control Mean St.dev Mean St.dev Mean St.dev Mean St.dev Woody species 2.4 ±1.8 2.2 ±1.4 3.8 ±2.0 3.8 ±1.6 Herbaceous species 29* ±2.9 1.7* ±1.8 3.5 ±2.7 2.9 ±2.7 Ferns 0.05 ±.22 0.1 ±0.304 0.0 ±0 0.04 ±.19 Moss, lichen, fungi 0.75 ±.63 &93 ±.69 1.5 ±0.74 1.5 ±0.6 Exotics 0.06 ±0.2 0.0 ±0.0 0.0 ±0.0 0.0 ±0.0 Total 6.1* ±4.4 L9* ±3.2 8.9 ±3.7 8.2 ±3.4 * Indicates that the on-trail and control means for the same segment/trail/ total are different using a paired T-test (p < 0.5). . As summarized in Table 5.11, in the Berg Lake trail, there was greater plant diversity in the trailside quadrats than the control quadrats located five meters from the edge of the trail. The Berg Lake Trail had an average of 6.1 species per trailside quadrat and 4.9 species per control quadrat. The Fitzwilliam Trail showed a similar, hut not significant trend, with more species per quadrat overall with 8.9 species per trailside quadrat and 8.2 species per control quadrat. The differences in richness appeared similar between different plant growth forms and on different segments of trail (Table 5.12). Table 5.12 also shows that while there were differences in species richness on trailside quadrats on different segments, the differences were also similar in the control quadrats (e.g., segments 2F and 3B were different at the 0.95 confidence interval for both the control and trailside quadrats). Considering the differences were found in the control as well as at the trailside, it suggests that factors other than trail use, such as vegetation type, are probably affecting the differences in species richness. 96 Two well-known exotic species (Pojar et al., 1999), Common Dandelion {Taraxacum officinale) and Red Clover {Trifolium pratense), were found only in four trailside plots on the Berg Lake Trail (with median cover of a ‘trace’). It is important to note that the exotic species were only found in the trailside plots and only the percent cover was only a trace, indicating that exotic plants do not appear to be invading areas away from the trail, nor do they represent a signifigant portion of the vegetation cover. Dandelion was found in four trailside plots and Red Clover was found in one trailside plot. Common Dandelion was observed in the first two kilometers of the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail but not in any of the systematically located plots. Also, Pineapple Weed {Matricaria matricariodes) and Oxeye Daisy {Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) were also observed in the first two kilometers of the Berg Lake Trail, before the survey commenced at about the 4.5 kilometer point. This could indicate that distance from the trailhead, vehicle traffic (park staff regularly drive this portion of trail), or time to disperse is factors in the distribution of exotic plant species. 97 Table 5.12 Species Richness by Trail segment Mean 7.3 10 4.9 7.3 6.4 Trailside St. dev 2.5 2.5 4.2 5.4 3.4 4.3 3.7 Mean Control St. dev 2.5 3.7 Mean 0.4 0.75 0.45 1.3 2.4 Mean difference St. dev 1.5 3.5 4.7 3.0 3.3 IF 6.9 9.3 2F 3B 4.5 2.8 4B 6.0 3.3 5B 4.0 2.6 5.3 6B 3.7 6.3 0.9 2.8 3.4 Mt. 8.9' &3' .6' 2.8 Fitzwilliam 4.4 3.2 Berg Lake 6.1' 4.9' l.l' 3.5 Total 7.2 4.3 6.3 3.6 3.2 .9 Any two means followed by the same numbers in the same column indicates that the trails are not significantly different (p < 0.5) using a one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). * Indicates that the on-trail and control means for the same segment/trail/ total are different using a paired T-test (p < 0.5). 5.4.2 Changes in Relative Plant Cover As shown in Table 5.13 vegetated cover was significantly less at trailside than in the control over the total survey. Considering relative cover total to 100%, any reduction in vegetative cover must be replaced with increases in non-vegetative cover, primarily exposed soil, which increased by an average of about 10% in trailside plots across the entire survey. There was more non-vegetative cover in both the trailside and control on the Berg Lake Trail than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, likely because more Berg Lake plots were located on rocky/gravel vegetation types. The results also show more exposed soil in the trailside of the high-use trail than on the low-use trail, although not significantly. Furthermore, the difference in vegetative cover between the control and trailside plots was greater on the Berg Lake Trail. Coarse-woody debris had higher cover in the control plots. 98 Table 5.13 Relative Ground Cover Total Veg. % TS C 84 90 65 56 56 46 Exposed Soil % Exposed Rock % Coarse debris % TS 13 1 18 4 10 17 TS 5 2 34 TS 1 0 3 0 0 0 0.4' 0.8' 0.6 C 1 0 2 0 6 2 C 1 2 19 woody C IF 2 69 2F 1 93 3B 33 3 4B 56 4 39 36 5B 37 13 2 38 44 6B 45 0 35 Mt. Fitzwilliam 4' 1' 1' 83' 87' 6'* 1X5'* 14'* 2 '* 2' Berg Lake 39^ 55^ 39^ 30^ 57* 11 2 24 18 2 Total 68* TS Trailside quadrat C Control quadrat Relative ground cover is the percent contribution to the total ground cover of 100% * denotes significant difference between control and trailside quadrats (p < 0.5). '^^Any two means followed by the same numbers in the same column indicates that the trails are not significantly different (p < 0.5) using a one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). 5.4.3 Floristic Dissimilarity Index Floristic Dissimilarity Index (FDI Cole 1982), calculated by summing the Table 5.14 Floristic Dissimilarity Index (FDI)* Mean IF 56.3 Standard deviation. ±24.4 Minimum Maximum 11.3 84.0 2F 44.4 ±24.4 17.5 90.0 3B 54.4 ±29.3 7.3 too 4B 5&5 ±20.3 25 75 5B 66.3 ±33.1 2Œ5 100 6B 45.6 ±31.5 0.5 94.5 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail 51.5 ±24.5 11.3 90 Berg Lake Trail 54 ±2&8 0.5 100 Survey Total 53 ±27.8 0.5 100 The two trails were not significantly different (p < 0.5) using a one-way ANOVA (SPSS, 2003). *Floristic Dissimilarity Index based on Cole, 1982 99 differences between relative cover in the control and trailside plots, is shown in Table 5.14 (the procedure used is explained on p. 76). The FDI values ranged widely between different plots from 0.5, where all ground cover types are very similar and have a very similar relative cover, to 100, where all the ground cover types are different. Segments 2F and 6B both have FDI around 45 well below the total average of 53, whereas segment 5B has the highest FDI value of 66.3. The standard deviation was high when FDI is averaged for each trail and segment, whieh indieates a wide range of the FDI values between different plots within that segment. Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was preformed on the FDI values, which determined that there were no significant differences in the FDI values between different trails (p < 0.5). 5.4.4 Changes in Species Composition Table 5.15 lists the plant species that were predominantly found in only one location, either trailside or control. Plants were considered present in only one location if their mean oceurrence was greater than one percent cover in one location (i.e., control or trailside) and with less than one percent cover in the alternate (i.e., control or trailside) location. A total of 16 plants were found only in trailside quadrats as compared to a total of seven plant species that were only found in control quadrats. Of the 16, the most common occurrences almost exclusively in trailside quadrats were Fire weed (Epolobium angustifolium). Red Bearberry 100 (Arctostaphylos rubra), and Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta). Dwarf Scouring Table: 5.15 Plants found in only one location: Trailside or Control Quadrats Frequency Absent in control (trailside only) Common Name Latin Name 8 Fireweed Epolobium angustifolium 8 Red Bear Bearberry'^ 7 Frequency Absent in trailside (control only) Common Name Latin Name 5 Black Goose Berry** Ribes lacustre^‘^° A rctostaphylos rubra'’^° 2 Western Red Cedar Thuja p licata Lodgepole Pine Pinus contorta 1 Moonwort Botrychium lunaria 5 Dwarf Scouring Rush** 1 Woodsia* Woodsia spp. * 3 Sitka Alder Equisetum scirpoides^‘^° Alnus crispa ssp. sinuata' 1 Cottonwood Populus balsam ifera 3 Red Columbine Aquilegia form osa 1 Lady Fern * Athyrium filix-femina' 3 Thimbleberry ‘ Rubus parviflorus' 1 Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga m enziesii 3 Racemose Pussytoes'* Antennaria 1% racem osa 3 Common Mitre wort ** M ittella nwdo** 3 Paint brush** Castilleja spp. ** 2 Leather Leaved Saxifrage Leptarrhena pyrolifolia 2 Sitka Valerian* Valeriana sitchensis' 1 Round leaved Orchid Am erorchis rotundifolia 1 Bog Cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos 1 Alaskan Mountain Heather Cassiope stelleriana 1 Paper Birch* Betula p a p yriferd ° Denotes maximum 1% relative cover in alternate (control or trailside quadrat) ‘ Denotes a maximum trace of relative cover in alternate (control or trailside quadrat) Rush (Equisetum scirpoides) was found at only five trailside plots, most commonly in side ditching, or moist, low lying areas at the trail edge. Sitka Alder (Alnus crispa ssp. Sinuata), Red Columbine (Aquilegiaformosa), Thimbleberry (Rubus 101 parvifloru), Racemose Pussytoes, Common Mitrewort {Mittella nuda), and Paintbrush {Castilleja spp.) were at three trailside locations. Black Gooseberry {Ribes lacustre), Western Red Cedar {Thuja plicata), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesi) and three types of ferns were found only in eontrol plots. 5.5 Management Features Types, Frequency and Condition All management features encountered during the continuous survey were counted and described, then assessed based on their effectiveness. Section 5.5 presents summaries of the management features on each trail, their frequency and effectiveness. Effeetiveness was an ocular assessment where the surveyors used their judgment to determine if the features were effective. For example, if a eulvert was plugged it was not-at-all effective, if it was elear it was effeetive. The trails are eompared to identify the major differences in types of features used, the number of features used, and their effectiveness. This will provide information on the types and numbers of management features used and their condition on high- and low-use trails. 5.5.1 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail As shown in Table 5.16, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has a total of seven types and an average of 2.4 management features per kilometer. The most eommon feature was: steel culverts (1.31/km), typieally about a 20cm corrugated steel pipe, with 82% as 102 partly or completely effective and 18% not-at-all effective. Side ditching was observed 0.46 times per kilometer, or with about 100m of side ditching per kilometer; however about 33% of the side ditching was not-at-all effective at draining water. There were 0.31 retaining walls per kilometer; these ranged from one log aligned on the down slope side of the trail to multiple logs arranged to support the trail. The following features occurred only once on the trail: drainage ditch/ water bar, major bridge, handrail, and drainpipe. All the management features on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail occurred in segment IF (up until Rockingham Creek). There were no management features after Rockingham Creek other than trail Table: 5.16 Mt Fitzwilliam Trail management features and their effectiveness Effective Partly Effective Not-at-all Effective % % % / //k m Culvert steel 77% 5% 18% 17 1.31 Side ditching 67% 0% 33% 6 0.46 Retaining wall 75% 25% 0% 4 0.31 Drainage ditch /water bar 100% 0% 0% 1 0.08 Major bridge 100% 0% 0% 1 0.08 Hand rail 0% 100% 0% 1 0.08 Drain pipe 0% 0% 100% 1 0.08 Mt. Fitzwilliam Total 71% 10% 19% 31 2.40 Management Feature Total markers, and two trail signs. Seventy-one percent of management features were in good working condition, 19% were not effective and these were primarily culverts and side ditching. 103 5.5.1 Berg Lake Trail The Berg Lake Trail had a total of nine different types of water- related management features (Table 5.17). These included four different types of culverts, (steel, rock, plastic and wood) with a total of 1.8 per kilometer. There were also drainage ditches and water bars (1.17/km), small bridges (0.62/km), handrails (0.5/km), stairs (0.17/km), major bridges (0.11/km), retaining walls (0.11/km), viewpoints (0.06/km), and temporary bridges (0.6/km). In total, there were 4.59 management features per kilometer. Most of these features (80%) were in effective condition, 13% were partly effective and 7% were not-at-all effective. Thirty-six percent of the small bridges were rated as partly effective because they were of a temporary nature to cross streams on flood plains. It appeared that side ditching was used on the Berg Lake Trail but trail traffic had expanded laterally and started using the ditch area to walk on. As a result, there is no inventory of side ditching on the Berg Lake Trail. In many areas where trail traffic spread laterally into the side ditching the depth of the ditch was measured as trail incision because it was part of the trail tread receiving greater than 95% of the trail traffic. In aggregate 94% of features were effective or partially effective; however, 7% were not-at-all effective including steel culverts (15%), drainage ditches (14%), and handrails (11%). 104 Table: 5.17 Berg Lake Trail Management Features and Effectiveness Effective Partly Effective Not-at-all Effective % % % / //k m 81% 13% 6% 32 1.8 Culvert steel 70% 15% 15% 13 0.73 Culvert rock 83% 17% 0% 12 0.67 Culvert plastic 100% 0% 0% 6 0.34 Culvert wood 100% 0% 0% 1 0.06 Drainage ditch /water bar 81% 5% 14% 21 1.17 Small bridge 64% 36% 0% 11 0.62 Hand rail 78% 11% 11% 9 0.50 Stairs 100% 0% 0% 3 0.17 M ajor bridge 100% 0% 0% 2 0.11 Retaining wall 100% 0% 0% 2 0.11 Viewpoint 100% 0% 0% 1 0.06 Temporary bridge 0% 100% 0% 1 0.06 Berg Lake Total 80% 13% 7% 82 4.59 M anagement Feature Total Culverts Total 5.5.3 Trail Comparisons The Berg Lake and Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail have different types of management features, different frequencies of use, and differing levels of effectiveness. With nine different features, the Berg Lake Trail has a wider range of management features including stairs, small and temporary bridges, viewpoints and four different types of culverts. There were only seven of the same types of features on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Furthermore, the two major bridges on the Berg Lake Trail are much larger, use more complex construction methods, and are safer for visitors to use than the one major bridge on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. 105 The Berg Lake Trail has 4.59 management features per kilometer whereas the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has 2.4 features per kilometer. There are substantially more culverts and drainage ditches/water bars on the Berg Lake Trail (1.8/km and 1.17/km) than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail (1.13/km and 0.08/km). Also, there were more fords over more substantial streams on the Mt. Fitzwilliam than on the Berg Lake Trail, where the seven fords could all easily be crossed in one step without a bridge. Lastly, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has more features that are not effective (19%), particularly steel culverts and ineffective side ditching, than the Berg Lake Trail (7%). 5.6 Ecological and Human Factors Section 5.6 takes the second step of this study by relating impacts to ecological and human factors. A variety of trail impact indicators were assessed along with a variety of indicators that described the ecological characteristics of the area. A large number of indicators were assessed (Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 in the previous chapter) but only a small number were found to be significant. The significant relationships suggest a link between trail conditions and ecological, and human factors. Pearson’s Correlation coefficient and Spearman’s Rank Correlation were used to compare specific indicators of impacts with ecological characteristics. 106 An ANOVA was also used to compare trail conditions in different forest cover types, soil textures and vegetation types. The values are not shown because no significant trends emerged. The survey results showed that indicators on the Berg Lake Trail differ from the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail (e.g., trail width), so correlations were conducted separately for each trail and together for the survey as a whole. 5.6.1 The Influence of Topographic and Construction Variables Table 5.18 relates three trail degradation variables: maximum incision, and exposed rocks and roots. Correlations were conducted between the variables listed in the methodology sections; however only the variables that showed a correlation coefficient with an absolute value greater than 0.250 on at least one trail or the survey total are shown here. Maximum incision correlated positively with trail grade on the Berg Lake Trail (i.e., deeper trails were located on steeper slopes) and negatively on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Exposed rocks and roots correlated positively with trail grade on both trails, and the Fitzwilliam Trail showed a -.358 relationship that was significant at the 0.05 level. This provides strong evidence that the number of exposed rocks and roots increases with the slope of the trail. There were no statistically significant relations between alignment and the degradation variables, which suggests that well aligned trails are not in better condition. However, the data from the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail show that the number of exposures (rocks and roots) decreases with improving 107 alignment, which could be a result of trail construction. Both trails showed increasing exposures with increasing elevation. All of the correlation coefficients values are low, indicating weak correlations. Results also show that the strength of the correlations are often stronger on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail than on the Berg Lake Trail. Table 5.18 Ecological Factors and Trail Degradation (Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient) Maximum Incision B F T Trail Grade Alignment Landscape slope Exposures B F T .344* -.358* .029 .136 .405* -.111 -.209 .141 .053 .064 -.324 -.113 .025 -.007 ,019 .035 .236 -.074 .637** .458** Elevation -.168 .232 .310 .069 * Correlation significant at the 0.05 level ** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level Maximum Incision (MIC); Exposed Rocks and Roots (ERKS and ERTS); SPR soil penetration resistance 5.6.2 The Influence of Ecological and Construction Variables Table 5.19 shows a similar set of degradation indicators as Table 5.18, with the addition of the FDI, tread width and cross-section, but the values have been categorized in order to be compared to the ordinal data on ecological characteristics including the presence or absence of side hill construction, forest cover type, and soil particle size. 108 There were fewer exposures on plots with side hill construction, a possible indication that construction attention leads to fewer trail degradation concerns. FDI increased with side-hill construction, indicating greater floristic differences on the plots with side-hill construction. There were few consistent trends with vegetationcover type, as FDI correlated negatively on the Berg Lake Trail (i.e., greater floristic dissimilarity on earlier succession sites) but not on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Tread width and cross-section correlated negatively to cover type on the Berg Lake Trail with narrower trails in more open sites. The number of exposures declined as soil Table 5.19 Ecological Impacts by Ecological and Construction Variables Deg variable Side-Hill Construction" Cover Type'’ Soil Texture Class'’ B F T B F T B F T -.074 -.120 -.216 -.332* 0.020 -.010 -.140 .015 -.020 .203 -.103 -.052 -.397* -.097 .057 -.316 .122 .046 .120 -.125 .001 -.041 -.295 -.062 .011 -.272 -.079 Tread width Cross section Maximum Incision ERTS& ERKS FDI -.144 .500** .169 -.027 .225 .039 -.281 -.361* -.346** -.199 -.328 -.253* -.426** .149 -.184 -.410** .110 -.136 SPR -.017 -.319 .330* .203 -.249 .164 .063 .553** .317* ♦Correlation significant at the 0.05 level ** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level ^ Side hill construction 1 yes/ 2 No Cover Type 1 Forest; 2 Open/meadow; 3 Rock/gravel. ^Soil Texture Class size 0 organic/1 clay/ 2 silt / 3 loam/ 4 sand particle size increased, more significantly on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail and survey total but not strongly or signifieantly on the Berg Lake Trail. correlation between tread width and exposures. 109 There was no 5.6.3 The Influence of the Amount of Use Table 5.20 shows the Spearman’s Rank Correlation coefficients between trail degradation variables and use level rankings from park statistics. This survey did not collect data on use levels for each segment. Furthermore, while park management collects statistics on the number of visitors using each of the trails, it makes no formal attempts to enumerate the number of visitors on different segments of trail. To overcome this limitation, experienced park personal were asked to rank segments of trail based on the amount of use they receive. Each plot was assigned one of four different use level rankings, low, middle, high and very high based on their ranking. The SPR, tread width and cross-section increase with the number of visitors (i.e., have significant positive relationships). The number of exposures decreased somewhat with use ranking indicating that increasing numbers of visitor does not necessarily lead to increases in exposed rocks and roots. Maximum incision did not relate to use, indicating that the differences in values are the result of management, location and ecological factors. Differences in exposed soil, species richness, vegetation cover, and FDI values also did not relate to use, indicating that the number of visitors does not influence these impact indicators. There was no correlation between maximum incision and the amount of horse use (not shown in a table), which indicates the presence of horse use, did not lead to more incised trails. 110 SPR Tread width Cross-section Exposures (Rocks and Roots) Correlation 0.602" 0.596" 0.424" -0.245* Maximum Incision Difference in exposed soil Difference in Species Richness 0.156 0.118 0.109 FDI (Floristic Dissimilarity Index) 0.078 Difference in Vegetation cover -0.076 Spearman’s Rank Correlation between categorized degradation variables Use Level Rankings of low, mid, high and very high were assigned by experienced park personal and based on parks statistics *Correlation significant at the 0.05 level *Correlation significant at the 0.01 level 5.6.4 Section Summary Ecological factors that had a strong and significant relationship with at least one trail or the survey total were trail grade, elevation, forest cover type, and soil particle size. Human factors that had a strong and significant effect were alignment, amount of use, and side-hill construction. Increasing trail grade and decreasing alignment led to greater trail degradation on at least one indicator (i.e., maximum incision and exposures) on each trail. Both trails were generally in worse conditions at higher elevation, but higher elevations were also further from the trailhead. Cross-section and trail width correlated negatively with vegetation-cover type, becoming smaller in earlier successional environments on the Berg Lake Trail. Sites with finer soil textures had more exposed rocks and roots. FDI increased with side-hill construction on both trails. The SPR, tread width, and cross-section increased with 111 use. Exposures correlated negatively with use. The FDI and maximum incision did not correlate with use. 5.7 Chapter Summary The chapter summary section is presented with the help of Tables 5.21 and Table 5.22. Table 5.22 shows how each segment ranks on each of the trail impact Table 5.21 Segment Rankings for each impact indicator* IF 2F 3B 4B 5B 6B Mt. Fitzwilliam Berg Lake 5 6 6 3 I 4 3 I 2 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 6 5 3 1 2 4 2 I 6 1 6 5 I 3 I 2 4 I 5 I 1 2 2 1 Problem are a // km 3 2 5 1 2 4 1 2 W e t& muddy m/km Informal Trails//km 2 1 6 3 4 5 1 2 6 5 3 4 1 2 2 1 Secondary treads//km 5 6 4 3 2 I 2 1 Trailside exposed soil FDI Mean rank 5 4 I 5 3 I 2 1 3 6 4 2 I 2 I 53 47 40 31 * Numbers indicate the ranking on that variable The same number indicates a tie 26 5 41 1.58 1.17 Tread width Maximum Incision Cross section Exposures On-trail SPR indicator from worst (1) to best (6). Segments 5B and 4B tend to have the highest impacts on the most impact indicators, where as segment IF is generally ranked the best. The Mt. Fitzwilliam has lower values on 8 out of 11 indicators. 112 Table 5.22 provides a summary of the key survey results. The results show that the Berg Lake Trail is wider, with larger cross-section, and more point-based trail problems than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. However, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has its own problems, which are larger problem areas, and more exposed rocks and roots, particularly on the undeveloped section. A wider variety of management features were used on the Berg Lake Trail and they were in better condition. Overall, there was less vegetation cover but greater species richness at trailside locations. Vegetation composition in trailside plots was different than in control plots. Impacts to vegetation cover and composition were similar on both trails, but there were more exotic plant species and lower plant diversity on the Berg Lake Trail. Out of over 28 different ecological and locational variables that were assessed, only about 7 were found to have meaningful and statistically significant correlations. Variables that showed meaningful correlations were trail grade, alignment, possibly elevation \ side hill construction, cover type, soil texture size and the number of visitors. A challenge with the relational results is the possibility of confounding factors that explain the positive or negative relationships. The discussion chapter will address confounding factors, possible rationales and the management implications of these results. * The correlation between the impact indicators and elevation could be caused by distance from the trailhead because elevation increases with distance from the trailhead on both trails. 113 Table 5.22 Key findings Tread width, incision, cross section, and exposed rocks and roots The Berg Lake Trail was twice as wide as the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail The widest segment received the most traffic (3B) Cross-section was three times as large on the Berg Lake Trail Largest cross-section was on the steepest segment (5B) Incision was deepest on the undeveloped route (2F) and steep sections (5B) More exposed rocks & roots on 2F and most on high-use trail, fewest on IF SPR and Soil Moisture SPR lowest on undeveloped route SPR highest on high-use trail Soil moisture higher on control than on trail except on undeveloped segment Vegetation change (similar on both trails) Species richness typically greater at the trailside than the control Less vegetation cover at trailside More exposed rocks, and soil at the trailside Less coarse woody debris and litter at trailside More reuderal plants at trailside than control plots Floristic Dissimilarity Index similar on both trails Exotic plants (more on Berg Lake Trail) More exotic plant species on the Berg Lake than Mt. Fitzwilliam M ore exotics in the first 4.5 km on Berg Lake than the rest of the trail (casual observation) Other impact indicators Highest frequency, and largest area, of problems are located on the undeveloped route (2F) M ost informal trails and secondary treads are on the Berg Lake Trail Most informal trails are in segments near attractive natural features (5B, 6B). Influencing Factors Incision + Correlation with slope on the Berg Lake Trail Correlation with Vegetation-cover type and soil particle size on both trails Exposures + Correlation with trail grade on Mt. Fitzwilliam and elevation on both trails Correlation with soil particle size and amount of use SPR + Correlation with trail grade, elevation, soilparticle size, and amount of use Correlation with side-hill construction (means SPR is lower without side-hill construction) Tread width + Correlation with use Correlation with Vegetation cover type on Berg Lake Trail Cross-section + Correlation with Use Correlation with vegetation-cover type on Berg Lake Trail Floristic Dissimilarity Correlation with vegetation-cover type, greater differences in forest vegetation types Soil texture class on Berg Correlation with side-hill construction (Increases with the presence of side-hill construction) + Denotes a positive correlation coefficient >+0.3 and significant at .01 - Denotes a negative correlation coefficient <-0.3 and significant at .01 114 Chapter 6 Discussion The discussion chapter is composed of six sections. Two sections cover the impact indicators (soils and vegetation), with one section each for management features and the role of influencing factors. A general discussion section, which looks at changes over time, the consequences of the dispersal recreation strategy, and suggests a move toward conditions based management, follows this. Lastly, a new model that proposes an integrated approach to managing backcountry recreation resources is presented. 6.1 Impact Indicators Part I This section discusses the results of tread width, incisions, exposures, the SPR, and soil moisture differences between segments, and the role of influencing factors on the state of each indicator. 6.1.1 Tread Width Tread width was higher on the Berg Lake Trail and highest on the segment receiving the highest use. Furthermore, using Spearman’s (r) correlation, trail width correlated positively with the amount of use. This finding is similar to those of other studies (Farrell and Marion, 2001/2002; Bayfield and Lloyd, 1973; Cole, 1983; 1996; Dale and Weaver, 1974). These studies suggest that trail width increases with the amount of traffic because oncoming and overtaking hikers step aside to allow each other to pass. Also, many hikers walked side-by-side along portions of the 115 Berg Lake Trail or stood at the side when taking breaks, all factors that further contributed to wider trails. Trail construction could be hypothesized as a factor leading to greater trail width on the Berg Lake Trail than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail; if the trail was constructed at a certain tread width it would remain at least this wide or expand with more traffic. This survey found that side ditching along Berg Lake Trail was used for walking thus becoming part of the main tread, suggesting trail widening beyond the constructed width. However, the reverse was found on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail as it was narrower than initially constructed from litter fall and vegetation that had begun to narrow the trail tread from the constructed width. This is a clear indication that trail width increases with increased levels of use. Plate 6.1 Berg Lake Tfail widening Drainage ditch - now used by trail traffic Plate 6.2 Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail N ow narrower than its constructed w i dth Tread width correlated with vegetation cover type on the Berg Lake Trail, with wider trails in early successional areas. This reaffirms other studies (Bright, 116 1986; Pounder, 1985; Bayfeild and Loyd, 1973) that found that dense vegetation confines visitors to the trail and allows them to spread out in more open areas. The widening in open areas only occurred on the high-use trail, as there was no correlation between successional stage and tread width on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Weaver and Dale (1974) suggested that trail widening only occurred in open areas on high use trails and the reverse occurred on low-use trails. This survey showed no correlation between vegetation type and trail width on the low-use trail. Mean trail widths were not substantial problems for the trails in general, except in certain locations when compared against the EC Parks trail standards (WLAP, 2004). These standards have been developed to guide the construction and management of trails by providing target trail widths for different classes of trail, with the understanding that front country trails should he wider than routes traversing wilderness areas. Segment 3B is in between a Type II trail and a Type I trail (BC Parks 1996), but the other segments are below the 1.25 cm width for a Type II trail. At a 76 cm average tread width, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail is close to the 75 cm target for a Type III trail (BC Parks 1996). While tread width does not appear to be problem at most plots, there are locations where tread width is well beyond the standards set out in the trail manual, such as plot B 1 where tread width was over 8m. The trail construction manual fails to consider the wide range of trail widths, shown by this survey, by providing one target width for each trail standard. A better approach would he to set an appropriate range of target widths (e.g.. Type 117 Ill trails should be between 70 and 90 cm) or provide trail widths with an acceptable standard deviation (e.g., 75cm ± 25 cm). Standards with a range of values or values with standard deviations provide good direction to management while considering the variability in conditions. 6.1.2 Incision Past studies, including Nepal (2003), Bayfield and Loyd (1973), Cole (1983, 1996), and Dale and W eaver (1974) found that incision related more to locational variables, including steep slopes and erodable soils, than the amount of use. It is thought that trail erosion is higher on steep slopes because of the greater velocity of water when channeled on the trail tread. The effects of trampling (use) can increase erosion, primarily by loosening the soil, removing vegetation and litter, and reducing infiltration rates (Sutherland et al. 2002). Trail incision, measured as the maximum incision of the current tread, was highest on the undeveloped route, but was similar on the other segments. This suggests that trail construction limited the depth of incision. In this survey, trail grade was a factor on the Berg Lake Trail, where there was a slight positive correlation between incision and trail grade. Trail incision also correlated somewhat negatively with alignment, with less erosion on better-aligned trails. However, the same effects were not present on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, where there was a negative correlation between trail grade and incision (steeper 118 trails were less incised) and no correlation with alignment. This could suggest that trail grade and alignment are not factors in trail erosion; however, a more probable explanation for the negative correlation on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail is that the most incised segment (2F) had a lower trail grade (8%) as compared to segment IF (11%X Coleman (1981) and Bratton et al. (1979) found that as trails passed a threshold of 15-18% grade, erosion increased exponentially. While individual plots had trail grade in excess of 15%, there were not enough plots in this survey with this steep of a trail grade to adequately test for the presence of a threshold. Likewise, mean trail alignment was typically good (>55°) in most of the study plots. The lowest mean alignment was in segment 5B (41°), which was the steepest segment (Emperor’s Staircase). Even an alignment of 41° out of 90° is a well-aligned trail. There was a slight correlation (-0.272) between incision and soil texture class, where incision was greater at plots with larger particle sizes, on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Bryan (1977), and Welch and Churchill (1986) found that deeper trails were located on finer textured soils. But there was no correlation on the Berg Lake Trail and the correlation was not very strong on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. This indicates that trail construction and maintenance are likely mitigating the effects of soil texture class. 119 There was a slight correlation between vegetation-cover types, where plots with deeper incision were located on meadow/ open sites, on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Open/meadow sites were often wet and muddy, suggesting that these areas are prone to erosion. Bratton et al. (1979) suggest that trail construction is likely an important factor in trail incision. Most likely, the differences in incision in this survey can be explained by the level of trail construction. On the undeveloped segment, no construction has been employed on the trail tread. In this case, the incision comes from pulverizing the duff layer over years by passing hikers. Then erosion removes more soil, increases incision and exposes rocks and roots. All the other segments have had surfacing improvements that crown the tread; as a result incision is similar on trail segments with different use levels, and ecological and locational factors. Trail construction could also explain why there was only a slight correlation, and only on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, between improved alignment and incision, as areas of poor alignment and steep trail grade on the Berg Lake Trail were well maintained with the use of water bars, a crowned tread, and steps. 6.1.3 Cross-section Variations in cross-sectional area followed a similar pattern as tread width. The cross-sectional area on the Berg Lake Trail was three times larger than on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. The standard deviation in cross-sectional area values was high on 120 most segments, indicating a great deal of plot-by-plot variation in eross-sectional area. The large standard deviation values for each segment may explain why there were no differences between segments on the same trail. Cross-section provides a more accurate measure of erosion than just measuring the maximum incision. But there was no correlation with trail grade, as would be expected by the results of the studies shown in Table 3.5. This may confirm that trail construction is effective at managing trail erosion, even on sites with steep trail grades. Cross-sectional analysis is time consuming because of the time required to take the multiple width and depth measurements required to calculated the value. The results of cross-sectional analysis relate well to trail width and less so to trail incision. This could suggest that monitoring programs may be able to conserve time and money by just measuring width and maximum incision rather than measuring cross section, and still get an accurate depiction of the rate of erosion. 6.1.4 Exposures Exposed rocks and roots (exposures) increase fatigue and discomfort for hikers, and have been linked to increased tread width as hikers circumvent rough sections, and are a conspicuous indicator of poor trail conditions (Leung and Marion 1996). They result from the combined effects of soil compaction and soil erosion (Marion 1994, Cole 1987). The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail had both the smallest number of exposures. 121 on the constructed segment and the largest number of exposures on the undeveloped segment. The Berg Lake Trail generally had more exposures than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. Segment 5B, the steepest segment, had the most exposures on the Berg Lake Trail. It is important to note the standard deviation for these values is high, indicating a wide range of plot-by-plot values. The large number of exposed roots on segment 2F is evidence that trail construction is the primary factor influencing the number of exposures. Trail construction can mitigate the negative effects of topography. For example the literature suggests that steeper sections and areas with finer textures will have more exposures (Tables 3.5& 3.7), but because this was not the case on the study trails, it suggests that construction may be mitigating these effects. The primary role of construction and topography is shown by a positive (+0.405) and significant correlation between trail grade and exposures on the Fitzwilliam Trail, and no correlation (+0.136) on the Berg Lake Trail. Both trails show a negative correlation (Berg Lake -0.281; Mt. Fitzwilliam -0.361) with soil texture class, with fewer exposures as particle size increases. This may be similar to the findings of Bryan (1977) and Welch and Churchill (1986) who found less trail incision on finer soil textures. But the correlation is stronger on the low maintenance trail, again highlighting the mitigating effects of construction. Marion (1994) found that exposed roots related positively with the amount of use. This survey found a negative (-0.245) and significant correlation between use and exposures, where the number of exposures decreased with use. There was no 122 difference in the number of exposed rocks and roots in different slope positions, which was also different than what Marion (1994) found. 6.1.5 Soil Penetration Resistance (SPR) The SPR value is typically higher on-trail than the control location, initially as a result of trail construction, and then the soil is further compacted by the trampling effect of trail traffic. This is shown by the larger difference between on-trail and control sites; higher SPR on the constructed segments than the undeveloped route, and higher SPR yet again on the highest use segments of the constructed trail. This is an important finding, as Sutherland et al. (2002) found that high SPR led to a loss of soil structure, greater overland flow and therefore greater changes to regional hydrology and erosion processes than trails with low SPR. The SPR values increased with elevation on both trails, substantially (4-0.553) on the Berg Lake trail and slightly (-+-0.317) on the Mt. Fitzwilliam T rail\ But because both trails start at the valley bottom and climb to mountain passes, elevation and distance from the trailhead increase together. It could be that soils at higher elevations are more susceptible to compaction with shallower soil horizons. ' A likely explanation for the weaker correlation between elevation and SPR on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail is that SPR on segment 2F (at a higher elevation) was significantly lower than segment IF because the trail tread has not been developed. 123 6.1.6 Soil Moisture Soil moisture is strongly related to soil porosity and the availability of water inputs, such as precipitation or snowmelt (Liddle, 1997). The survey found that SPR was higher on the trail tread than at the control sites. Therefore, it is expected that soil moisture would be higher on the less-compacted control sites and lower on the compacted trail tread. The survey results show slightly higher soil moisture at the control sites but the trend is only significant in segment IF (Paired T test; SPSS 12.0). Segment 2F, a section with a preponderance of wet and muddy sections and has lower SPR than all the other segments, has slightly higher moisture content on trail than at the control site. High moisture content of the trail substrate is an oftencited cause of muddy sections on trails, and can lead to trail widening as hikers circumvent wet sections (Cole, 1987; Liddle, 1997; Bayfield, 1986). This problem can be further exaggerated by trail incision, which makes the trail a low-lying area where water can puddle. This is plausible explanation for the preponderance of wet and muddy areas in segment 2F. Some level of soil compaction, combined with a well-drained trail tread, as a result of construction, is desirable for maintaining a dry trail surface. The collection procedures for the soil moisture data suffered from a number of shortcomings, which should be considered in interpreting the results of this study. The portable moisture point TDR meter was heavy (lOlbs), awkward to carry for long distances in the field, and required charging with 110 volts circuit not available in the backcountry. This resulted in taking the moisture readings at different dates 124 through out the summer. This limits the ability to compare the soil moisture results to trail widening, or other problems. Another consideration is the accuracy of the moisture meter. Two attempts were made to calibrate the soil meter using samples collected, then dried in the lab using a standard procedures for determining soil moisture content gravimetrically. The gravimetric results did not relate well to the meter results. The last shortcoming in the procedure was the difficulty in inserting the probes into the compacted trail tread. Evidence from other researchers suggests that soil moisture is an important consideration for trail planners (Bayfeild, 1986; Marion, 1994; Leung and Marion, 1996), however an approach that addresses the shortcomings noted above is needed. Another approach would be to recruit a large crew to concurrently sample (blitz) the large trail networks, collecting a small soil sample at each plot all in one day. Soil moisture content could then be determined using the more accurate gravimetric method in the lab. This would result in some damage to the trail, from removing soil samples, but only a few grams are necessary, so the loss of soil would be justifiable. If the charging difficulties could be overcome, the TDR meter may be useful for trail layout and planning, as it does provide a quick and easy, accurate enough, indication of the moisture content of the soil. 125 6.1.7 Trail Problems and Wet and Muddy Areas The continuous survey assessed a number of trail impact parameters that were not easily assessed at the survey plots including trail problems, such as quagmires, trail braiding and other problem areas, and measured the length of wet and muddy sections. The data showed that the length of these areas were highest on the undeveloped segment (2F), a further indication that construction is an important factor influencing trail conditions. The frequency of all the trail related problems was highest on segment 4B, a segment that receives a large amount of use and travels over rolling terrain. This segment’s primary problem was standing water on the trail, which could be addressed by developing more cross ditches or crowning the trail tread. Segment 2F and segment 5B both had 1.8 total trail problems/km. Segment 2Fs problems can best be attributed to a lack of construction because with the already low level of use (<300 people/year) it is unsound to suggest reducing the number of visitors to reduce trail degradation. This raises the issue that while construction can manage trail degradation, what level of trail construction is desired or appropriate in this segment? This cannot be answered with the data collected in this study so it is an area of recommended further research. Segment IF also shows standing/ running water on trail and signs of running water on the trail (1.1 occurrences/km), which suggest that a lack of maintenance may result in an increase of trail related problems. 126 6.1.8 Proliferation of Informal Trails and Secondary Treads Informal trails are social trails that are user-created to access areas of the park such as viewpoints, whereas secondary treads occur when another trail parallels the main tread, such as a cut switchback. Taken together they are referred to as unofficial trails. Farrell and Marion (2001) found that social trails were primarily a function of visitor behavior, created to access attractions, and vegetation type, with more trails in open areas. Unofficial trails are problematic for park staff because they spread the impacts of visitors out to greater areas, damage soil structure, change vegetation composition to trampling resistant species, and in the long run they result in loss of vegetative cover. Overall, many of the impacts associated with official trails, except construction, are also found on unofficial trails and in some cases impacts on unofficial trails can be worse because they lack the mitigating effects of construction. For example, many unofficial trails in M RP? directly ascend steep slopes and are undergoing extreme erosion. The study showed that the proliferation of informal trails and secondary treads was higher on all segments of the high-use trail. On the high-use trail the two segments with the most informal trails were segments 5B and 6B, which also had the most secondary treads. Segment 5B follows the ‘Emperor’s Staircase’, and it appeared as if many visitors left the main trail in order to gain better views of the waterfalls, creating informal trails. Hikers also created secondary treads when 127 cutting switch backs. This problem could be compounded because hikers look for rest stops after tiring quickly on the steep trail grade. There were also a large number of informal trails when the trail followed the shoreline of Berg Lake, where many hikers had left the main trail and made their way to the lakeshore. In contrast, there were not as many informal trails when the Berg Lake Trail followed the shoreline of Kinney Lake. It is likely that the combination of the following three factors accounts for this difference. The view from the Berg Lake shoreline is more spectacular than along the shoreline of Kinney Lake. Also, the vegetation between Kinney Lake and the trail is composed of dense underbmsh, which has been found to constrain hikers (Bright, 1986). Lastly, there are ample viewpoints/picnic areas provided for visitors to access the shoreline of Kinney Lake. Many of the official trails could be addressed by developing more official viewpoints along the ‘Emperor Staircase’ section, by including reminders for visitors to remain on the trail and within established viewpoints by edueating visitors about the impacts of leaving the trail, and by constructing handrails and rock walls. Doucette and Kimball (1990) found that rock walls, made of natural materials were effective at confining use to the trail, and offer that visitors may be more receptive to naturally construeted barriers than artificial ones. The final portion of segment 6B has a large number of secondary treads as the trail crosses an open scrub area of reeessional moraines. This section has had a 128 long history of use, including being used for grazing horses (Roemer, 1974), which contributes, along with the open vegetation, to the formation of multiple treads. Once established, the trails are long lasting because of the short growing season, gravelly unproductive soils, and frequent flooding. The proliferation of unofficial trails (both informal trails and secondary treads) poses a significant problem in MRPP because they represent large increases in impacted area. These unofficial trails involve similar levels and types of impacts associated with the main trail. For example, the informal trails that accessed Berg Lake have steep poorly aligned trail grades that are prone to erosion, depositing this eroded sediment directly into the lake. Areas along the ‘Emperor’s Staircase’ and along the Berg lakeshore also show signs of complete loss of vegetation cover as a myriad of social trails form into a large barren areas. Even official viewpoints are suffering from loss of ground cover and show signs of increasing devegetated areas. Park staff has closed, by roping off, many areas at the viewpoints and these areas appear to be recovering. A future survey could measure the size of the devegatated areas and recovery rates of the enclosures at the viewpoints in segment 5B. Considering that unofficial trails are partly a result of visitor behavior, Hammitt and Cole (1998) suggest that education is a good approach to reducing the proliferation of unofficial trails. This survey showed an increase in unofficial trails on the high-use and high-management trail. 129 Presumably, management attempts including visitor education, enforcement, and facility design (e.g., handrails) helped to mitigate the proliferation of unofficial trails. But it is not possible to tell from the data collected how much of an effect management had on reducing the problem. In other words, how much more proliferation of unofficial trails would there be if management made no attempts to address them at all? The results from the management features assessment suggest that handrails on the Berg Lake Trail are effective, but 22% are not-at-all or marginally effective indicating that many of the existing features could be improved. One possible limitation to existing management approaches is that most visitor education is directed toward overnight visitors, at the visitor center, through a video and personal contact with registration staff. However, most visitors are day users who may not contact any park staff or be exposed to as many visitor education programs. More specific suggestions are included in the recommendation section. 6.2 Impact Indicators Part II-Vegetation This section covers changes to vegetation composition, the introduction and dispersal of exotic plant species, changes in ground cover, and the Floristic Dissimilarity Index (FDI). A general discussion about vegetation impacts follows this. 130 6.2.1 Changes in Vegetation Composition This survey found that plant diversity increased near the trailside. Hall and Kuss (1989) also found this trend at 8 of 10 locations they studied. The plant ecology literature suggests that this is due to the edge effect including increases in light from clearing the over story vegetation and increases in soil moisture (Liddle, 1997, Barbour et al., 2002). Furthermore, Grime’s (1973 cited in Liddle, 1997) theories of plant competition suggest that medium levels of stress to the vegetation community create niche habitats for a greater number of plant species. This survey looked at plant species richness by geography (i.e., trail segment/trail) and plant life form. The survey results showed that species richness, or the total number of plant species, is higher at trailside than control locations. The Mt. Fitzwilliam trail had greater species richness in general (i.e., both trailside and control), likely due to differences in vegetation type at the landscape level and not a result of user or managerial effects. The Berg Lake Trail is located primarily on early successional sites of rock and gravel, which generally have lower species richness (Barbour et al., 2002). Nevertheless, both trails had greater richness at the trailside location. The list of plants in Table 5.15 shows how some plants are more likely to be found in the trailside than control plots and vice versa. As the species richness data suggest, there are more species found only in the trailside location than found only in the control. Fireweed (Epolobium angustifolium) and Sitka Alder (Alnus crispa) 131 are known to be invaders of reeently disturbed areas (Pojar et al., 1999). Furthermore, reuaderal plants like Fireweed have progules, whieh are blown easily in the wind and attach easily to clothing etc. therefore, they are easily transported McKinnon et al. 1999). The presence of Lodge Pole Pine (Pinus contorta) and Paper Birch (Betula payrifera) at the trailside location is somewhat surprising from the recreation ecology literature, whieh says that tree seedlings are one of the first plant types to be affected by increased trampling (Cole, 1987). It is possible that a disturbed open area at the trailside location provides an opportunity for these early successional tree species to become established (Pojar et al., 1999). This study also suggests that the fern species prefer undisturbed areas. The loss of tree seedlings at the trailside may not be a substantial concern to management or visitors because if these trees did continue to grow they will likely have to be removed because their branches would block the trail. Many vegetation impacts are presumably the results of construction that clears vegetation and disturbs the soil to create a trail tread. Managers and visitors alike welcome these impacts, to a point. Species richness, like the other vegetation indicators, is not significantly different on the different trail segments or between the two trails, nor is it correlated to the amount of use (even the undeveloped section has undergone brush clearing). This indicates that even undeveloped routes, and trails with low levels of use, have similar levels of vegetation impacts. But considering backcountry experiences should provide an opportunity to connect with nature 132 (Manning and Lime, 2000), change to vegetation composition, primarily increases in weedy species, can affect how people interact with the park and understand nature. 6.2.2 Exotic Species The introduction of exotic species to backcountry areas is a significant concern (Bosworth, 2003), as it results in changes in native species composition, particularly if these aggressive species out compete existing plants (Leung and Marion, 2000). This is inextricably linked to biodiversity because of the complex interactions between pollinating insects, birds and mammals (Harding, 1994). It is difficult to define what exactly an ‘exotic species’ is; both temporal and spatial scales must be considered. species. Natural areas undergo constant in and out migrations of different MRPP is located on a north-south mountain range, which facilitates migration of plants from northern areas to migrate south and naturally colonize MRPP (Chuang, 1979). Considering the presence of large ice sheets during the last ice age, it is likely that all plant species have migrated to MRPP at some point during the Holocene period. Another issue is spatial scale; a plant species may be native to one region and introduced to another region within the same management jurisdiction. absolute baseline for what species are native to MRPP. There is no Chuang (1979), who completed the first comprehensive flora of MRPP listed some plant species that are considered to be exotic (Harding, 1994), so it cannot be considered an absolute baseline. This study uses Harding’s (1994) list of exotic plants in BC. 133 This survey found two exotic plant species-Dandelion and Red Clover- but many exotic plant species are grasses and this survey did not assess whether individual grass species were exotic or native to the area (see Survey Plant List in Appendix II). The formal plant survey found that exotic plants were more common on the Berg Lake Trail than on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. This suggests that exotic species could correlate to the length of time since construction, the number of visitors or horse use. It is not possible to determine which one of these factors was the largest contributor from the survey data collected. There were no exotic plants in the control plots, which indicates that exotics plants are not rapidly colonizing undisturbed off trail areas. 6.2.3 Changes in Relative Ground Cover Trail construction, variations in tread width and trailside brush clearing resulted in a decrease in vegetation cover and increased exposed soil at the trail side location. There were differences in relative ground cover between trailside control quadrats, with typically more vegetation cover at the control quadrats and more exposed soil at the trailside location. The difference in vegetation cover and the amount of exposed soil did not correlate with the amount of use. These two findings suggest that initial construction creates the greatest amount of vegetation impacts, as was found by Cole (1987). 134 Increases in exposed soil were likely due to variation in tread width and trail construction at the local level. Some areas of the trailside quadrat were observed to be reeeiving trail traffic, removing vegetation eover and exposing soil. Trail construction, primarily side-hill construction, but also side ditching, further contributed to increases in exposed soil at the trailside loeation. The reduction in coarse woody debris is also likely due to trail construction where eoarse woody debris is purposely removed from the side of the trail. 6.2.4 Floristic Dissimilarity Index The FDI provides a combined relative ground cover and an inventory of plant species to represent the difference between trailside and control plant communities. Low FDI values indicate similar plant communities, and thus little change between experimental and control plots, and high values indicate large differences in plant eommunities. The FDI values were similar on all trail segments but with high standard deviation values, indicating substantial plot-by-plot variation. It is important to remember that there will always be some differenee between the quadrats, even without the experimental treatment (e.g., experimental trampling), because vegetation composition and cover vary over small areas even within similar vegetation types (Barbour et al., 2002). Early successional areas had lower FDI values, which indicate similar vegetation at both trailside and control. This may suggest that rocky and gravel areas are more resistant to vegetation impaets. The FDI were slightly lower at plots without side-hill construction, but not significantly. 135 Soil texture class correlated negatively with FDI on the Berg Lake Trail (-0.410) but not on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, so texture class may be only part of the explanation for the variability in the FDI values. While there is agreement that vegetation is different at trailside locations, further research is required to fully determine what factors influence the FDI. 6.2.5 General Vegetation discussion It is tempting to consider this increase in species richness as an improvement to park resources. Enhancing biodiversity is a commonly cited goal for parks and protected areas (Eagles and McCool, 2002). Protected areas often boast the number of species found within their boundaries and would typically consider an increase as an indicator of a successful ecological restoration program. Furthermore, many visitors enjoy viewing trailside flora and fauna (BC Parks, 1992); these visitors may even prefer a disturbed setting with its larger floral complement. However, the increases in species richness is changing the natural biotic composition of the area. The increases in species richness are primarily from increases in the number of reuderal, invader species, or in rare cases exotic, non-native plants. The change in species composition, which occurs in a narrow strip along backcountry trails, should more appropriately be considered habitat fragmentation as defined by Davies et al. (2001). Reductions in plant litter and coarse woody debris at the trailside provide further evidence for the presence of habitat fragmentation. While not studied here, Davies 136 et al. (2001) argue that these types of habitat fragmentation have negative impaets on the overall ecological integrity at the landscape level. 6.3 Management Features As hypothesized, the Berg Lake Trail had more types and greater frequency of management features that were in better condition (see Tables 5.16 and 5.17). The greater variety of features in use likely reflects the annual schedule for major maintenance and repairs. For example, the four different types of culverts in use suggest that managers experimented with types of materials, and sizes, in their on­ going water management efforts. The majority of management features on both trails are generally in good working order. 6.4 Influencing Factors This section looks at how the survey supports the importance of ecological, locational and human factors in backcountry management. As discussed in the impact indicators section, locational, ecological and human factors were significant in explaining some of the variations in trail related impacts. However, this study assessed a wider variety of indicators than were found to be important. For example, Marion (1994) found that trails were more eroded, and had more root exposures in high slope positions. This survey found no relationship between slope position and trail erosion. 137 Marion (1994) also found that high elevation sites were more impacted because of their low resistance from wet soils, cold temperatures, lingering snow packs, and slow recovery from short growing seasons. These characteristics led to wider and muddy trails and more erosion. North-facing aspects in MRPP share many of the same characteristics as higher elevations, including late snowmelt, cold wet soils, and low amount of sunlight; however, there was no measurable difference in impacts between aspects. Landscape slope was another factor that was significant in other studies but not in MRPP. Past research (Table 3.5) suggests that trails located on steep terrain would experience greater degradation from intercepting water infiltrating down the slope and would be subject to erosion on the trail edges. Also, Bratton et al. (1979) and Leung (1995) found that trails were narrower in areas with steep side slopes. This survey found that landscape slope had only a slight negative correlation with SPR on the Berg Lake Trail and slight positive correlation with exposures on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. This suggests that trail erosion problems may be more related to trail grade, a combination of landscape slope and alignment, rather than the landscape slope alone. Possible explanations for the lack of correlations and weak correlations in this survey, for variables that were significant in previous research include the effects of trail construction and limitations in the survey design. 138 As previously described, the role of trail eonstruetion was found to be a significant factor, explaining trail incision exposures, and other impact variables. This survey employed a systematic random sample establishing plots every 450m. An alternative approach would have been a factorial design whereby plots would be purposely located in areas that contained the specific impact and loeation/eeologieal or human variables that were desired. This approach would have ensured adequate coverage in areas that the systematic approach did adequately eover. Furthermore, this approach would have provided good quantitative information to help inform the field of recreation ecology; however the trade off would be losing the ability to describe the trail systems overall and by segment, limiting the survey utility for visitor management purposes. 6.5 Implications for Managing Backcountry Recreation Resources 6.5.1 Change over Time Ever since the Yellowhead Highway opened in the 1970s, MRPP has been a popular destination for backcountry visitors. Much of this use focused on the popular Berg Lake Trail, even after the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail was constructed. In 1974, Roemer conducted a detailed analysis of ecological impaets of outdoor recreation on the Berg Lake Trail. This study conducted a thorough investigation of soil and vegetation types, conducted interviews with local residents, and collected impact 139 data on a wide range of indicators. However, with the emergence of the field of recreation ecology, there have been a number of improvements in trail impact assessment and monitoring since the 1970s. As a result, no formal measurements of trail width or cross-section were taken, and his results and recommendations were not considered in the context of recreation ecology. Perhaps the most useful component of his report is the 74 colour photographs of the Berg Lake Trail and campsites. Unfortunately, Roemer’s (1974) report was not available during the proposal and planning stages of the study, otherwise the study would have been designed to specifically reassess many of the indicators and variables used in 1974. Attempts would have been made to re-find and re-photograph many of the areas to look for changes over time, on areas still in use, and recovery rates and processes on areas that have been closed. This report provides valuable baseline data that could be used to understand long-term change in backcountry recreation resources. However, the survey completed in 2003 is comprehensive enough that some comparisons can be made. Furthermore, now that this report is available it can be used in further research. A comparison of trail conditions on the Berg Lake Trail between 2003 and 1974 shows that, despite increases in the number of visitors, trail conditions have greatly improved since the 1970s. Roemer’s report and images show a number of 140 ecological impacts including soil erosion, mucking, trail widening/braiding, and depreciative behaviors. Trail erosion and mucking problems appear to have been addressed through trail improvements. Depreciative behaviors including ‘bush craft methods’ such as using cedar bows for bedding and cooking over campfires, appears to have been addressed through educating visitors in low-impact camping^. Plate 6.3 and 6.4 Pictures from Segment 6B 1974 (Left) 2003 (Right). N ote the improved constructed trail surface Leave No trace education and backcountry ethics have improved over time (Farrell et al. 2001) but the improvements are likely from cumulative effects of education programs at a number of parks not just from those at MRPP. 141 Plates 6.5 and 6.6 Photos from Segm ent 5B ‘Emperor's Staircase’ 1974 (Left) 2003 (Right). There w ere no comparable locations in 2 0 0 3 . Photos are not exact replicates Designated campsites and the quota systems on overnight users also appear to have improved backcountry conditions. Horse use has also declined since the 1970s, when it was about 200 per year (Roemer, 1974) to the current use of about 50 (pers. com. Park Staff). Horses tend to have higher trail impacts than hikers because of their high weight to surface ratio and hooves that churn and loosen the soil (Wilson and Seney, 1994). Reduction and segregation of horse use may be responsible for some of the improvements. Over the years since 1974, trail relocation has also been used to address many of the highly degraded trail sections. However, many of these areas still have not completely recovered from many of the impact problems, such as erosion and bedrock exposure, identified by the report. This indicates that the rate of deterioration for many recreation related trail impacts is far faster than the rate of 142 recovery. It also means that trail relocations must move the trail to a more resistant site, not simply start the degradation process on a new undisturbed site. Conversely, the report also shows that some trail sections on the Berg Lake Trail have changed very little over time. For example, at the beginning of segment 4B the trail travels across a talus cone, with a colluvium substrate. This section of trail has changed little since the 1970s (see Plate 6.1). This indicates that locating trails on highly resistant sites remains the best investment in future trail conditions. Plate 6.7 and 6.8Berg Lake Trail near plot 12 in 1974 (Left) and 2003 (Right). Photos are not exact replicates 6.5.2 Significance of Impacts This section discusses the spatial scale of ecological impacts of outdoor recreation along M RPP’s Backcountry Trails. The spatial scale of impacts appears to be similar to that found in other studies, which found that ecological impacts covered about 0.5 % of the park (Cole, 1987; Leung and Marion, 2000). 143 The control plots, located 5m from the trail tread, showed no signs of recreation impact including endemic levels of soil exposure, no exotic species and no signs of soil erosion. This suggests that trail impacts cover an area about the width of the trail and about Im of vegetation change on either side of the trail. By multiplying the length of the trail by the impacted width calculates that total trail related impacts to vegetation and soil cover an area of 0.036km^ on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail and 0.063km^ on the Berg Lake Trail for a total of 0.099km^. This comprises only a small percentage of a park that is over 220,000 km^. It is important to note that backcountry trail related impacts are only small portion of human-use impacts in MRPP. Other human impacts include front country facilities, non-conforming uses (e.g., highways, pipelines & railways), backcountry camping, and other hiking trails and routes. This survey also did not assess impacts to wildlife, which research suggests occurs at a larger scale (Hellmund, 1998; Knight and Cole, 1996). There are also a number of places on both trails that suffer from locally severe impacts such as extreme tread widths, trail erosion and vegetation changes. Furthermore, vegetation impacts such as the introduction of exotic plants have potentially large reaching impacts on vegetation composition in the backcountry, while not shown to be a problem in this survey. Another important consideration is that the ecological impacts identified by this survey occur in the people park interface where visitors interact with the park. These impacts limit the ability of MRPP to meet both its resource protection and visitor experience 144 objectives. The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail has a high frequency of problem areas, such as wet and muddy sections and these areas cover long distances of trail inconveniencing visitors and detracting from the overall experience (this likely results from the lack of maintenance and construction). A comprehensive assessment of human-use related impacts in the park requires analysis far beyond the capabilities of this study. 6.5.3 The Dispersal Recreation Strategy The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail was designed as an alternative trail to reduce the number of visitors on the Berg Lake Trail by providing an alternative destination. Or, in other words, a dispersal strategy was applied, which attempts to reduce problems attributed to overuse by reducing the number of visitors in one area by encouraging them to go to another area. This is an established indirect management strategy in the backcountry management literature (Anderson et al., 1998; Cole et al., 1997). Its use is appealing because it avoids directly controlling the visitors, or restricting access. Both of Anderson et al. (1998) and Cole et al. (1997) identify two drawbacks that limit the effectiveness of this approach. First, considering the curvilinear relationship between use and impact (see Chapter 3), there must be substantial reductions in the amount of use at the high-use location in order to see any improvement in resource conditions. Secondly, most ecological impacts are caused by the construction of the new facility and even a small number of visitors at the low-use destination can cause larger cumulative ecological impacts (Cole, 1987). 145 While providing an additional recreation facility has its own merits, the end result is that the cumulative impacts to park ecosystems are greater than having just one trail with a larger number of visitors. This survey suggests that the cumulative ecological impacts of the two trails are greater than the impacts would be if the Mt. Fitzwilliam visitors used the Berg Lake Trail. The Mt. Fitzwilliam trail receives less than 500 visitors per year. Even if all of these visitors were dispersed from the Berg Lake Trail to the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail the result has not been a significant percent reduction in use on the Berg Lake Trail. However, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail does provide different opportunities such as solitude, a more primitive setting, and fewer regulations than the Berg Lake Trail, including the lack of a quota system and allowing fires at one campsite. The Berg Lake Trail often exceeds it quota capacity on the BC Day Holiday Long weekend (Pers. Comm. Gail Ross). The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail provides an alternative for visitors who are displaced during this time period, or for visitors who would prefer not to plan ahead for reservations. Therefore, the greater cumulative impacts may be justified to facilitate these more diverse experiences. The desire of backcountry visitors to experience a variety of settings, achieve a sense of solitude and adventure creates another challenge for backcountry resource managers. These desires create demand for more backcountry facilities, which allow visitors to spread out and experience solitude, dispersed over ever-greater 146 areas of the park. This survey supports other findings (Cole, 1987, Leung and Marion, 2000) that even primitive facilities have significant impacts from construction and limited levels of use. Therefore, park managers need to consider ecological impacts from backcountry recreation as serious threats to park ecosystems and to address the tendency for dispersal, management plans must be made at the park level, where all park values can be considered. 6.5.4 Conditions-Based Management A key aspect of this study was to compare a high-use, highly managed trail with a low-use, less-intensively managed trail. As Table 5.2 suggests, MRPP managers are assigning management time, resources and money to the high-use areas, rather than areas that show signs of ecological impacts or facility degradation. The results of this survey suggest that while the Berg Lake Trail is wider than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail suffers from more exposed rocks and roots, quagmires, trail braiding, and wet and muddy sections particularly on the undeveloped segment, and similar vegetation impacts throughout, with the exception of exotic species and unofficial trails. The backcountry recreation resources on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail may require a higher ratio of management attention/ visitors than the Berg Lake trail, even to maintain the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail at a lower trail standard. There may be economies of scales in visitor management, where one visitor center or ranger can make a difference with large numbers of visitors. 147 The Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail requires more staff time and resources than it currently receives in order to address its problems, particularly in the undeveloped segment. Contemporary planning frameworks, such as LAC, require that management decisions be based on resource and social conditions. The amount of use can be an indicator of social conditions and used to inform management decisions, but the assessment of indicators on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail suggests that managers would do well to link management to wider range of indicators. With the completion of this survey, the potential now exists to assign management resources based on current conditions. Focusing more time and resources upon the Berg Lake Trail, simply because it has the most visitors, may not adequately address the backcountry resource management issues elsewhere in the park. This survey provides a objective assessment of conditions between the two trails and suggests that need for management attention to be redirected toward the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail to address deteriorating resource conditions. This survey also shows the value of backcountry planning at the individual park level rather than the facility level to address the issue of trading visitor impacts and experiences between trails (McCool and Cole, 2001). It is also possible to suggest that because of M RPP’s linkages with the four Mountain Parks^, and it’s proximity to Wells Grey Provincial Park, visitor management decisions need to be ^ The ‘Four M ountain Parks’ refers to the contiguous Jasper, Banff, Yoho, and Kootney National Parks. 148 addressed cooperatively at the multipark level as well. This would allow for humanuse management plans to consider multiple facilities and how the management of one facility, or park, changes the role of other facilities in MRPP. 6.6 Backcountry Recreation Resource Management: Toward an Integrated Approach This study has shown that visitors are causing impacts to backcountry facilities and the natural resources in MRPP. However, evidence from this study supports findings that the type, nature and extent of impacts are dictated by the characteristics of the environment and management approaches, more so than the number of visitors themselves. Despite the move toward using visitor-monitoring programs (i.e., Thurston, 1992 and Bhandari, 2002), MRPP continues to be managed based on the principles of carrying capacity, or planning based on the total number of visitors. Management tactics such as the imposition of quota systems, reservations, dispersal, and limitations to growth, many of which are used in MRPP, are typical examples of carrying capacity type approaches (McCool and Lime, 2001). It is appropriate to use the facility carrying capacity for the day-to-day management of overnight visitors, as the number of tent pads sets the facility capacity. Carrying capacity based approaches may also contribute to improving social conditions in the backcountry, such as crowding and visitor conflict (Manning, 2003), but there is the increasing awareness that these models have been largely unsuccessful at addressing concerns of environmental impacts, and have the further negative effect of 149 displacing and discouraging visitors from enjoying park resources (Stewart and Cole, 2002; McCool and Lime; 2001). The implementation of the quota system in the mid 1990s appeared to have the effect of reducing the numbers of visitors such that the quota is no longer filled, except on the most popular holidays and weekends, and only if the weather forecast is good (WLAP 2001; Bhandari, 2002). Visitors are displaced during the peak times that may not be able or interested in visiting during the low use periods'^. Cole and Stewart (2002) suggest only a small deerease in the quality of experienee is associated with increased encounters, so this leaves the question of what the quota is eontributing to other than ensuring there is enough tent pads for all the visitors. To answer the long-term question of how many tent pads there ean be while still maintaining the quality of baekeountry resources requires the integration of knowledge about visitor-indueed stress and various types and levels of environmental responses into visitor impaet management in MRPP. Baekeountry recreation management ean be defined as approaehes and strategies to achieve both the provision of nature-based recreation opportunities, speeifically opportunities to experience solitude and primitive contemplative recreation in baekeountry settings, and to protect park resources (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). The types of visitor management issues at MRPP include the provision of visitor amenities, provision of a variety of recreation experienees and settings, and protection of natural resources. Given the numbers of visitors to It should be noted that there is little data available on how the visitors responded to the implementation of the quota system on the Berg Lake Trail other than the total number of visitors. 150 MRPP, incorporating recreation ecology science into decision-making would help address many of the issues management struggles with. This challenge is exaggerated by a lack of a strong history in incorporating science into visitor management decision-making and legislation and acts that pose obstacles to management (Newman et al., 2002). Furthermore, Tables 3.5-3.8 demonstrate that while there is substantial knowledge that park managers can apply when considering site-speeific visitor management techniques for backcountry trails, much of this information is complex and inaccessible. An overarching guide for managers is required that outlines the best practices for managing backcountry recreation resources that gives a ‘rule of thumb’ for most management situations. Backcountry resource management actions are typically centered on a combination of the following five strategies: 1) modification of use related factors; 2) modification of environmental factors; 3) site selection and development; 4) site maintenance; and 5) site facilities and site closures (Leung and Marion, 2000). Previous management frameworks, such as those discussed in Anderson et al. (1998), Cole et al. (1997), and Manning (1979), provide sound descriptions of approaches but they have not prioritized these approaches. Managers must decide which tactic or approach is most appropriate, but eonsidering there are wide ranges of variables that affect these decisions, the ehoice of approach remains diffieult. 151 MRPP employs examples from each of the five strategies listed above, what is missing is an overarching guide to direct the appropriate choice of action. Management strategies require a combination of several tactics, from the site level to broader concerns of resource management policies. Essentially, effective visitor management strategies should be a combination of three critical components: i) sitespecific locational characteristics, ii) user characteristics, iii) managerial actions and implications, and iv) the policy environment under which the provision of backcountry recreation opportunities and their management is prescribed. Fig. 6.1 proposes an approach that moves toward addressing the shortcomings of previous approaches based on data from MRPP. This model suggests that all four components are inextricably linked. The four primary factors interact to provide broader guidelines and location specific strategies on four major issues: i) facility design, ii) management of users, and iii) policy and management operations. Within this framework lie the tactical, day-to-day facility operation guidelines (items within the pyramid in the model). The model proposes a synoptic, overarching guide to prioritize visitor management strategies based on local conditions at MRPP, which may also have lessons that can be applied elsewhere. 152 Fig. 6.1 A Proposed Integrated Approach to Backcountry Recreation Resource Management Policy Environment L ^ slation Visitor estrictlons Site closures Visitor Quotas R eflations Visitor Education Facility Design User influences isitor S afety Maintenance & durabili Perceptions & Attitudes ■Behaviors Knowledge/ A wareness Managerial Factors ■ Science B ased Knowledge Com fort & Amenities Construction Costs Human & Financial C apital Environmentai Factors Satisfaction/ Expectations Climate V ^ e ta tio n Topograply Site Characteristics N atural a ttrib u te The pyramid depicts four primary orders of backcountry recreation management: environment, facilities, visitor education and regulations. It builds on current recreation ecology findings, and the results of this study, which indicate that environmental factors are important concerns in order to achieve the goals of backcountry recreation resource management. Therefore, an important factor upon which the visitor’s experiences depend and other visitor impact management strategies sit (shown in the pyramid in Figure 6.1) is the natural attributes of the site. In other words, adequate consideration of site-specific environmental attributes is the foundation for second, third and fourth order strategies. The second level of the pyramid is facility design, which should consider and complement the 153 environmental characteristics of the site in question. This was shown in the role of trail construction in managing wet and muddy sections and trail incision. The next order is developing and implementing target-specific visitor education programs; these could be used to address problems related to visitor behavior/ use such as the proliferation of unofficial trails in segment 5B and 6B. The last order includes the development and implementation of rules and regulations to direct and restrict recreation use. For example, trail width was found to be a result of increased trail traffic. Therefore, the management of trail width and other use dependent impacts can be best achieved through different types of quotas or other site-specific approaches, such as regulating timing of use, duration of use, or prohibiting visitor behaviors. Direct management actions attempt to change and influence the visitors by directly influencing their behavior (Manning and Lime, 2000). This can be compared to indirect management actions that influence decisions with the secondary effect of influencing behavior (Manning and Lime, 2000). This moves the focus to locational factors and basic facilities. It is often argued that perceived freedom is an important component of the wilderness experience (Cole and McCool, 2000; Manning and Lime, 2000); therefore, backcountry management strategies should focus near the bottom of the pyramid. If problems persist despite these efforts, approaches from further up the pyramid can be used, perhaps only temporarily, to resolve visitor impact problems. In other words, management should focus near the bottom of the pyramid on the Mt Fitzwilliam Trail, perhaps moving up into the facility design considerations in order to address backcountry recreation 154 management problems. On the Berg Lake Trail, however, management has justifiably moved higher on the pyramid using tools such as visitor education and increased restrictions. The Berg Lake Trail management should move down the pyramid, when possible, and Mt. Fitzwilliam Management should stay low on the pyramid. A final consideration is the broader policy, managerial, user and ecological contexts (shown on the outer ring of the figure). The outer ring of contextual issues were not a focus of this study, however a good discussion of backcountry recreation resource management should consider these factors and would be a good starting point for future research (see Section 7.2). The policy environment influences include the Park Act, planning processes, and ministry governance that help set the broad parameters for the management of MRPP outlining what levels of ecological impacts are appropriate, or acceptable, and constrict and guide policy options through funding levels. User influences set the demand for outdoor recreation experiences in the park and also contribute to determining acceptable levels of ecological impacts and direct the types and levels of desired facilities. The site characteristics influence environmental impacts and provide the key natural attractions that make MRPP a popular destination for outdoor recreation. Each of these areas has been discussed in the thesis previously; for example, the policy context is described in the Study Area Chapter. The model presented here is designed to be a conceptual guide to backcountry recreation management that 155 integrates resource management science and visitor experience to achieve the dual mandate of a park like MRPP. 156 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Conclusion There is little doubt that backcountry recreation impacts influence the integrity of backcountry recreation resources in areas such as MRPP. Global trends of increasing urbanization, transportation, communication and affluence are simultaneously increasing demands for both more, higher quality outdoor recreation experiences, and the sustainable management of natural resources. These trends, tempered with changing tastes and technology, means that balancing the dual mandate of conservation and recreation will continue to be a critical management issue for MRPP. Visitors, affected by management choices, scrutinize management decisions demanding objectivity and a scientific basis to park and protected area management decisions. Previous research has established that the link between use and impact is complex and is governed by environmental, managerial, and userbased relational factors. This study provided an in situ case study to understand causal relationships of managerial, user based, and ecological influences as they relate to trail degradation. The Berg Lake and Mount Fitzwilliam trail corridors are ideally suited for a case study of the integrated multiple parameter survey method, used here to compare a high-use and highly managed trail with a low-use, less-intensively managed. The ANOVA, and correlation analysis provided a powerful means to test 157 hypotheses about relationships between environmental, use and managerial factors advancing the understanding of this issue. The survey results show that the Berg Lake Trail has greater ecological impacts, such as increased tread width and more unofficial trails, but not in proportion to the greater number of visitors. The Mt. Fitzwilliam trail suffers from its own set of problems including trail degradation in the undeveloped segment. Survey data support the hypothesis that the level of trail construction and maintenance are the primary explanatory factors for the differences in level of trail degradation. Other impact indicators, such as vegetation change, were similar on both trails. Vegetation impacts are likely a result of trail construction, which result in similar ecological disturbances regardless of the level of use. The proliferation of unofficial trails was substantially greater on the Berg Lake Trail, likely a result of more visitors and opportunities to view unique attractions off the trail. Unofficial trails should be a significant concern for management, as these trails show indications of poor conditions and are the initial steps in the total loss of ground cover in these areas. This survey also established permanent plots that can be reassessed in the future to determine ecological change overtime. In comparison to research on conditions conducted in 1974, trail construction, rerouting the trail and visitor management has improved the condition of the soil and vegetation on the Berg Lake Trail. The findings of this survey confirms the suggestion that cumulative impacts of recreation are higher when a dispersal strategy is employed, than if all visitors were confined to one trail. It also 158 suggests that given the poor trail conditions on the low-use trail, park agencies should move toward conditions-based management where management time and resources are allocated to areas with poor resource conditions rather than to areas receiving high levels of use. Lastly, a model is presented that helps direct backcountry recreation management by focusing on a pyramid of ordered approaches. The model proposes that after considering the context of policy, user, managerial and site attributes, managers should focus first upon environmental characteristics, then facility design, visitor education, and visitor restrictions in that order. The goal for managing backcountry recreation resources should be to stay low on the pyramid of tactics and move up only if necessary. While assessing and managing the impacts of visitors to natural areas, it is important not to lose sight of the substantial benefits that the experience brings to visitors. In an urbanized world, people are becoming ever more separated from nature by space and time. Parks provide a rare opportunity to reconnect with nature in this increasingly unnatural world. Continued recreation ecology research and monitoring programs, such as conducted in this study, can help move park and protected area management past the paradox of outdoor recreation, by finding ways to allow people to enjoy nature while minimizing negative consequences. This will facilitate a move toward an inherent symbiotic relationship between humans and their natural environment. Reaching this understanding may be the only truly long­ term solution to our current ecological crises. 159 7.1 Recommendations This study generated a number of specific recommendations that could improve the management of MRPP. The recommendation range from the practical (e.g., guard rails) to conceptual (e.g., rethinking ministry wide budgeting), but they all reflect current knowledge and the research results. Incorporating these recommendations would help make MRPP an innovator in visitor management. • Expand visitor monitoring to other backcountry facilities in MRPP. An expanded monitoring program should include the additional trails on the Berg Lake trail network (i.e.. Snowbird Pass, Hargreaves Traverse, and the segregated horse trails), and the Moose River route. The results from the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail show that poor resource conditions occur on undeveloped routes even with low levels of use. All of the suggested routes meet these criteria. Furthermore, these areas may be more sensitive to change than the constructed Berg Lake Trail and could provide more information about changes to management strategies than monitoring the Berg Lake Trail. • The ongoing trail maintenance program, restoration projects and weekly inspection have improved the condition of the water management features on the Berg Lake Trail. It is clear that there is no substitute for regular trail inspections and repairs. The survey also provides evidence that support increasing the budget for increased inspections and reduced maintenance intervals on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. 160 • Move toward assigning budgets based on resource conditions, rather than visitor numbers. This would require a fundamental rethinking at all levels of the Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. Given that the results of this study validate other policy directives and the increasing prominence of conditions-based approaches, such as Limits of Acceptable Change, the park management community, and the broader resource-management community, it seems appropriate to support this approach with funding allocations. The agency budget is a central decision making tool (More, 2002), which needs to consider current approaches to backcountry recreation resource management. • While it is appropriate to maintain the Wilderness Recreation Zoning for the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, some sections of the trail require rerouting and upgrading. This includes a section between plot FI 1 and F13 in the constructed section where water is channeling along the trail and eroding the surface, and certain problem areas in the undeveloped route section. Targeted repairs and relocations could be made in the undeveloped section while maintaining its ‘route’ status. • Expand cooperation with surrounding parks for backcountry management strategies. It is important that backcountry management considers changes at surrounding parks. For example, if Jasper National Park further changes its backcountry management strategies it could displace visitors into MRPP or vice versa. Ecological integrity can be improved at the regional scale, and 161 diverse visitor experiences can be provided with improved inter-park cooperation. • Pay more attention to day users on the Berg Lake Trail, near the trailhead and up to the White Falls area. Day users form the greatest number of visitors, and with trail improvements, and Mountain bikes, day-trippers are going further along the trail, some as far as Berg Lake itself (based on conversations with park staff and visitors). Cole (2001b) found that day users are similar to overnight users in wilderness experience, socio­ demographic variables, except day users were older. There may also be some indication that day visitors are more linked to a specific place (e.g., visit tallest mountain in Rockies)* than overnight visitors. Despite Cole’s (2001b) finding that day and overnight visitors are similar, the preponderance of international visitors, and Berg Lake Trail’s location on a major transportation route (Vancouver-Edmonton), day users may have different demographics, desired experiences and management preferences than overnight visitors. While day-use numbers are higher, overnight visitors may still have a larger time-weighted presence in the park because of their longer length of stay, particularly past the ‘Emperor’s Staircase’. A study of day users and overnight users should consider how overnight and day The place specific tendencies of day users may be particularly important on the Berg Lake Trail because of the preponderance of international visitors who have little time to visit a world renowned area. A visitor study should be directed at this question. 162 visitation can be aligned to maximize the quality of the backcountry setting for both groups. • Create more official viewpoints and official side trails on the Berg Lake and Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. The proliferation of social trails indicates that visitors wish to access these areas. Creating established viewpoints with official access trails might improve the visitor’s experience and protect the environment by confining visitors to existing trails. The Mt. Fitzwilliam trail appears to have the opportunity for views to the North and West, but the views can barely be seen because of the forested vegetation type. An official viewpoint could be established 2-3 km (one-way) from the trailhead, which may provide more of an attraction for day visitors on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail and a resting point for overnight visitors on their way to the campsite. • Develop an education program to encourage visitors to stay on the established trails. This program should be targeted to day-visitors on site, at the trailhead and the White Falls viewing area (near the bridge), and directly to commercial operators that use the trail. Manning and Lime (2000) suggest that education programs are effective at resolving behavior related problems, especially if they include a rationale that changes in their behavior will improve the ecological integrity of the area. This message should include information on how leaving the trail changes vegetation composition, results in a loss of ground cover, damages soil structure, and reduces biodiversity. 163 • Make some facility improvements to manage the proliferation of social trails. Doucette and Kimball (1990) found that constructing rock walls was effective at containing visitors on the trail. The use of natural material would also help keep the natural character of the area. Designated trails should be created to access campsites, toilets, and other places visitors may wish to go within ecological and safety constraints. Handrails can also be installed or extended but as they are more obtrusive, should be used as a last resort. 7.3 Future Research There is a wide range of possibilities for further research central to the management of backcountry recreation resources at MRPP. Figure 6.1 can be used as a base to direct future research questions. Each of the contextual items on the outer ring could be the focus of an in-depth study. For example, how manager influences direct management of the park is an area that is only beginning to get research attention in a Canadian context. Perhaps most needed are a study of how wildlife is affected along the two trail corridors and a study on the social aspects of backcountry management in MRPP. Both trail networks travel through Mountain Goat habitat, a charismatic species used in the promotion of MRPP. Mountain Goats can be seen from both trail networks and their extirpation would have a negative impact on park resources and 164 the visitor’s experience. Plate 7.1 Mt. Robson Provincial Park Gate 5 4 ’^ > • 3^ Plate 7.1 shows the M RPP’s West Gate on Highway 16. Note the Mountain Goat rarely seen from the highway but regularly used in the promotion of MRPP. Causal observations during the summer of 2003 identified evidence, in the form of footprints and scat, of Bears, Grizzly or Black, Moose, and Wolves along the Mt. Fitzwilliam trail. The Berg Lake trail showed little evidence of use along the trail by large mammals, but there were a large number of deer sightings near Berg Lake, and one report of a black bear. One ubiquitous wildlife impact was the habituation of marmots and squirrels on the Berg Lake trail, but less so on the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail. These observed differences may suggest that the level of use and management is a factor, but Knight and Gutzwiller (1995) found conflicting results 165 where wildlife are impacted in different ways and to different degrees. No conclusions can be drawn without a more rigorous assessment of how these mammals are affected or not affected; this is an important consideration for MRPP to meet both its human use and ecological preservation functions. This study identified areas where user behavior, experiences and management preferences are important management considerations. Information on visitors, such as demographics, purpose of visit, and management preferences specifically for MRPP is out of date and inadequate (e.g., there is no information on visitors to the Mt. Fitzwilliam trail), particularly with changing demographics, which, among other possible factors, has led to prominence of day users on the Berg Lake trail. This suggests the need for a social survey, which addresses visitor perceptions of impacts, desired experience, trip characteristics, management preferences and demographic variables. This survey may also quantify reasons for why the Berg Lake trail is so much more popular than the Mt. Fitzwilliam Trail, and what the future holds for backcountry recreation in MRPP. 166 References Anderson, D.H., D.W. Lime, and T.L. Wang. 1998. Maintaining the quality o f park resources and visitor experiences; A handbook fo r managers. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul Minnesota. 135pp. Bhandary, K. 2002. Ecological impacts o f outdoor recreation: The Berg Lake Trail, in Mount Robson Provincial Park. MNRES Project. University of Northern British Columbia. 75pp. Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley: At the crossroads. Summary report of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force. Ottawa; Ministry of Canadian Heritage. Barbour M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam and M.W. Schwartz 1999. Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Addison, Wesley, and Longman, New York. 649 pp. Bayfield, N.G. 1973. Use and deterioration of some Scottish hill paths. Journal o f Applied Ecology 10:635-644. Bayfield, N.G. 1986. Penetration of the Cairngorms Mountains, Scotland by vehicle tracks and footpaths: impacts and recovery. In RC Lucas (Compiler) National Wilderness Research Conference; Current Research. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-212. Ogden, UT 121-128. 167 BCDC 2003. British Columbia Conservation Data Center endangered species database. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. Victoria, British Columbia. BC Parks 1990. Mount Robson Provincial Park Master Plan Background Report. Northern BC Region, BC Parks. Prince George, British Columbia. 77 pp. BC Parks 1992. Master Plan fo r Mount Robson Provincial Park. Northern BC Region, BC Parks. Prince George, British Columbia. 100pp. BC Parks 1994. Recent Trends in Outdoor Recreation by British Columbians 19891994. BC Parks Research Services. 9pp. BC Parks. 1996. Protection. Park Facility Standards. Ministry of Water Land and Air Victoria, BC. Available at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/operations/facstand/trails/t-refer.pdf Bosworth D. 2003. Managing the national forest system: Great issues and great diversions. Speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club April 22, 2003. Bradley, J. 1993. An army of wilderness teachers. Journal o f Forestry 91(2):23. Bratton S.P., M.G. Hickler, and J.H. Graves. 1979. Trail erosional patterns in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environmental Management 3(5):431-445. Bright, J.A. 1986. Hiker impact on herbaceous vegetation along trails in an evergreen woodland of central Texas. Biological Conservation 36:53-69. Bryan, R.B. 1977. The influence of soil properties on degradation of mountain hiking trails at Grovelsjon. Geografiska Annaler 59A:49-65. 168 Buckley, R. 2000. Tourism in the most fragile environments. Tourism and Recreation Research 25(1): 2000: 31-40. Burde, J.H. and J R. Renfro. 1986. Use impacts on the Appalachian Trail. In R.C. Lucas (Compiler) National Wilderness Research Conference; Current Research. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-212. Ogden, UT 138-143. Calais, S.S. and J.B. Kirkpatrick. 1986. Impact of trampling on natural ecosystems in the Cradle Mountain-Lake Sinclair National Park. Australian Geographer 17:6-17. Chuang C.C. 1975. Inventory o f Mount Robson P ark’s flora -1975. Report. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Cole D.N. 1982. Wilderness campsite impacts: Effect of amount of use. Research paper INT-284. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 34 pp. Cole, D.N. 1983. Assessing and Monitoring Backcountry Trail Conditions. General Technical Report ENT-303. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden Utah. 10 pp. Cole, D.N. 1986. Ecological changes on campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Research Paper INT-368. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Cole, D.N. 1987. Research on vegetation and soil in wilderness: A state of the knowledge review. In R.C. Lucas (comps) National wilderness research 169 conference: issues, state of the knowledge, future directions. Fort Collins Colorado, General Technical Report ESfT-220. Intermountain Research Station Ogden, Utah. 135-177. Cole, D.N. 1995a. Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping experimental applications of low level stress. Environmental Management 19(3):405-416. Cole, D.N. 1995b. Recreational trampling experiments: Effects of trampler weight and shoe type. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. INT-RN425 4 pp. Cole, D.N. 2000a. Paradox of the primeval: Ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18(2):77-86. Cole, D.N. 2000b. Biophysical impacts of wildland recreation use. In W.C. Gartner and D.W. Lime Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. CAB, New York. 257-264. Cole, D.N. 2000c. Dispersed Recreation. In Dissmeyer, G.E. (eds.) Drinking water from forests and grasslands: a synthesis o f the scientific literature. General Technical Report GTR-SRS-039 USDA Forest Service. Cole, D.N. 2001. Management dilemmas that will shape wilderness in the 2U‘ Century. Journal o f Forestry 99(l):4-8. Cole, D.N. (2001b) Day users in wilderness: How are they different? Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-RP-31. 29 pp. 170 Cole, D.N, M.E. Peterson and R.C. Lucas 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use; Common problems, potential solutions. General Technical Report IN I 230. USDA Forest Service. 59 pp. Cole, D.N. and N.G. Bayfield. 1993. Recreational Trampling of Vegetation; Standard experimental procedures. Biological Conservation 63;209-215. Cole, D.N., A.E. Watson, T.E. Hall and D R. Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations in wilderness; Social and biophysical impacts, visitor responses and management options. Research paper INT-RP-496. USDA Forest Service 30 pp. Cole, D.N. and D R. Spildie 1998. Hiker, horse and llama effects on native vegetation in Montana, USA. Journal o f Environmental Management 53;61-71. Cole, D.N. and S.E. McCool. 2000. Wilderness visitors, experiences and visitor management. In D.N. Cole, S.E. McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O ’Laughlin (comps.) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor Management Vol. 4 RMRS-P-15-Vol-4 Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 1- 2 . Coleman, R. 1981. Footpath erosion in the English Lakes District. Applied Geography L121-131. Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of the North Rocky Mountain Forests. Journal o f Applied Ecology 11(2);767772. 171 Davies, K.F., Gascon, C, and Margules, C.R. 2001. Consequences and management. Habitat Fragmentation: In M.E. Soule and O.K. Orians (eds) Conservation Biology, Research priorities fo r the next decade. Island Press, Washington, DC. 81-98. Dearden, P and R. Rollins. 2002. The times they are still a-changin’. In P. Dearden and R. Rollins, (eds) Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. 2"‘*edition. Oxford, Don Mills Ont. 2-20. Deluca, T.H., W.A. Patterson, W.A. Freimund and D.N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in Western Montana, USA. Environmental Management 22(2):255-262. Douccette, I.E. and D.D. Kimball. 1990. Passive trail management in Northeastern Alpine Zones: A case study. In T. More, M.P. Donnelly, A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske (eds) proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern recreation research symposium. Saratoga Springs, New York. GTR N E-145 USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Research Station. Rador, PA. 195-2001. Dyck, B. W. and D. Selbee 2002. Planning future directions for BC Parks: BC resident’s Views. Technical Report, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Province of British Columbia. 69 pp. Eagles, P.F. and S.E. McCool 2002. Tourism in national parks and protected areas: Planning and Management. Wallingford, UK. Farrell, T.F. and J.L. Marion. 2001/2002. Trail impacts and trail impact management 172 related to visitation at Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Leisure / Loisir 26(l-2):31-59. Findlay, A. 2002. Taking stock of E C ’s Parks. Explore. September/ October :22. Gadd, B. 1995. Handbook of the Canadian Rockies. Corax, Jasper, Canada. Hall C. N. and F.R. Kuss 1989. Vegetation alteration along trails in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biological Conservation 48:211-227. Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole 1998. Wildland Recreation: ecology and management. (2"‘*ed.) John Wiley and Sons, New York. Halgeth, S.F. 1975. Trail deterioration in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station INT-193 Ogden Utah 15pp. Harding, L. 1994. Introduced wildflowers and range and agricultural weeds in British Columbia. In L.E. Harding and E. McCullum (eds) Biodiversity in British Columbia: our changing environment. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 162-179. Hellmund P.C. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind; A handbook for trail planners. Trails and Wildlife Taskforce, Colorado State Parks. Hendee, J.C. and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection o f Resources and Values. (3"* edition) Eulcmm, Colorado. Hultsman, J., R.Cottrell, and W. Hultsman. 1998. Planning Parks fo r People. (2"^ edition) Venture, PA. 173 Jubenville, A. and K. O ’Sullivan. 1987. Relationship of vegetation type and slope gradient to trail erosion in interior Alaska. Journal o f Soil and Water Conservation 42:450-452. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, J. Pojar 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountinas. Lone Pine, Vancouver, BC. Knight R.L. and Gutzwillier K.J. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistance through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC. 373pp. Kuss, F.R. 1983. Hiking boot impacts on on woodland trails. Journal o f Soil and Water Conservation 38:119-121. Lance, A.N., I D. Baugh, and J.A. Love. 1989. Continued footpath widening in the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland. Biological Conservation 49:201-214. Lea, B.C. and R.E. Maxwell 1989 Biophysical habitat units of Mount Robson Provincial Park and extension areas. Wildlife Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Leung, Y.E. 1995. Trail degradation along the Pat Sin Range: an example of environmental geomorphology. Hong Kong Geologist 1(autumn): 79-87. Leung, Y.E. and J.L. Marion. 1995. A survey of campsite conditions in eleven wilderness areas of the Jefferson National Eorest. USD! Biological Service Report. Blacksburg Virginia: Virginia Tech. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Virginia Tech University. 174 Leung, Y.F. and J.L. Marion. 1996. Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: A state of the knowledge review. Journal o f Soil and Water Conservation 51:130-136. Leung, Y.F., J.L. Marion and J.Y. Ferguson 1997. Methods for assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions: an empirical comparison. In D. Harmon (eds.) Making Protection Work: Proceedings of the 9* annual conference on research and management in parks and on public lands. George Wright Society, Hancock Michigan. 407-414. Leung, Y.F. and J.L. Marion 1999. Influence of sampling interval on the accuracy of trail impact assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:167-179. Leung, Y.F. and J.L. Marion. 1999. Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of a problem assessment method in Great Smoky National Park, USA. Environmental Management 26(4):270-279. Leung, Y.F. and J.L. Marion. 2000. Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state of the knowledge review. In D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O’Laughlin (comps.) Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 5 Wilderness Ecosystems Threats and Management RMRS-P15-Vol-5 Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 23-48. Leung, Y.F., J.L. Marion and T.A. Farrell. 2001. The role of recreation ecology in sustainable tourism and ecotourism. In S.F. MeCool and R.N. Moisey (eds.) 175 Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability; Linking Culture and the Environment. CABI New York. 21-39. Liddle, M. 1997 Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall, Melbourne Australia. Lynn, N. A. and R.D. Brown 2002. Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:77-97. McArthur S. 2000. Beyond carrying capacity: introducing a model to monitor and manage visitor activity in forests. Pages 257-278 in F. Font and J. Tribe (eds.) Forest Tourism and Recreation. CABI, New York. MacKinnon, A., Pojar, J. and R. Coupé (eds.) 1999. Plants of Northern British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lone Pine. Vancouver, BC. 351 pp. McCool S.F. and Cole, D.N. 2001. Thinking and acting regionally: Toward better decisions about appropriate conditions, standards and restrictions on recreation use. George Wright Eorum 18(3) 85-98. McCool, S.F. and D.W. Lime. 2001. Tourism Carrying Capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality? Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 9(5):372-388. McCool, S.F. and R.N. Moisey. 2001. Introduction: Pathways and pitfalls in the search for sustainable tourism. In S.F. McCool and R.N. Moisey (eds.) Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability; Linking Culture and the Environment. CABI New York. 1-15. 176 McMillan, M.A. and D.W. Larson. 2000. Effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of the Niagara Escarpment in Southern Ontario. Conservation Biology 16(2):389-398. Manning, R.E. 1979. Strategies for managing recreational use of national parks. Parks 4:13-15 Manning, R.E. 2003. What to do about crowding and solitude in parks and wilderness? A reply to Stewart and Cole. Journal o f Leisure Research 35(1):107-118. Manning, R.E. N.L. Ballinger, J.L. Marion and J. Roggenbuck. 1996. Recreation management in natural areas: problems and practices, status and trends. Natural Areas Journal 16:142-146. Manning, R.E. and D.W. Lime. 2000. Defining and Managing the Quality of Wilderness Experiences. In D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O ’Laughlin (comps.) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor Management Vol. 4 RMRS-P-15Vol-4 Missoula, Montana. USDA Eorest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 13-52. Manning, R.E. and S.R. Lawson. 2002. Carrying Capacity as “informed judgment”: The values of science and the science of values. Environmental Management 30(2): 157-168. Marsh, W.M. and J.M. Grossa. 2002. Environmental Geography: Science, land use, and earth systems. (2"^ edition). Wiley and Sons; Toronto, Canada. 177 Marion, J.L. 1991. Developing a natural resouree inventory and monitoring program for visitor impacts on recreation sites: A procedural manual. Natural Resource Report. USDI National Park Service NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06. 59 pp. Marion, J.L. 1994. An assessment of trail conditions in Great Smoky National Park. USDI National Park Service, Southeast Region. Research/Resources Management Report, Atlanta, GA. 153 pp. Marion, J.L. 1998. Recreation ecology research findings: Implications for wilderness and park managers. Pages 188-196 in H. Kirchner (ed.) National Outdoor Ethics Conference. Gaithersburg, MD: Izaak Walton League of America. Marion, J.L. 2002. Trail Monitoring Manual, Acadia National Park. Unpublished. 10pp. Marion, J.L., J.W. Roggenbuck and R.E. Manning. 1993. Problems and practices in backcountry recreation management: A survey of National Park Service managers. Natural Resources Report NPS/NVRT/NRR-93712 USDI National Park Service, Denver Colorado 48 pp. Marion, J.L. and Y.F. Leung, 2001. Trail Resource Impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(3): 17-37. Monz, C.A. 2002. The response of two artic tundra plant communities to human trampling disturbance. Journal o f Environmental Management 64:207-217. 178 More, T.A. 2002. “The parks are being loved to death” and other frauds and deceits in recreation management. Journal o f Leisure Research 34(l):52-78. Nepal, S.K. 2003. Examining trail impacts in the Sagamartha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Environmental Management 32(3):312-321. Nepal, S.K. and Nepal, S. in press. Visitor impacts on trails in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Ambio. Newman, P., J. Marion, K. Cahill 2001. Integrating resource social and managerial indicators of quality into carrying capacity decision making. The George Wright Forum: 18(3):28-40. Newsome, D., S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling. 2002. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, impacts, and management. Channel View, Clevedon. 340 pp. Obua, J. and D M. Harding. 1997. Environmental impact of ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 5(3):213-223. Parks Canada. 2000. Unimpaired fo r future generations? Conserving ecological integrity with Canada’s National Parks. Vol. 1. Panel on the ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks. Government of Canada, Ottawa Ontario, 21 pp. Pounder, E.J. 1985. The effects of footpath development on vegetation at the Okstindan Research Station in Artic Norway. Biological Conservation 34:273- 288. Riccius E. and Burgess, T. 2002. Cuts to BC Parks: The ongoing saga. Parks and Wilderness Quarterly. 14(1): 1,3. 179 Roemer, H.L. 1974. Ecological impact o f recreational use in the Berg Lake Trail area. Planning Division, BC Parks Branch. 189 pp. Root, J.D. and L.J. Knapik. 1972. Trail conditions along a portion o f the Great Divide Trail Route, Alberta and British Columbia Rocky Mountains. Research Council of Alberta. Report number 72-5, Edmonton, Canada. 19 pp. Royal Statutes of British Columbia 1996. Park Act. Royal Statutes o f British Columbia Chapter 344. Queens Printer, Victoria, British Columbia 15 pp. Searle, R. 2000. Phantom Parks. Key Porter Books; Toronto, Ontario 262 pp. Shultis J. (under review). Implications of fiscal conservatism on science and management of protected areas. In Neil Munro (ed.) Science and Management of Protected Areas Association V, Victoria, BC. SPSS 2003 Statistic Package for the Social Sciences; release 12.0 User Guide. Stewart, W.P. and D.N. Cole. 2001. Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon backcountry; Consistently negative and weak relationships. Journal o f Leisure Research 33(1): 106-120. Summer, R.M. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal o f Soil and Water Conservation 41:126-128. Sutherland, R.A., J O. Bussen, D.L. Plonke, B.M. Evans, and A.D. Ziegler. 2000. Hydro physical degradation associated with hiking trail use: A case study of Hawai’IloA Ridge Trail, O ’Ahu HawaiT. Land Degradation and Development 12:71-86. 180 Symmond M.C., W.E. Hammitt and V.L. Quisenberry 2000. Managing recreational trail environments for mountain bike user preferences. Environmental Management 25(5):549-564. Tanod, L. 2003. Mount Robson madness. British Columbia Magazine Fall: 12-19. Thurston, S.T. 1992. Striking the balance; Managing backcountry visitors on the Berg Lake Trail, Mount Robson Provincial Park. Simon Fraser University, BC. Thurston, E. and R.J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management 27(3):397-409. Weaver, T. and D. Dale 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. Journal o f Applied Ecology 15:451-457. Welch, D.M. and J. Churchill 1986. Hiking trail conditions in Pangnirtung Pass, 1984, Baffin Island, Canada. Parks Canada Report, Ottawa, Canada. Willard, B E. and J.W. Marr 1970. Effects of human activités on alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountian National Park, Colorado. Biological Conservation 2:257-265. Wilson, J.P. and J.P. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of horses, motorcycles and offroad bicycles on mountain trails of Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14(l):77-78. WLAP 2003a. New model promotes reereation, and conservation. News Release 2003WLAP0006-000104. British Columbia, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. 2pp. 181 WLAP 2003b. New model promotes recreation, conservation: Key problems with existing system. News Release-Backgrounder, Backgrounder 2003WLAP0006000104. British Columbia, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. 2pp. WLAP 2003c Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection Parks Website http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/bcparks (throughout the year) WLAP 2004 Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection Parks Website http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/bcparks (accessed throughout the year) WLAP 2003d. Mt. Fitzwilliam User registration Statistics unpublished. WLAP 2003d. Parks to be World-Class Resort Destination, Create Jobs. News Release 2003WLAP0077-001021. British Columbia Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection. 2pp. Yoda A. and T. Watanabe. 2000. Erosion of mountain hiking trail over a seven-year period in Daisetsuzan National Park, Central Hokkaido, Japan. In D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O’Laughlin (comps.) Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Vol. 5 Wilderness Ecosystems Threats and Management RMRS-P-15-Vol-5 Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 172-178. Yorath, C.J. 1990. Where terranes collide. Orca; Victoria, Canada. Zabinski, C., T. Wojtowicz, and D. Cole. 2000. The effects of recreation disturbance on subalpine seed banks in the Rocky Mountains of Montana. Canadian Journal o f Botany 78:577-582. 182 1Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual B ack cou n try R ecreation Im pact A ssessm en t and M on itorin g M an u al M ou n t R obson P rovincial P ark Including T rail and C am p grou n d A ssessm en t P roeedures B y Paul Way & Dr. Sanjay N epal 183 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Preface: Mount Robson Provincial Park is a popular place. Each year over 300,000 travelers visit the park, with over 20,000 of these people visiting the backcountry areas. The mountain scenery and sense o f accomplishment award those willing to leave their vehicles behind. Unfortunately, these visitors can degrade the natural resources they come to enjoy. Park management is faced with the choice o f clos­ ing the door to visitors or developing facilities to the extent that it doesn’t seem like backcountry any­ more. This manual is part of an alternate strategy that attempts to find a balance between protecting the environment and facilitating the enjoyment o f the backcountry by using scientific measurement to inform management decisions. The pages below detail the steps to assessing existing conditions on campgrounds and trails then monitoring changes over time. Implementing and maintaining this pro­ gram will take about three weeks a year (2 weeks for the Berg Lake and 1 week for the Fitzwilliam trail). Materials (for Both Trail and Cam psite Assessm ents) Trail Manual Forms (plot, continuous, veg) Stakes 2/plot. Clip Board Measuring Wheel Topographic map Tape Measure >2 5m Pencils/ pens Clinometer Camera Compass Stapler/ staples GPS Soil penetrometer Moisture Meter Plant guide Random Number Table Metal Tags Flagging tape Im X Im Quadrat Plot Cord Axe A 184 3Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual I T ra il A ssessm en t M an u al This section describes standardized procedures for conducting an assessment of resource conditions on recreation trails. The principal objectives of these procedures are to document and monitor changes in trail conditions following construction and to enhance the understanding the role of environmental and locational factors in trail conditions. Their design relies on a sampling approach to characterize trail conditions from measurements taken at transects located every 450 meters along the trail, certain features between points and plots located in problem areas. Distances are measured with a measuring wheel. Measurements are conducted at sample points, to document the trail’s width, depth, substrate, slope, alignment and other characteristics, and continuously along the trail, to assess problem areas, management features and other items. These procedures take about a half hour at each sample point; about 5 to 8 plots can be completed a day. Data is summarized through statistical analyses to characterize resource conditions for each trail segment and for the entire trail system. During future assessments it is necessary to relocate the same sample points for repeat measures. Survey work should be conducted during the middle or end o f the primary use season during the growing season. Subsequent surveys should be conducted at approximately the same time of year. N ote on CI*S I s f C o n tin u o u s S u rvey {’o i l e d (IPS w aypoints at each plot The continuous survey is designed to census the entire trail network looking for major problems, and sigiiltlcani features such as bridges, cam p sites \ lew points etc. \ \ hen using the major changes in the trail characteristics, (iP S . turn the unit on and allow the unit to management features, safety hazards and any other site specific information that can be used track satellites and priw ide a level cif accu racy read in g (i.e., IJiii). I his in­ to plan and management trail systems. The crea ses the accuracy in the m easu rem ent continuous survey is conducted between the by as m uch as .'(Him. point sampling plots. See measuring wheel procedures. Survey Log and Continuous Survey Sheet: Record continuous information on the Survey Log and Continuous Survey Sheet. Data on major changes in tread width, problem areas, location o f plots, campsites and management features are recorded on this sheet. 185 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual D D ist: Distance in meters from the POC. 2) F e a tu r e : Either point of line feature that the comments/ distance refers to. 3) W a y p o in t: Collect a GPS waypoint at each plot and other signifigant features as necessary. Label plots by the first letter o f the trail name and the number o f the plot (i.e., plot 21 on the Fitzwilliam Trail F21). Other features should be assigned a label that won’t be confused with a plot name, then record the waypoint name. 4) M a n a g em en t F ea tu r e C ode: Record type and number of all site hardening features, or management actions, between each station these include all water and human control features Rate these features as ineffective, somewhat effective, or effective. This is a qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the management actions and a quantitative inventory of management features on the trail. 5) C o m m en ts: Use the comments section to describe the Tread Width, substrate, topography, make suggestions for repair and management etc. Feature: 467 W aypoint Plot P2 P2 M anagem ent feature code: Plot iocoted lo mlxcd spruce pine fo r e st ditching continues on Right hand side C om m ents Feature: 574 Dist m W aypoint Culvert StCCl M anagem ent feature code: 1 ditching continues. Culvert is e ffe c tiv e a t draining water Tread W idth: 7 4 cm C omm ents Sample continuous survey entry P a g e N otes: Start wheel end wheel- note the distance of the first entry and distance of the last entry. Page of - the page number in the field to order the pages. The of section after. Date:- date Crew- Crew initials POC: is either the POC of the survey or the POC of the page. JÊk 186 SBackcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual POC (Point o f Commencement): Record a brief description of the starting and ending point of the trail survey. Try to choose identifiable locations like intersections with other trails, roads, or permanent trailhead signs. Take a photo of the wheel aligned with the feature at the POC. Point Sampling Procedures The point sampling plots are positioned Trail Segments: During the description o f amount and type every 450m. All data is recorded on the of use (indicators 5 & 6 below) be sure that the use character­ P o in t S am plin g Form. Also collect and istics are relatively uniform over the entire trail segment. record any other information that is known Most o f the study trails have multiple uses, though uses are regulated on some trails. For example, a gate in the middle about the trail’s history, such as original of a study segment restricting vehicle use beyond it or a sign construction, past uses, type and amount of prohibiting horse use, can substantially affect visitation and maintenance, history of use, etc. impact. Even when use types are not regulated the study trail may intersect with another route that diverts one o f the user groups. In such instances where substantial changes in the 1) Trail Segment Code: Record a unique type and/or amount o f use occur, the trail should be split in trail segment code (can be added later). two segments and assigned separate names and forms, upon which the differences in use can be described. This practice will facilitate subsequent statistical summaries and analyses. 2) Trail Name; Record the trail segment name(s) and describe the segment begin and end points. 3) Surveyors: Record initials for the names o f the trail survey crew. 4) Date: Record the date (mm/dd/yr) the trail was surveyed. M easuring W heel Procedures: At the trail segment starting point, use a random number table (available at www.randomnumber.org) to select a random number from 0 to 450. Record this number on the first row of the form. This will be the first sample point, from which all subsequent sample points will be located in 450 m intervals. This procedure ensures that all points along the trail segment have an equal opportunity of being selected. Once you get to the first sample point, reset the wheel counter and use it to stop at 450m intervals thereafter. 187 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Push the measuring wheel along the middle o f the tread so that it does not bounce or skip in rough terrain. Lift the wheel over logs and larger rocks, adding distance manually where necessary to account for horizontal distances. Your objective is to accurately measure the distance of the primary (most heavily used) trail tread. Monitor the wheel counter and stop every 450m to conduct the sampling point measures. If you go over this distance, you can back the wheel up to the correct distance. If the wheel doesn’t allow you to take distance off the counter then stop immediately and conduct your sampling at that point, recording the actual distance from the wheel, not the “missed” distance. Rejection o f a sample point Given the survey’s objective there will be rare occasions when you may need to reject a sampling point due to the presence of boulders, tree falls, trail intersections, road-crossings, stream-crossings, bridges or other odd “uncharacteristic” situations. The data collected at sample points should be “representative” o f the 225m sections of trail on either side o f the sample point. Do not relocate a point to avoid longer or common sections o f bog bridging, tumpiking, or other trail tread improvements. Use judgment and be conservative when deciding to relocate a sample point. The point should be relocated by moving forward along the trail an additional 30m; this removes the bias of subjectively selecting a point. If the new point is still problematic then add another 30m, and so on. If the trail traverses a permanent snowfield, rock fall, or bedrock, or a combination of these that additively cover more that 450m the station can be dropped. Make a note o f this on the Survey Log and Continuous Data Sheet. 5) Distance; In the first column record the measuring wheel distance in meters from the beginning of the trail segment to the sample point. 6) Informal Trails IITI: Sum and record your tallies o f informal or “visitor-created” trails that intersected with the survey trail 5m either side of the plot, (note the difference between IT and ST) 7) Secondary Treads ISTI: C ount the num ber o f trails that parallel the m ain tread at the sam ple point. Count all treads regardless of their length. Do not count the main tread. JÊ k 188 7Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual 8) Tread W idth (TW); From the sample point, extend a line transect in both directions perpendicular to the trail tread. Identify the endpoints o f this trail tread transect as the most pronounced outer boundary o f visually obvious human disturbance created by trail use (not trail maintenance like vegetation clearing). These boundaries are defined as pronounced changes in ground vegetation height (trampled vs. untrampled), cover, composition, or, when vegetation cover is reduced or absent, as pronounced changes in organic litter (intact vs. pulverized). The objective is to define the trail tread that receives the majority (>95%) o f traffic, selecting the most visually obvious outer boundary that can be most consistently identified by you and future trail surveyors. Include any secondary treads (see #7) within the transect unless there are undisturbed areas between treads (as defined by the tread boundary definition). In this latter case, establish the transect and conduct measurements for the primary tread. Permanently place stakes well outside the boundary points to allow for future tread widening, but mark the trail edge. Note: incision and cross-sectional area measures will be taken from this line so it should be unobstructed. If raised up by soil or litter then push down the obstructing materials. If pushed up substantially by rocks or roots then move the line forward along the trail in one-meter increments until you reach a location where the line is unobstructed. Measure and record the length of the transect (the tread width) to the nearest centimeter. 9) Cross-Sectional Area: On the Cross Sectional Area form, record the distance from the measuring wheel. Record a 0 in the Area column and skip this procedure if the maximum incision is <2 cm. Otherwise complete the following: • Starting at the left tread boundary, position ties along the nylon string so that they are above tread surface locations that, if connected with straight lines, would accurately characterize the tread cross-section (see figure at right). • Measure and record the distance to each bead from the left stake. It’s most efficient to record these distances in the field and calculate intervals (I, to I„) with a spreadsheet. (Note: if measuring is done as you position the ties you may be able to place them at whole-cm intervals, otherwise record to the nearest cm.) • Measure (nearest cm) each vertical transect from the line down to the tread surface (Ti to T„) beginning with the left tent stake (Ti = 0) and ending with the other tent stake (Tn = 0). 189 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Interval F ixed Point F ixed Point Transect Area' = (Transect 1 + Transect 2) x Interval x .5 Area'= A'+A^ + A^ +A"' +A^ Compute and sum cross-sectional area with the following formula (use a spreadsheet): Area = (Transect 1 + Transect 2) x Interval x .5 for each row and summed for the total area o f soil loss. T ra n sect (cm ) In terval (cm ) A r ea (cm ) Dist: 2500 Ti: 0 2 Ii: 2 6.5 Tz: 6.25 10 I2: 8 63.0 T 3: 9.5 20 I3: 10 91.25 T4: 8.75 30 I4: 10 73.75 T 5: 6.0 33 I5 : 3 9.0 T 6: 0 243.5 ▲ 190 9Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual 11-21) Tread Condition Characteristics; Using the station as a center point, consider the trail segment 2.5m in either direction along the trail, estimate to the nearest 10% (5% where necessary) the contribution of each o f the followings contribution to the trail substrate. Be sure that your estimates sum to 100%. S-Soil: L-Litter; V-Vegetation; All soil types including sand and organic soils, excluding organic litter unless it is highly pulverized and occurs in a thin layer or smaller patches over bare soil. Surface organic matter including intact or partially pulverized leaves, needles, or twigs that mostly or entirely cover the tread substrate. Live vegetative cover including herbs, grasses, mosses rooted within the tread boundaries. Ignore vegetation hanging in from the sides. R-Rock: Natural 1v-occurring rock (bedrock, boulders, rocks, cobble, or natural gravel). If rock or native gravel is embedded in the tread soil estimate the percentage o f each and record separately. M-Mud: Seasonal or permanently wet and muddy soils that show imbedded foot or hoof prints from previous or current use (omit temporary mud created by a very recent rain). The objective is to include only transect segments that are frequently muddy enough to divert trail users around problem. G-Gravel: Human-placed (imported) gravel. RT-Roots; Exposed tree or shrub roots. W-Water: Portions o f mud-holes with water or water from intercepted seeps or springs. WO-Wood: O-Other: Human-placed wood (water bars, bog bridging, cribbing). Specify. 22) Trail Grade (TGI; The two field staff should position themselves at the sample point and 10 m upslope along the trail. A clinometer is used to determine the grade (% slope) by sighting and aligning the horizontal line inside the clinometer with a spot on the opposite person at the same height as the first person's eyes. Note the percent grade (left-side scale in clinometer viewfinder) and record. 23) Trail Alignm ent (TA); Assess the trail’s alignment angle to the prevailing land-form in the vicinity of the sample point. Use a compass and sight along the trail in the vicinity of the sample point, record the compass bearing on the left side of the column (it doesn’t matter which direction along the trail you sight). Next face directly downslope, take and record another compass bearing (aspect). The trail’s alignment angle can be computed by these two bearings (done by computer). 191 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Use the following formula: Angle 1-Angle2= TA if >90 subtract 180. 24) Slde-hill Construction fSH): Was side-hill construction (cut-and-fill) work used to construct the trail at the sample point? Yes (Y), No (N), Unsure (U). 25) Trail Position ITP): Use the descriptions below to determine the trail position of the sampling point. Record the corresponding letter code in the TP column. See Figure. Trail Position V - Valley Bottom: The transect is located within a flatter valley bottom setting within 10 vertical meters R - Ridge Top: The transect is located within a flatter plateau or ridge-top position. M - Midslope: All other mid-slope positions. 26) Soil Texture (TX): Follow the field method listed below (supplemented with the texture triangle and key) to determine the soil texture o f the soils in the vicinity o f the sample point. Soil texture should not vary substantially along most trails. This assessment should be done at the start o f the trail (have some water to use and rinse your hands with). Check the texture without wetting at the sample points and repeat the full method if it appears to have changed. a) Moisten a sample of soil the size of a golf ball and work it until it’s uniformly moist; 192 llBackcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual squeeze it out between the thumb and forefinger to try to form a ribbon. b) First Decision: If the moist soil is: * Extremely sticky and stiff, it is a clay ‘C ’. * Sticky and stiff to squeeze, it is a clay loam ‘CL’. * Soft, easy to squeeze, and only slightly sticky, it is a loam ‘L’. c) Second decision: Add an adjective to refine the description. If the soil feels: * Veiy smooth, it is silt or silty * Somewhat gritty, use no adjective □ Very, very gritty, it is sandy _ d)Combine your (b) and (c) determinations to identify Soil te x tu re and record the proper classification on the form: 100 S oil T ypes: ■HC 70 SC Sandy Clay CClay HC Heavy Clay SCL Sandy Clav Loam CL Clay Loam SiCL Silty Clav Loam SC Sandy Clay 60 1 50 SiC SiCL CL 30 SCL SiL !SL 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent sand 60 LS 70 80 90 27) SCL Sandy Clav Loam SL Sandy Loam LS Loam Sand ^ S ilt L Loam SiL Silt Loam O Organic 100 Landscape Slope ILS): Steepest slope of the landscape measured by Clinometer. 2 crew members position themselves along the line o f the steepest slope 5m down slope from the plot and 5m up slope from the plot. A clinometer is used to determine the landscape slope (% slope) by sighting and aligning the horizontal line inside the clinometer with a spot on the opposite person at the same height as the first person's eyes. Note the percent grade (left-side scale in clinometer viewfinder) and record . See Figure 5. 193 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual m 28) Aspect IAS): North, North East, East, South East, South, South West, West, North West which ever best describes the lay of the land. Can be taken from trail alignment. 29) Vegetation Type tVTI: Vegetation type will be assessed at each station by the dominant plant species and life forms. ( Alpine-tundra, Englemann Spruce Sub-Fir, Sub-boreal spruce. Interior Cedar Hemlock.) This system follows the Bio-geo-climatic zones mapping maintained by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and can be added later from map interpolation. Make notes in the comments section on vegetation type i.e., forest, meadow etc. 30) Soil Penetration Resistance: A pocket soil penetrometer will be used to take 5 samples on the trail and 5 samples on a control. The control is located in the vegetation control plot. Prior to taking samples, clear away surface litter and duff. If the reading is above the scale record “max or “M”. Do not take readings directly on a rock. 31 ) Damaged Trees IDTV. Using the station as a center point; count the number o f damaged trees lOm (5m each way) along the trail and 2.5m on either side of the trail. Include stumps, trees that are pruned, or show other signs of damage 32) Exposed Roots lERTSI: Using the station as a center point; count the number of exposed roots that are >lcm lOm (5m each way) along the trail. If roots are forked count the forks as individual roots. 33) Exposed Rocks lERKSI: Using the station as a center point; count the number of exposed rocks > 20cmX20cm lOm (5m each way) along the trail. 194 A 13Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual 30) Vegetation Transects: Use the Vegetation Inventory Sheet for vegetation transects. Using a compass, establish a 5m transect perpendicular (90°) to the trail. Locate a ImXlm quadrat beside the trail (next to exposed soil). The survey pin should be at the middle marker on the quadrat, in other words the quadrat covers 50cm on either side of the survey pin. All plant species within the quadrat will be identified. Record the cover of each plant species, other vegetation, exposed roots, exposed rocks, and exposed soil. The relative cover is the contribution Twinflower o f each plant to a total possible cover of 100%. Plant cover is estimated by each crew member then averaged to reduce subjectivity. Take an average height for each species. Take the penetrometer samples at this stage. Repeat with a quadrat located 5m from the trail. Record data on the Vegetation Inventory Sheet. Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual 35) C o m m en ts: Note information for re-finding stations; may require distance and bearing from marker. Also note any comments on trail relocations, seasonal variations, i.e. recent rainfall, vegetation. S ite Id en tification : Place a metal tag on the closest tree facing the permanent pins. Put the following information on the tag: Trail Survey, Plot Number , Distance m. Date, Crew and UNBC. Include distance and bearing to one of the pins if it is a long distance or they may be difficult to find. Place a large rock over the pins. Collect all equipment and move on to the next sample point S oil M o istu r e : Using a commercial soil moisture meter (Moisture Point 917, TDR) walk all trail plots within the shortest amount of time possible (i.e., walk the trail taking only the soil moisture readings). Take 3 readings each in the control and on the trail removing and reinserting the probe in different location each time. Insert the probe as far as possible. C o n tin u ou s su r v e y : On the way to the next sample point record items 5-8. J L 196 ISBackcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Future Reassessments: The plots should be reassessed frequently depending on the availability of resources. Ideally every 1 or 2 years, 1 every 5 years at the outside. The following parameters should be reassessed: S tation s C o n tin u o u s S u rvey Informal Trails Management features and Rating Secondary Treads Problem areas Tread Width and Cross-section Soil penetration resistance Damaged Trees Exposed Rocks and Roots Vegetation Transects Soil Moisture Plot markers should be refreshed, clearing brush etc. if necessary and additional plots added to cover any additional trails or major relocations. T ip s fo r re-fin d in g th e Plots; 1. Look for the steel tags in the trees, they always face the pins (i.e., if you can see the tag the pins are close.) 2. Look for rocks placed on top of the survey pins. 3. Look for a spray painted orange head on the pins. 4. Take the photos of each plot to use in the field. 5. Use the measuring wheel to measure the 450m from the last plot. 6. Try to have someone who has found the plots before on the survey crew. 7. Use the GPS waypoints and UTM Coordinates to get in the general area. 8. Use a metal detector. 9. Check for distances and bearings on the tag and/or plot cards. 10. Use landmarks from the continuous survey information. 197 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual II C am pground A ssessm en ts The campground assessment is designed to use objec­ tive, and quantitative methods to better understand existing campground conditions and changes as they are occurring. The assessment should also provide practical solutions oriented advice for facility opera­ tions and visitor management. The procedures outline below should take a two person crew less than 2 hours to complete. All data is recorded on the Campsite Assessment Form (front and back). General: After arriving at the campsite and filling in the identification information (campsite name, date, crew, location), familiarize your self with the campsite by walking through the area and determine where the outer boundary is and note the formal facilities. Look for signs of informal tent pads, clearings, campground facilities like bear-poles and toilets, trampled vegetation damaged trees and social trails and also consider camp­ ing patterns (where have you seen people camping in the past?). Use yours and your partner’s judgment to establish the campsite boundary; all other assessments will be based on what is located within the campsite, so this is an important step. Determine “core”, “intermediate”, and “periphery” areas. Do not include helipads and cabins if park staff only uses them. 1) C a m p site N am e: Record the official or most common name of the entire camp­ ground. If there are satellite sites, you can make a decision to record the information on multiple forms, but still reference them to the main campsite name. 2) R e g io n /P a rk /L o ca tio n ; Use this space to describe where the campground is located (i.e., 7km Berg Lake trail). A 3) C rew : List the crew initials. 198 17Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual 3) Date: month/dav/vear 4) Social Trails tm): This gives a measure of the length of the social (or unofficial) trails per area of campground. Using the measuring wheel run the wheel along the center tread of all the disturbed treads. Carry the wheel, so it doesn’t record, over constructed trails, or official trails. Include trails to bear-poles toilets etc, even if they are the only trail to the facility. The trails that are measured should appear on the sketch map. Record the total number of meters of social trails. 5) Counts: Count the number of: Official Tent-pads, Unofficial Tent-pads, Bear-poles, Steel Fire Rings, unofficial fire rings, toilets, shelters, gray water pits (called “water pits” on the form), and specify any other facilities using the comments section if necessary. 6) Vegetation Transects: Four vegetation transects should be established in the camp­ ground. These transects provide information on ground cover changes over time. It may be most efficient to conduct the vegetation transect at the same time as conducting the area calculation. First, pick a POC (Point of Commencement) to start the vegeta­ tion transect(s). The same POC can be used for all the transects or each transect can have its own POC. The egetatFHi POC should be an easily identifiable land mark, that is permanent and can be re-found in subsequent years. A central fire ring, bear pole, toilet, sign post, and trail junction, all make for a good POC. Record the name and description of the POC in the “POCI=” Box. If possible take a picture o f the POC. If there are multiple POC, record this information in the comments section. This step is critical so that the exact same area can be reassessed in the future. Using a magnetic compass, establish a bearing that crosses the campground. 199 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual (Ideally this will be one of the bearings used in the campsite area calculation) Record this bearing beside “Brg;” Establish one quadrat (Im X lm ) each in the core, periphery, intermedi­ ate and control areas. The distances depend on the size of the campground, but use even me­ ters (i.e., Im, 5m 15m 30m etc. not 1.42m). Pick quadrats that represent the ground cover of the site. Record the distance to each quadrat in the “Dist;” box. At each quadrat estimate the relative cover (sum to 100%)of the following categories: Vegetation, Rock, Litter, Exposed Soil, Roots and other (specify) at each core, intermediate, periphery and control. 7) Damaged Trees: Walk the core area of the campsite. Count the number o f damaged trees in three categories: • Prunned; lower limbs have been removed, either by management or visitors. • Damaged; Trees with nails, scars, axe marks, stripped bark from ropes, lantern scars • Stumps; Cut trees; Repeat with the intermediate and periphery areas. 8) Area Calculation: For efficiency this step can be combined with the vegetation transect section. Locate your campsite POC (see above). Using a magnetic compass, pick a landmark at 360°. Walk toward the landmark pulling the tape measure. Stop at the campsite bound­ ary. Pull the tape measure tight. Record the distance to the nearest 10cm and the bearing. If you are doing vegetation transect in combination with this step- continue toward your land­ mark and establish a control plot. Repeat these steps at 45° intervals in other words at N, NE, E, SE, S and so on. Different bearings can be selected, if necessary. The area can be cal­ culated by one of the following methods: computer, drawn to scale and counted with a dot grid, or using the formula 0.5*sine 45 T1 *T2. 9) Photo Information. Log all the photos taken at the site in this section. Include role num­ ber, photo number, and a brief description. Take photos o f each of the vegetation transects, at a minimum. Campsite Sketch: Using the graph paper located on the reverse side of the Campsite Assess- A 200 19Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual ment Form Sketch the layout o f the campground to scale. On the graph paper, the large squares are IcmXlcm and the small squares 0.5cmX0.5cm. Select the largest scale that al­ lows the entire campsite to be drawn. Include on the sketch map: □ Trails- main access trail, official, and social trails □ North Arrow □ Tent pads (official and unofficial if well used) □ Campsite developments (shelter, toilet, bear-pole, fire rings, sign boards etc.) □ Water features (lakes or rivers) □ Ranger cabins, helipads, viewpoints. □ Other items as space permits Comments: Use the comments section to make notes about specific campsite problems, rec­ ommendations, safety hazards, marginal decisions, variations in methodology, weather at the time of the survey. 201 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual III C onclusions Fieldwork Fieldwork in mountainous areas requires proper preparation and training; Mount Robson is certainly no exception. Survey crews should be trained in bear safety, outdoor survival, and first aid and carry the appropriate first aid, camping, and bear safety equipment. Being physically and mentally prepared for the potentially harsh topography, including rock-falls and steep slopes, and climate (it can snow in any month) will help ensure the survey is completed efficiently and result in the a more positive memorable experience for all involved. Abbreviations and Definitions POC = Point(s) O f Commencement GPS = Global Positioning System Pins = 16” nails placed on either side of the trail to permanently mark the plots. Social Trails = Within campsite trails that link other tent pads, or campsite facilities. Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Jeff Marion, USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech/Dept, of Forestry, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0324 (540/231-6603) email: jmarion@vt.edu who developed an earlier version of Part I (Trail Manual) o f this volume. ▲ 202 21Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Appendix I: Plot Cards Survey Log and Continuous Survey Sheet Start Wheel: ^ Date:_______ Crew:_________________ Trail (circle oner P.O.C.: ML Fitz. Dm F a ^ rc c P age_____ ol^ m End W heel:______ m Berg Lake Waypodjii ManagcitioH faittffc code: Comments OWt W ajpom i FcWirc: Managemew fieattre emk: Comments: D bt Wa^-porat Fc#are: Management tcalu rc code: C om m ent: . Dwt Feature: Waypokit Management Aatm e code: CcnraiBMs: DWI Waypoint Feature: M a n ^ ^ n c m fèaimc cotk: C p fiu a a n s; . Dm Waypoéii F««urcc M anagem W Icaom: cWcr Comments Dist WaypoKit Feature: Manage met# ièaim e code: Comments Dist WaypoBii R ^ u rc : ManagpmciU feauuc cak.' Cemuicnts.- . Dist Fcaturc:, W aypomi Managemem feaituc cock: Comments: Disc Waypomi Rimarc: Managemcau Icatiws cock: Comments Dist Waypokii Feature Management iW w e cock: CemmcfUs: Disc Wirvrrsmr F c«urc: jeen adapted for pub- ■ 15 / 'o f î r \ M îti f h a m o n iicuiion in me man ual and are provided Cwnmcms: Dist Originals are avail- ■ able from the authors. a & m a v a a a m w a m v m a vm m a y . Feature CommeiRs; Created 1^: P. Way University of Northern Bhmsh Columbia Nhmagcmern fiMUure codes I^ efkchvc 2^ mar^mal 3= needs adeonon not effective 203 Page of Point Sampling Form Station numhcr: Trail Segment C o d e _ ^ _ _ _ D ate__________ Use Level Dist. Trail îMame Snrveyon Lae Type(a): Horse% MIT Hiker?^ Bike% Other *0 I irail M ihsir.itf ( liaiarli ristirs 10 SM \ I \S IX M» 4# SI IA LS TeW to 100% Fh 1) 1' iilisti ale t ih Ics Transect (cm) Interval (cm) Area KJ O 4^ I Id s S’ n Is s Ota): if t K rw ra TX »S«ii t n l a r e TW-TrtWWWm MtCSM#!, WaWm. C#nv"( Tread LS- Laad f araa Stage T O ^ ra a Grade Dkt-WkdOWawe E0T5-«%|M#aro#n E0KS-aa*«edlWlai Tf-TnWiPWt.(V#m(r.v,MWW,;^at,mw,e T A -A li^m eat (Trail" ! LandAmn*! B T - D an iai^ l T rte* 1 S VT.4Fnÿ:tallwT,ae AS-A#peet(Ma:j.W.) EtrfUeradM UaeIjerdî UM/M n fv w r tttâ r v n c Wm f i "U I Adapted fr»m Marion, J.L. by P Way, Univenity of Nonhcm British Columbia ► s &9 s 23Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Campsite Assessm ent Form Crew: Social Trails: Region/P ai'k/location; Tent Pads C.'oiJiifs Date: U nofficial Tent-pads Bear-Poles F ire Rings Steel U nofficial F ire Rings Toilets m Shelters W ater pits Other: N o . Of: Vegetation Transects Tniii 1 Core P O C l- Dist: Dist: Dist. Dist: Dist: Dist: Dist; Inter. Periphery Con Core Inter Periphery Con Dist: Dist: Dist: Dist: Core Liter Periphery V egetation Rock R ock Litter Litter Exposed Soil Roots Roots Other: Other: Iran 3 Dist: Dist: Dist: Dist: Brg: Core Liter Periphery Con 1 run 4 V egetation R ock Litter Litter Exposed Soil Exposed Soil Roots R oots Other: Other, Pinned Damaged Stumps Core Intermediate Periphery Role # Picture # D escription POC: C om m en ts o n reverse 205 Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Scales; 1:1000 = lcni = 10m = ISOmXl 80m Area = 32,400m^ 1:2000 = 1cm = 20m = 360mX360m Area = 129,600m^ 1:3000 = 1cm = 30m = 540mX540m Area = 291,600m^ Campsite Sketch. E ach square 0.5X 0,5 crn 13 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 S 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 IS Comments: Created by P. Way University of Northern BC 206 25Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual Vegetation Inventory Sheet Cre w: Plot: Control Trail Side Date: Ber g .F itz Trail:, Notes: Trail Side Veg. Name ShruhvveP Frey Ht Cvr Frey. Ht Cvr Name Herhs: Soopolallie Alpine Bistort 198 Artie Willow Alpine Bluebells (64) R204 Birch Leaved Alpine butter cup Splrea 151 Black Elder­ Alpine cinquefoil berry 165 Black Goose Alpine Pussy Berry Toes 104 Black Huckle Alpine speedwell Brry 195 (4 2 ) Black Twinberry Arrowed leaved 48 colts foot 114 Bog cranberry Arrow-leaved (85) groundsel Choke cherry Artie Lupine 170 (47) Common Juni­ Blue Columbine per 155 Common Snow- Bracted Louse- berry ( 52 ) wort 190 Cow parsnip Bunch Berry Crowberry 79 Canadian Violet Devils Club Common minter- 178 wort 145 Dwarf Blueberry Dwarf Nagoon 84 Berry 91 False Azalea Elephant head 191 207 Frey Ht Cvr Control Frey Ht C vr Backcountry Recreation Impact Assessment Manual V eg eta tio n ch ec k list Plot: Trail Side Veg. Name Frey Ht Cvr Control Frey. H t Cvr Trail Side Name Trees Sub-Alpine Buttercup Balsam Sub-Alpine daisy 120 Birch Tall Larkspur 154 Black Cottonwood 3 Leaved Foam flower Douglas Fir W estern Spring Beauty Pine White Mtn Avens Spruce Frey Ht Cvr Control Frey Ht Cvr White-marsh Marigold 89 Trembling Aspen Wild Sarsaparilla 214 Grasses: Wood strawberry Bluegrass 249 Yarrow 106 Bluejoint 239 Yellow columbine R162 Fescue (2 4 7 ) Yellow Mtn Avens 89 Rice grass 241 Sedges 254 Horse Tails Moss/ Lichens Moss - - - - Stiff club Moss Common Horse tail Dwarf scouring rush (287 ) Northern Scouring Terrestrial Lichen Rush Ferns Oak Fern Fragile Fern (295 ) Bracken ( 2 9 2 ) Moonwort Lady Fern Spiny Wood Fern Non Veg. Coarse woody Debris Exposed Rock . - - _ Exposed Roots - - - - Exposed Soil - - - - Litter - - - - Notes: ▲ 208 Appendix II Survey Plant List t) a ”c 1 i > Code Common Name Latin Name Family Author o £ 3 'C 1 >> g 1 i 1 X WDY HB X 1 Alpine bearberry Arctostaphylos rubra Ericaceae ac achmil Cottonwood Yarrow Populus balsamifera Achillea millefolium Salicaceae alnus Sitka Alder Alnus crispa ssp. sinuata ameain Saskatoon amerot anamar Round leaved Orchid Pearly Everlasting Compositae (L.) B.&H. X Racemose Pussytoes Anaphalls margarltacea Antennaria racemosa Compositae Hook. X Aqullegla formosa Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Ranunculaceae Ericaceae Fisch. (L.) Spreng X arcuva Red Columbine Kinnickinnick arncd arnco Mountain Arnica Heart Leaved Arnica Arnica latlfolla Arnica cordlfolla Compositae Compositae Bong. Hook. X X X WDY HB HB X artnor Artemisia norvegica A ster spp. Compositae Fries X HB X astsp athyfe Mountain Sagewort Aster sp. X X Lady Fern Athyrlum flllx-femlna HB FR betgla bl Scrub Birch Balsam (sub Alpine Fir) botlu Moonwort Abies laslocarpa Botrychlum lunarla campsp casste Common Harebells Alaskan Mountain Heather oasti chiumb Paint brush Princes Pine Castllleja spp. Chlmaphlla umbellata Scophulariaceae Ericaceae cmosc corca all moss control Bunch Berry cw cystfra W estern Red Cedar Fragile Fern all moss contol Cornus canadensis Thuja pllcata Cystopterls fragllls Cornaceae Cupressacaea antrac aqufor T X Compositae Betulaceae L. Amelanchler alnlfolla Rosaceae Nutt. Amerorchls rotundlfolla Crchidaceae Betula glandulosa X X T WDY T T T c Betulaceae Pinaceae Michx. (Hook.) Nutt. X X (L.) Sw. Campanula spp. Cphioglossaceae Campanulaceae Casslope stellerlana Ericaceae X X * ■Only found in 'T' Trailside or 'C Control ’ 'WDY' woody vegetation 'MB' Herbaceous vegetation 'FR' Ferns 'MLF' Moss Lictien, Fungi 209 WDY X X Compositae X (L.) Bart. X X L. X Donn. X X HB HB X X X HB X HB X WDY WDY X c FR HB X T T WDY HB HB X X MLF HB X C WDY FR £. a. E 3 c i X 11 1 HB X Richards Vahl. X X HB HB X Empetraceae L. X Betulaceae Marsh. X T X X T L. 1 Code Common Name Latin Name Family drablan Draba lanceolata Cruclferae drydrum Lance Fruited Draba Yellow Mountain Avans dryintf W hite Mountain Avens Dryas drummondii Dryas integrifolia Rosaceae Rosaceae empnig Crowberry Empetrum nigrum ep epoan Paper Birch Betula papyrifera equar FIreweed Common Horse tali Epolobium angustifolium Equisetum arvense Equlsetaceae Autlior 1 0 equsci Dwarf Scouring Rush Equisetum scirpoides Equlsetaceae L. X T fd Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Pinaceae (MIrb.) France X c fragvir fungif Wild Strawberry fungi (mushroom) Fragaria virginiana fungi (mushroom) Rosaceae Duch. X gras gymdr Ail grasses Cak Fern AH grasses Gymnocarpium dryopteris Gramlneae hedybor juncom Northern Sweetvetch Common Juniper Hedysarum boreale Juniper communis Legumlnosae iedgrof ieppyr Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum Leather Leaved Saxifrage all terrestrial lichen iichenc ilnbo iiscor loin menfer Dryopterldaceae Cupressacaea Ericaceae Ceder X Leptarrhena pyrolifoiia a ii terestrail lichen Saxifragaceae (D. Don) R. Bl X Twinflower Linnaea borealis Caprlfollaceae L. X Heart Leaved Twayblade Black Twinberry Listera cordata Loinicera involucrata Crchidaceae Caprlfollaceae X X False Azalea Common MItrewort Menziesia ferruginea Ericaceae Morong L. Smith X Saxifragaceae Ericaceae L. (L.) Gray X X Mitteiia nuda Moneses uniflora A ii Moss orthsec Cneslde W inter Green Orthilia secunda parfim Fringed Grass of Pamassus Parnassia fimbriata pedbr Bracted Lousewort ' Chuang, 1975 Pedicularis bracteosa X u X WDY X WDY X HB HB X X HB WDY HB X X X Single Delight All Moss s c X MLF HB L. L. mitnud monuni mosc 0 FR HB WDY WDY T HB MLF WDY X HB WDY WDY T HB HB X MLF Pyrolaceae Saxifragaceae Konlg. X X Scophulariaceae Benth. X ■Only found in 'T' Trailside or 'O' Control ’ 'WDY' woody vegetation 'HB' Herbaceous vegetation 'FR' Ferns 'MLF' Moss Lichen, Fungi 210 HB HB HB X X u 1c Code Common Name Latin Name Family Author Î penflo phygla Shrubby Cinquefoil Pink Mountain Heather Pentaphylloides floribunda Phyllodoce glanduliflora Rosaceae Ericaceae L. (Hook.) Cov. X X pingvul Butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris Lentibulariaceae L. X pi ppalm pruvir Lodgepole Pine Pinus contorta Pinaceae Dougl. Ex Lot X Palmate Coltsfoot Choke Cherry Petasites paimatus Prunis virginiana Compositae Rosaceae (Ait.) Gray L. X X pyrasa pyrchi Pink Flowered Wintergreen Green W inter Green Pyroia asarifoiia Pyroia chiorantha Pyrolaceae Pyrolaceae ranuni rhodo Little Buttercup Ranunculus unicinatus W hite flowered Rhododendrc Rhododendron aibifiorum Ranunculaceae Ericaceae (Ait) WillD. Hook. X X ribhud Ribes hudsonianum Ribes lacustre Grossulariaceae Richards ribluc Northern Black Currant Black Goose Berry Grossulariaceae (Pers.) Poir X X rosaci rubart Prickly Rose Dwarf Nagoon Berry Rosa acicuiaris Rubus articus Rosaceae Rosaceae Lindl. L. X HB rubida rubpa Red Raspberry Thimbleberry Rubus idaeus Rubus parvifiorus Rosaceae Rosaceae L. Nutt. X X WDY WDY salix Willow Spp. Salix spp. Salicaceae saxtri Three Toothed Saxifrage sedge sedum Sedges Lance Leaved Stone Crop Saxifraga tricuspidata Sedges Sedum ianceoiatum Saxifragaceae Cyperaceae senlug shecan Black Tipped Grounsel Senecio iugens Crassulaceae Compositae Wats. Rich. Soopolalie False Solomons Seal Northern Golden Rod Sheperdia canadensis Smiiacina racemosa Elaeagnaceae Liliaceae (L.) Nutt (L.) Desf. X X Birch Leaved Spirea Soiidago muitiradiata Spiraea betulifoiia Compositae Rosaceae Ait. Pall. X X Hybrid spruce Common Dandelion Picea spp. Taraxacum officinale Pinaceae Compositae Weber X X Thaiictrum occidentale Ranunculaceae Gray X smirac solimul spibet sx taraof thalocc W estern meadowrue Chuang, 1975 ■ Only found in T ' Trallside or 'O' Control * 'WDY' woody vegetation 'HB' Herbaceous vegetation 'FR' Ferns 'MLF' Moss Lichen, Fungi 211 0 1 1 1 WDY WDY X HB T WDY HB WDY X X HB X X HB HB X X WDY c WDY WDY X T X * X X X X WDY HB HB HB X X X X WDY X HB X WDY HB HB X X X X WDY X X WDY HB X HB V a. E 3 _c ■D c 1 > Code Common Name Latin Name Family Author tiaresp tripra Foam Flower Tiarella spp. Trifolium pratense Saxifragaceae Legumlnosae L. X trolax Globeflower vaccae Dwarf Blueberry Trollius laxus Vaccinium cespitosum Ranunculaceae Ericaceae Salisb. Michx. Red Clover L. (Hook) 1 X HB WDY X X WDY Vaccinium membranaceum Ericaceae Torr. X Michx. vacoxy vacsco vacvit Bog Cranberry Vaccinium cxycccccs Ericaceae Ericaceae X * Grouse Berry Lingonberry Vaccinium scoparium Vaccinium vitis-idaea Ericaceae Ericaceae Liedberg L. X X valsit Sitka Valerian Valerianaceae Bong. X vibedu violcan violorb Highbrush Cranberry Valeriana sitchensis Viburnum edule (Mich.) Raf. L. Geyer ex Hoo X X X woods zygele W ood Lilly Woodsia Mountain Death Camas Violaceae Liliaceae Woodsia spp. Zygadenus elegans Polypodiaceae Liliaceae Chuang, 1975 " Only found In T ' Trallside or 'O' Control ^ 'WDY' woody vegetation 'HB' Herbaceous vegetation 'FR' Ferns 'MLF' Moss Lichen, Fungi 212 X X Pursh X X Vaccinium myrtillus wood 1 £ X Black Huckle Berry Viola canadensis 1u 1 HB Velvet Leaved Blueberry Viola orbiculata Lilium philadelphicum 1c HB vacmy Canada Violet Round Leaved Violet 3 C Ü X vacmem Caprlfollaceae Violaceae 8 E X c X WDY WDY WDY WDY T X X HB X WDY HB X HB HB c FR HB X