UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ecological assessment of recreation impacts in the Stein watershed : a baseline study Sharpe, Ian 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_7 S48_3.pdf [ 10.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095655.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095655-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095655-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095655-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095655-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095655-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095655-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095655-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095655.ris

Full Text

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF RECREATION IMPACTS IN THE STEIN WATERSHED: A BASELINE STUDY by IAN SHARPE B.Sc. ( S p e c i a l i s t ) , The University of Brandon, Manitoba, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Forestry) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1983 (C) Ian D. Sharpe In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 oate Oct II. TO DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT This study was designed as the baseline data c o l l e c t i o n phase of much longer term recreation impact assessment study i n the Stein River Basin, B r i t i s h Columbia. S i t e , s o i l and vegetation data were gathered at 15 informal campsites situated throughout the 1000 km^ watershed using standard B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Service e c o l o g i c a l inventory methods. 'Experimental' (campsite) and 'control' plot inventories provided the basis for vegetation species composition and abundance (percent cover and stems per hectare) comparisons to determine present impacts. Recommendations for future recreational development i n the va l l e y were made on s i t e - b y - s i t e and e c o l o g i c a l subzone bases derived from impact assessment findings. Future r e p l i c a t i o n s of e c o l o g i c a l inventories of the 15 campsites w i l l enhance planning c a p a b i l i t i e s by allowing further i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of impact prone and re s i s t a n t areas. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i i LIST OF APPENDICES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN WILDERNESS AREAS - A REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES 7 2.1 Impacts on S o i l s 10 2.1.1 Variables A f f e c t i n g Impacts on S o i l s 12 2.1.2 S o i l Impact Measurement Methods 14 2.1.3 Summary of S o i l Impact Measurement Results ... 16 2.2 Impacts on Vegetation 23 2.2.1 P h y s i o l o g i c a l Considerations 23 2.2.2 Vegetation Impact Measurement Methods 24 2.2.3 Summary of Vegetation Impact Measurement Results 29 2.3 Impact Assessments and Recreation Management Alt e r n a t i v e s 33 3.0 STEIN WATERSHED RECREATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 37 3. 1 Study Area Description 37 3.2 Methods of Study 44 3.2.1 Summary 44 3.2.2 Study S i t e Selection 44 3.2.3 Recreation Use 45 i v Page 3.2.4 Site Mapping 46 3.2.5 Inventory Procedures 47 3.2.6 Chronology of Study 50 3.2.7 Data Analysis 52 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 56 4.1 Plant I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 56 4.2 Vegetation Inventories 56 4.3 Tabular Comparisons of Campsite and Control Plot Vegetation Results 73 4.4 Vegetation Vigor Class Ratings 87 4.5 Firewood Scavenging Distances 90 4.6 S o i l Inventory Results 92 4.7 Campsite Limitations Based on S o i l and S i t e Variable Measurements 99 4.7.1 E r o d i b i l i t y 99 4.7.2 S o i l drainage 100 4.7.3 Plant Growth and Surv i v a l 100 4.8 Campsite C a p a b i l i t y Ratings 101 4.9 Previous Campsite Use 109 4.10 Watershed Perspective I l l 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 116 6.0 LITERATURE CITED 122 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 A b i l i t y of the s o i l to r e s i s t erosion 13 2 Impact r a t i n g scale based on evaluation of trampling e f f e c t s on meadows and campsites 27 3 Inventory chronology to obtain spring, summer and f a l l vegetation records at 15 campsites i n the Stein ... 51 4 Sites 1, 5 and 6: Campsite and control releve plot records 57 5 Sites 3 and 4: Campsite and control releve plot records 59 6 Sites 2, 7,8 and 9: Campsite and control releve plot records 61 7 Si t e 15: Campsite and control releve plot records 65 8 Sites 11, 12 and 14: Campsite and control releve plot records 66 9 Sites 10 and 13: Campsite and co n t r o l releve plot records 69 10 Plant associations derived from vegetation inventory plots from Appendix 4 71 11 Impact i n d i c a t i n g plant species: Invading, increasing, decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species as indicated by >50% of multiple occurrences 74 12 Impact i n d i c a t i n g plant species: Invading, increasing, decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species as indicated from single occurrences at s i t e s rated >1 on W i l l a r d and Marr's (1970) Impact Rating Scale 75 13 Vegetation inventory summary with Impact i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s 80 14 Comparison of species impact resistance r e s u l t s from Stein campsites with r e s u l t s of eight other studies .... 86 v i Table Page 15 Plot vigor ratings from species vigor classes f o r spring, summer and f a l l inventories 88 16 Average firewood scavenging distances 91 17 S o i l inventory r e s u l t s : Great groups and parent material o r i g i n s 93 18 Comparison of exposed mineral s o i l area (% of substrate) at control and experimental plots with impact ratings from Table 3 95 19 Campsite l i m i t a t i o n s based on measurements of selected s o i l parameters 97 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of Southwestern corner of B r i t i s h Columbia 5 2 Map of the Stein Watershed: Ecolog i c a l subzones, access points and study s i t e s 39 3 Percent d i s t r i b u t i o n of impact i n d i c a t i n g species: consistent occurrences at more than one s i t e 77 4 Comparison of differences i n bare mineral s o i l between co n t r o l and experimental p l o t s , and impact ratings of W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) 78 5 Campsite l i m i t a t i o n s c h e c k l i s t 102 v i i i LIST OF APPENDICES Page 1. S o i l sampling methods used by previous investigators 130 2. Vegetation inventory methods used by previous investigators 133 2.1 Site d e s c r i p t i o n parameters 134 2.2 Experimental methods 134 2.3 Vegetation c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes 137 2.4 Macroplot sampling techniques 138 2.5 Microplot sampling techniques 139 3. Results derived from previous studies 141 3.1 Trampling r e s i s t a n t plant species i d e n t i f i e d 142 3.2 Trampling susceptible plant species i d e n t i f i e d 143 4. Ecosystem associations present i n the Stein watershed, with campsite inter p r e t a t i o n s based on slope p o s i t i o n 144 5. S o i l s occurring i n the Stein watershed 146 6. Site survey forms 147 6.1 Site d e s c r i p t i o n form 148 6.2 S o i l d e s c r i p t i o n form 150 6.3 Vegetation d e s c r i p t i o n form 152 6.4 Site d e s c r i p t i o n supplement / / l 153 6.5 Site d e s c r i p t i o n supplement #2 154 7. References used i n plant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s 155 8. Plant species l i s t for the Stein Valley Recreation Impact Assessment C o l l e c t i o n (UBC Herbarium) 156 9. F i f t e e n campsite and control plot maps and d e t a i l e d d i r e c t i o n s for l o c a t i n g them 161 10. Ground cover (% of surface substrate) i n the c o n t r o l and experimental plots 190 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Drs. P. Dooling, T. Ballard, M. F e l l e r and P. Murtha, a l l of the UBC Faculty of Forestry, for their advice i n the formulation of this thesis project. The f i e l d assistance of Miss Heather McCoy, Messrs. Jeff Blaire and Fred Thompson was appreciated, as much of the fieldwork was done on extended hiking t r i p s which would have been much more d i f f i c u l t , had I been alone. Further thanks must go to Miss O l i v i a Lee (botany herbarium techni-cian) and Dr. W.B. Schofield (Professor of Botany at UBC) for their help i n some moss i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , and to Dr. K. Klinka, (UBC Forestry) and J. Nichols (B.C. Forest Products, Ltd.) for their advice concerning the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of vegetation and s o i l s . Mr. B. Wong (UBC Forestry computer consultant) provided many hours of his time i n the task of computerizing data f i l e s . Funding was provided by UBC Forestry MacPhee Fellowships, B.C. Government Youth Employment grant and a donation from Mr. Lou MacArthur of Lytton (Spatzam)^ Lumber Co. , Lytton, B.C. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Forest resources management should be based on adequate knowledge of long term e c o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of use. This knowledge i s best obtained through comparison of baseline conditions to those occurring a f t e r s p e c i f i e d amounts and types of use. Recreation impact assessments are the result of a need to regulate damaging changes to vegetation, w i l d -l i f e and s o i l s due to use pressures. Questions regarding the relationships between use l e v e l s and the extent of damages have been the impetus behind the development of a growing body of knowledge, based on f i e l d research. Periodic inven-t o r i e s of vegetation, s o i l and w i l d l i f e provide information about generalized changes i n "land health". Experimental treatment of vegetation to varying use l e v e l s provides the opportunity to i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i v e s u s c e p t i b i l i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t species and community types. Interpretation of these results aids in deciding which areas can best sustain use. Opportunities for recreation use may be perpetuated by planning and management strategies aimed at concentrating use at resistant s i t e s and dispersing i t i n susceptible areas. Site 'hardening' measures provide conveniences to the user, and increase an area's a b i l i t y to absorb use. Construction of sanitary f a c i l i t i e s and manipulation of vegetation and s o i l s may increase the hardiness of s i t e s i d e n t i f i e d as susceptible to damage. Assessments of changes to s o i l and vegetation due to recreation have focussed on wilderness areas managed by Park and Forest Service agencies. The majority of Canadian work i n t h i s f i e l d has been ca r r i e d out i n P r o v i n c i a l and National Parks ( F r i s s e l and Duncan, 1965 -Quetico, Ont.; Root and Knapik, 1972 - Great Divide T r a i l , B.C.; T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973 - Banff, A l t a . ; Landals and Scotter, 1973 -Yoho, B.C.; Lesko and Robinson, 1975 - Banff, A l t a . ; Hoffman et a l . , 1975 - Rushing River, Ont.; Roemer, 1975a - Mt. Robson, B.C.; Roemer, 1975b - Mt. Assiniboine, B.C; Baillargeon, 1975 - Jasper, A l t a . ; Void, 1976 - Yoho, B.C. and Leeson, 1979 - Canadian Rockies). Research e f f o r t s i n the United States and Great B r i t a i n far out-weigh those of Canadian o r i g i n . Reviews of many U.S. studies may be found i n Cole, 1977; Ittner et a l . , 1979; and Stanley et_ a l . , 1979. Accounts of B r i t i s h studies may be found i n Speight, 1973; L i d d l e , 1975; Boorman and F u l l e r , 1977; Crawford, 1977; and B a y f i e l d , 1979. Two major problems concerning the assessment of e c o l o g i c a l impacts of recreation i n wilderness have been i d e n t i f i e d for consideration i n t h i s study. 1. E c o l o g i c a l data must be c o l l e c t e d p r i o r to s i g n i f i c a n t impacts so that changes can be determined by comparison with a baseline, over an extended monitoring period. By e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s baseline on both 'experimental' and i d e n t i c a l 'control' s i t e s , e c o l o g i c a l changes due to natural environmental influences such as tree diseases and c l i m a t i c v a r i a t i o n may be separated from recreation use impacts. Many recreation impact assessments have suffered from a lack of controls and baseline data, representing conditions prior to human influence (Goldsmith et a l . , 1970). 3 2. Accurate use i n t e n s i t y information allows the comparison of varying degrees of impact with known use l e v e l s . If t h i s i s accomplished, then i n t e l l i g e n t decisions concerning the provision of access and recreation opportunities can be made. Those areas shown to possess s o i l s and vegetation s e n s i t i v e to the damaging e f f e c t s of known amounts of use can be 'hardened', i s o l a t e d or subjected to lower l e v e l s of use, while s i t e s more r e s i s t a n t to trampling can be offered for intensive use. Many studies have lacked r e l i a b l e use i n t e n s i t y information, as a re s u l t of non-registration (e.g. Roemer, 1975a; F r i s s e l , 1978), vandalism at r e g i s t r a t i o n stations (Landals and Scotter, 1973), problems with c a l i b r a t i o n of t r a i l t r a f f i c counters (Goldsmith et a l . , 1970; Hartley, 1976) and "after the f a c t " approaches to impact assessment (Goldsmith et a l . , 1970). The present study was designed to overcome the two problems discussed above. It involved using an optimal impact assessment design (Green, 1979) to assess current recreation impacts to vegetation at 15 campsites, d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the Stein Watershed. This assessment was intended as a baseline for an ongoing impact study. Paired campsite and control plot inventories provided the informa-t i o n necessary to compare differences i n vegetative cover and abun-dances, i n order to determine the magnitude of current impacts. S o i l p r o f i l e and s i t e c haracterization variables (slope, elevation, aspect, moisture status, etc.) were also measured and recorded for further use i n comparing subsequent impacts. Vegetation inventories were seasonally r e p l i c a t e d (spring, summer and f a l l ) to i d e n t i f y the best times for sampling at the 15 locations. Replications also made i t possible to determine 'within area' v a r i a t i o n for comparison among s i t e s , and over time. Dr. P.J. Dooling (Parks and Recreation Resources, U.B.C. Forestry) has undertaken a study of r e c r e a t i o n a l use i n the Stein so that impacts over a period of several years may be related to and compared with known use l e v e l s . The Stein Watershed situated i n the Coast Mountains between Lytton and L i l l o o e t Lake, presented a unique opportunity to i n i t i a t e an impact assessment study p r i o r to s i g n i f i c a n t development (Figure 1). The 1000 km^ basin has been subject to low l e v e l s of recreation and i n d u s t r i a l u t i l i z a t i o n up to the present. Some small scale mining has occurred, and h i s t o r i c a l l y , the area has been used f o r hunting, and as a t r a v e l c o r r i d o r by l o c a l natives. More recent l y , wilderness campers have used the v a l l e y . Vehicular access i s l i m i t e d to the watershed's boundaries at present. It has been projected that the Stein w i l l become more popular as a recreation area i n the next few years. The prime reasons for this are logging road construction, thus increasing access, p u b l i c i t y generated from a wilderness t r a v e l guide book for the watershed (Freeman and Thompson, 1979) and the a c t i v i t i e s of the 'Save The Stein C o a l i t i o n ' - a group of clubs and i n d i v i d u a l s wishing to preserve the Stein as wilderness. If accurate use information i s co l l e c t e d i n the ongoing companion study over a period of years (s t r a d d l i n g forest road development and the 5 H Y P S O M E T R I C TINTS T E I N T E S H Y P S O M E T R I Q U E S 13123 Point*! Figure 1: Map of Southwestern comer of B r i t i s h Columbia SCALE 1:1 OOOOOO 6 subsequent increase i n rec r e a t i o n a l use), then there w i l l be opportu-n i t i e s to compare d i f f e r e n t use l e v e l s , and types of uses with impacts. It i s hoped that r e s u l t s from this i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l have value for recreation management and planning i n the Stein, and w i l l also be applicable to the more general problem of modelling multiple-use e f f e c t s on forest ecosystems. This a p p l i c a t i o n should be made possible through the use of standard e c o l o g i c a l inventory and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures used province-wide by the B.C. Forest Service (Walmsley et_ al_., 1980). To date, the S t e i n has been the subject of some s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r e s t . There has been an E c o l o g i c a l Reserve proposal (Pojar, 1977 - unpublished), a T e r r a i n Analysis Report for forest road engineering and construction (Ryder, 1981), research Into the relationships between timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic q u a l i t y of forest trees (Bekker, 1981), two land use studies ( S t e i n Basin Study Committee, 1975 and Thompson and Freeman, 1975), preliminary timber inventories and harvesting plans and a resource f o l i o study for the v a l l e y , to be fini s h e d i n 1983. Ongoing research includes the work of Dooling on wilderness use and users and the continuation of t h i s study on recreation use impacts after an i n t e r v a l of years. Dr. R. Freeman i n the Resource Management program at Simon Fraser University has been developing guidelines for benefit/cost analyses of resource use a l t e r n a t i v e s for the Stein. 7 2.0 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN WILDERNESS AREAS - A REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES The majority of dispersed recreation s t i l l takes place on a r e l a -t i v e l y small f r a c t i o n of the wildland base. R e l a t i v e l y small areas are subject to large amounts of dispersed use, thus being the only areas receiving impacts measureable through current methods. Most of the wildland base i s i n good health, and requires assessment techniques d i f f e r e n t from those used to measure obvious damages at areas of use concentration (Stanley, 1979). Assessment methods have usually been s i t e s p e c i f i c , and related to v i s i b l e changes i n the landscape as a d i r e c t result of trampling. The impacts and study methods discussed here must therefore be interpreted from the viewpoint of managing small units within wilderness, used s p e c i f i c a l l y for recreation on a s i t e by s i t e basis. The following discussion b r i e f l y describes the range of recreation impacts and assessment strategies used with i l l u s t r a t i o n s from p r i o r research, relevant to the current study. Details of s o i l and vegetation resource impact measurements and findings obtained are described i n some d e t a i l i n separate sections, as they ( s o i l and vegetation resources) are the focus of t h i s study. As defined by Green (1979) an optimal impact assessment design i s possible only i f 1) the study i s started p r i o r to impacts, 2) the time and l o c a t i o n of the occurrence of impacts i s known, and 3) there are control areas. Results can then provide the basis for subsequent monitoring to detect future impacts of the same type. If events poten-t i a l l y causing damaging e f f e c t s have already occurred, and there i s a 8 known source, then impacts must be i n f e r r e d from s p a t i a l patterns alone, without the knowledge of what the o r i g i n a l conditions were. In t h i s 'after the f a c t ' case, i t i s often d i f f i c u l t to define adequate control areas. Green (1979) also said that i t must be possible to obtain measure-ments on a l l relevant b i o l o g i c a l and environmental variables i n a s s o c i -a t i o n with the i n d i v i d u a l samples. A multistage impact study approach has been common. A i r photos and topographic maps of varying scales have been used to pinpoint areas of use and access. If the impact monitoring process i s begun p r i o r to establishment of v i s i b l e impacts, intensive study s i t e s can be chosen on the basis of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l for a t t r a c t i n g use. These s i t e s may be associated with established t r a i l s , campfire ring occurrences, scenic views, lake and stream sides or areas of high p o t e n t i a l for s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s such as f i s h i n g and rock climbing. A subjectively delineated variety of ' t y p i c a l ' land units are generally defined as to 'gross uniformity' i n vegetation and topography. After these units have been defined, recreation s i t e s are then sampled and c l a s s i f i e d accordingly. The s i t e groupings serve as a c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n for analyses of results as well as land management units (Hoffman et a l . , 1975). Recreational impacts on w i l d l i f e have taken the form of harassment of wild animals and disturbance or destruction of habitats. As c i t e d i n Ream's (1980) annotated bibliography on the subject, problems concerning r e c r e a t i o n a l impacts on spawning f i s h , waterfowl, raptors, ungulates, 9 bears and other carnivores, and various invertebrates have been studied by over 200 researchers. Her analysis stated that the most important considerations for w i l d l i f e management were the protection of species vulnerable to harassment at key times, such as breeding, nesting, denning, etc. Management al t e r n a t i v e s can take three basic forms: 1. Habitat management ( i . e . modifications such as a l t e r i n g vegetation growth). 2. V i s i t o r management ( i . e . education, use quotas, behavior modification). 3. W i l d l i f e management ( i . e . a l t e r i n g population dynamics). The problem s t i l l to be solved i s that of producing r e l i a b l e indices of w i l d l i f e condition, r e f l e c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l influences. Complications include natural population fluctuations as a result of unmeasured variab l e s , and changes i n s e n s i t i v i t y to impacts caused by factors i n t r i n s i c to the population. A broader problem of considerable importance i s that of determining n u t r i t i o n a l and s p a t i a l requirements of animal populations and the e f f e c t s of human presence on these requirements. Periodic checks of deadwood supplies around campsites can warn of approaching fuelwood shortages. Managers then have the option of imposing use quotas or l i m i t i n g access to allow recovery. Other options may include educational programs to reduce consumption per c a p i t a , or implementation of f i r e use zones, depending on wood supply. Research on firewood production, supply and use has been done by Roemer (1975b), Cole (1977) and D a v i l l a (1979). Additional studies of t h i s nature have been c i t e d i n Cole and Schreiner's (1981) recreation impact research bibliography. Estimating wood scavenging distances at i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s i s an easy way to monitor supply. When these r e s u l t s are compared with d i f f e r e n t s i t e use l e v e l s , c r i t e r i a for optimal placement of other s i t e s maximizing firewood production can be made. 2.1 Impacts on S o i l s The degree of recreation impacts on the s o i l s of a wildland environment depends on four major fa c t o r s . These are t r a f f i c a b i l i t y , s o i l depth, s o i l drainage and e r o d i b i l i t y . T r a f f i c a b i l i t y i s the resistance of s o i l to displacement or compaction. It i s influenced by texture, structure and the s o i l ' s a b i l i t y to r e t a i n and transport water. It can be determined through the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of bulk, density and penetrometer measurements. S o i l depth influences the size of the po t e n t i a l water res e r v o i r available to plants. It i s also an important consideration i n human waste disposal and the movement of associated microbial contaminants i n groundwater. S o i l drainage i s important i n determining erosion rates and also influences the consequences of waste disposal. E r o d i b i l i t y i s the q u a l i t y of s o i l which allows i t to r e s i s t or succumb to displacement by wind, water and gravity (Klock, 1979). T r a i l braiding r e s u l t s from hikers avoiding obstructions created by erosion. These obstructions may include exposed rocks; washboards; roots and mud formed by packstock t r a f f i c . Washboard formation occurs at l e v e l s i t e s prone to seepage from nearby slopes, and associated with lush ground vegetation (Roemer, 1975a). Wind erosion most commonly occurs at bare s i t e s prone to rapid drying (Wagar, 1964). The r e s i l i e n c e of wilderness plant communities under recreation use pressures p a r t l y depends on the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o i l . When vegetation i s under stress from changes In these phy s i c a l charac-t e r i s t i c s , i t becomes more susceptible to damage from diseases and trampling. Moisture stresses a f f e c t root growth following compaction and erosion. Regeneration of vegetation a f t e r damages have occurred i s dependent on bulk density, available moisture and extent of surface erosion (Hoffman et a l . , 1975). S o i l compaction leads to loss of ground cover, reduction i n over-story, lack of tree reproduction, root exposure and replacement of indigenous plant species with hardier 'adventives' such as sedges, rushes and grasses (Hoffman et^ a l . , 1975). Generally, there i s a range i n bulk density, above and below which a decrease i n plant growth and y i e l d occurs (Greacen and Sands, 1980). Compaction study results reviewed by Greacen and Sands were often incon-s i s t e n t . Findings of increasers, decreases and no change i n plant growth with vehicular compaction were equally common. Much compaction damage to forest s o i l s could be avoided by the exclusion of use during wet periods, as s o i l moisture i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n deter-mining degree of compaction i n most s o i l s . In add i t i o n , maintenance of organic matter ( e s p e c i a l l y i n sandy s o i l s ) i s of prime importance i n reducing compaction, and i t s e f f e c t s on plant growth (Greacen and Sands, 1980). The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the above facts for recreation impacts and t h e i r assessment i s that although compaction occurs with foot and vehicl e t r a f f i c , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the degree to which plant growth (understory and trees) w i l l be a f f e c t e d , based on simple s o i l property measurements, with the exception of being able to i d e n t i f y on a gross l e v e l , compaction prone s o i l s , based on s o i l texture. 2.1.1 Variables a f f e c t i n g impacts on s o i l s Erosion rates are influenced by parent material composition, land-form type, slope, vegetation cover, drainage patterns, runoff volumes and recreation patterns (Roemer, 1975a). S o i l physical properties a f f e c t i n g e r o d i b i l i t y include organic matter ( a f f e c t s binding strength), permeability ( a f f e c t s saturation and disaggregation), depth to bedrock or hardpan and coarse fragment content (Table 1). Erosion impacts other than s o i l loss may include mud formation, t r a i l braiding and widening, root and rock exposure and washboard formation. Conditions favoring t h i s include: poor drainage, heavy textured t i l l s with high clay and s i l t content, presence of seepage, high or perched water table, l a t e snowpack, 'U' shaped topographic p r o f i l e , shade conditions provided by vegetation and presence of a thick organic horizon (Roemer, 1975a)(. Several erosion indices described by Bryan (1977) stressed ' p a r t i c l e s i z e ' as determining erosion resistance, and properties i n f l u e n c i n g i n f i l t r a t i o n as determining the amount and frequency of runoff. In most cases concerning h i l l s l o p e development, stated Bryan, the surface i s most commonly not dominated by discrete p a r t i c l e s , but by a coherent s o i l body. In these cases, the s o i l property of most importance i s shear strength. Because of t h i s , i t appears that e r o d i -b i l i t y indices using r e l a t i v e measures of shear strength would be of most use i n recreation impact studies. TABLE 1. A b i l i t y of the s o i l to r e s i s t erosion Factors a f f e c t i n g s o i l e r o d i b i l i t y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s High e r o d i b i l i t y Low e r o d i b i l i t y P r e c i p i t a t i o n pattern infrequent but intense r a i n f a l l Slope gradient and length Vegetative cover I n f i l t r a t i o n capacity Dispersion r e s i s t a n c e ( s t r u c t u r a l s t a b i l i t y ) Texture-structure Organic matter content S o i l moisture l e v e l s o i l on steep slopes (>25%) e s p e c i a l l y moist a i l t y s o i l s , long unvegetated slopes s o i l s under sparse groundcover low percent of s o i l p a r t i c l e s and water-stable aggregates >2 mm diameter low organic matter content wet granular s o i l s , e s p e c i a l l y organic peat or muck s o i l s , high c l a y content low cohesiveness with low organic matter content poor drainage evenly d i s t r i b u t e d non-intense r a i n -f a l l s on granular w e l l drained s o i l s l e v e l t e r r a i n (<15%) short vegetated slopes t h i c k groundcover, and dense root layer high percent of aggregates >2 mm diameter high organic matter content dry w e l l structured s o i l s (columnar, prismatic e t c . ) , high sand content high cohesiveness with high organic matter content well drained s o i l can absorb more water Surface cobble content low cobble content high cobble content From Leonard and Plumley, 1979. 14 Indigenous plant species s u r v i v a l on i n t e n s i v e l y used areas has been correlated with thick LFH and Ah horizons (where present) and/or thick o v e r a l l s o i l p r o f i l e (depth to bedrock). Adventive species introductions to these high use areas have been correlated with t h i n LFH, Ah and o v e r a l l p r o f i l e . This has been explained i n terms of growth form. Hoffman et a l . (1975) stated that adventives t y p i c a l l y have smaller o v e r a l l biomass, and are capable of growth over a l i m i t e d length of season. Smaller plants require less water and nutrient support and can thus survive i n thinner, d r i e r , compacted s o i l s . As erosion removes LFH and Ah horizons, the decreasing s o i l depth r e s t r i c t s p o t e n t i a l root volumes and further reduces the chances for regeneration of indigenous species, A d d i t i o n a l factors a f f e c t i n g the s o i l ' s a b i l i t y to support plant growth under trampling pressure include s o i l texture (coarse textured s o i l s do not have a high enough water holding capacity) and nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y . These factors are i n turn affected by p r e c i p i t a t i o n (high p r e c i p i t a t i o n may cause excessive nutrient leaching), vegetation type (causing differences i n nutrient c y c l i n g dynamics) and s o i l genetic materials (these vary i n nutrient concentrations and chemistry allowing nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y , i . e . cation exchange capacity and pH). 2.1.2 S o i l impact measurement methods Appendix 1 contains a l i s t of s o i l sampling procedures used i n recreation impact and c a p a b i l i t y assessments. Procedures used and variables described include s i t e s e l e c t i o n , digging and examination of s o i l p i t s , measurement of slope gradient, topography, stoniness, s o i l 15 consistence, texture, structure, c o l o r , organic matter content, tree roots present, s o i l parent materials, geologic substrate, s o i l pH, temperature, moisture conditions and s o i l strength. A wide var i e t y of e r o d i b i l i t y indices have been developed, although primarily for a g r i c u l t u r e . The most widely used of these i s the Universal S o i l Loss Equation (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1960) which has been adapted for non-agricultural settings by Wischmeier, Johnson and Cross (1971), M i t c h e l l and Dubenzer (1980) and Sayer (1982), among others. The USLE derives a s o i l volume loss index for land areas (weight per unit area) from the measurement and analysis of factors of ' r a i n f a l l and runoff e r o d i b i l i t y (derived from regional r a i n f a l l patterns by Wischmeier and Smith, 1965), s o i l e r o d i b i l i t y (from a nomograph using s o i l texture percentages, organic matter content, s o i l structure and permeability), slope length and steepness (derived from standardized plot studies, i . e . Wischmeier, 1974 and 1975), cover management (a composite of the e f f e c t s of canopy, mulch and t i l l a g e e f f e c t s ) and erosion control practices such as contouring and terra c i n g (Wischmeier, 1977). Other less complex erosion indices applicable to recreation impact assessments include: 1. Aggregate s t a b i l i t y tests (Bryan, 1977 compared 16 such indices for r e l i a b i l i t y ) . 2. USDA (1969) E r o d i b i l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Guide. 3. Shear Strength and Permeability Index (Morgan, 1979). Ketchledge and Leonard (1970) developed a t r a i l erosion measurement system, which has been widely used, and adapted by others. I t involved the measurement of cross-sectional areas at i n t e r v a l s along a given t r a i l , r e s u l t i n g i n a series of measurements which can be m u l t i p l i e d by t r a i l segment lengths to derive s o i l volume loss information over time. T r a i l width can be noted at s p e c i f i e d intervals to provide information as to o v e r a l l widening and braiding (Helgath, 1975). Information obtained from either of the above sampling procedures can be used to determine c o r r e l a t i o n s with s p e c i f i c s o i l properties such as parent materials, horizon depths and topographic variables such as slope (Leonard and Plumley, 1979), as well as recreation use l e v e l s . 2.1.3 Summary of s o i l impact measurement r e s u l t s 1. Bulk densities and strength c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s When s o i l i s compacted, t o t a l porosity i s reduced as large a i r spaces are reduced i n s i z e . Because of t h i s , water content and f i e l d capacity may increase in coarse textured s o i l s , while i n f i l t r a t i o n rate and hydraulic conductivity decrease. Plant growth may be reduced due to lower water supply and aeration, r e s t r i c t e d root penetration and reduced seed germination (Greacen and Sands, 1980). S o i l carbon dioxide l e v e l s may increase as a r e s u l t of reduced d i f f u s i v i t y , thus lowering pH, (unless i t Is already quite low). As Greacen and Sands (1980) stated, bulk density mirrors compaction, but does not allow the assessment of s o i l strength, which determines compaction resistance. The strength of a s o i l at a given bulk density Is determined by the geometry and 17 mineralogical composition of s o i l grains. Compressive strength can be measured using a penetrometer. As i t i s pressed into the s o i l , the s o i l y i e l d s by shearing, and i s compressed to accommodate the volume of the penetrometer. Leonard and Plumley (1979) found s o i l compaction rates at campsites highest i n the f i r s t two years of heavy use. Bulk densities on t r a i l s and campsites Increased 17-58% and 10-30% respectively at Lake O'Hara (Yoho National Park) a f t e r two years of heavy use (Landals and Scotter, 1973). Legg and Schneider (1977) obtained s i m i l a r results i n t h e i r investigations of impacts on heavily trampled sandy loams i n northern forest types. Bulk density ranges of 1.35 to 1.85 gm/cc ( a i r dried s o i l ) on heavily trampled meadow s i t e s at Rushing River P r o v i n c i a l Park i n Ontario represented a s i g n i f i c a n t increase over controls (Hoffman e_t a l . , 1975). Hoffman et_ a l . (1975) stated that on heavily used s i t e s , average cone penetrometer measurements increased from 64-80 to 128-189 CBR units, a f t e r heavy trampling. Landals and Scotter (1973) found no difference i n compaction le v e l s on d i f f e r e n t textured s o i l s , with the exception of sandy loams, which consistently had less than a 30% increase i n bulk density a f t e r use. They also stated that most of t h e i r exclosure experiments produced a decrease i n bulk density of the s o i l , but t h i s had l i t t l e e f f e c t on vegetation regeneration. Monti and Macintosh (1979) noted that macropores in the size range of 300 to >3,000 m were reduced by up to 60%, while pores >3,000 ym were almost e n t i r e l y eliminated, i n the t h i n compacted surface layer formed from intensive trampling. 18 2. S o l i structure Water-stable aggregate content i s important i n the characterization of erosive processes. Large water-stable aggregates are t y p i c a l l y found i n s o i l s high i n organic matter and clay, and having low bulk densities (Leonard and Plumley, 1979). Also, s o i l s with high base mineral content contain water-stable aggregates because of chemical bonding properties (Morgan, 1979). Bryan (1977) experimented with a number of water-stable aggregate indices i n laboratory erosion tests- He found that the e r o d i b i l i t y of fine textured Albertan s o i l s could be accurately predicted by the measurement of percentage weight of water-stable aggregates >.5 mm diameter (water-stable aggregate weight being measured with a sieve after 20 minutes of wet s i e v i n g at 60 cycles/minute). Bryan stated that frequently, simple water-stable aggregate indices performed as well as or better than more complex multi-variable e r o d i b i l i t y i n d i c e s . Trampling on poorly structured or unstructured (usually saturated) s o i l s promotes mud formation and plant mortality, because of low permeability, water and nutrient holding capacity and erosion resistance of the s o i l . Compaction by trampling destroys s o i l aggregates, thus promoting these conditions. 3. Climate Climatic factors such as temperatures and p r e c i p i t a t i o n i n t e n s i t y , duration, frequency and timing a f f e c t r e c r e a t i o n a l use (Helgath, 1975). Impacts on s o i l s are most severe a f t e r periods of heavy rains and snow-melt (Roemer, 1975a). Topographic factors such as aspect and elevation 19 influence microclimate by causing v a r i a t i o n s i n p r e c i p i t a t i o n runoff and snowmelt, as well as varying the exposure of the s o i l surface to the drying e f f e c t s of sun and wind (Helgath, 1975). 4. S o i l texture S o i l s with high s i l t and fine sand content are most e a s i l y erod-i b l e . Coarse sand p a r t i c l e s r e s i s t transport because of the need of a large displacement force. Clay p a r t i c l e s r e s i s t detachment because of high cohesive strength and greater tendency to form aggregates. Morgan (1979) stated that highly erodible s o i l s t y p i c a l l y contain clay contents ranging from 9 to 30%. He chose clay content as an i n d i c a t i o n of erodi-b i l i t y because of the tendency for i t to combine with organic matter to form water stable aggregates. Both s i l t s and clays are susceptible to trampling compaction and 'pan' formation (Leonard and Plumley, 1979), and are also susceptible to puddling when wet. Upon drying, surface layers are susceptible to sc u f f i n g and erosion ( M a g i l l and Nord, 1965). Leonard and Plumley (1979) categorized moderately coarse loams as most suitable for campsites, and s i l t y c l a y s , c l a y s , sands and organic s o i l s as least suitable. Clay i s generally poorly drained and st i c k y when wet. Sand i s unstable when dry, due to poor s t r u c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . 5. Topography Topographic variables discussed i n s o i l r elated impact assessments include slope, aspect, elevation, landform shape and type. Slope 20 variables are usually assessed i n combination with others such as parent materials, elevation and p r e c i p i t a t i o n (Morgan, 1979). Hoffman et a l . (1975) noted parent materials i n terms of deposi-t i o n a l processes ( t i l l , alluvium, colluvium) as did B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng (1974) ( l a c u s t r i n e , e o l i a n , g l a c i o f l u v i a l and bedrock). Ballard and Otchere-Boateng rated each parent material i n Kluane Park as to erosion r i s k i n su b j e c t i v e l y determined classes of low, medium, high and extremely high. They also included slope classes, s o i l type and presence of permafrost i n t h e i r erosion rating system. The following i s a summary of t h e i r r e s u l t s : Low r i s k - Colluvium on low grade slopes. Morainal t i l l on low grade slopes. Medium - Alluvium (except i n active stream channels). High and Extremely High - Steep colluvium S u r f i c i a l loess Eolian and la c u s t r i n e Hoffman et a l . (1975) reported that two out of three biophysical mapping units had erosion impacts related to degree of slope. Aspect and elevation are i n combination, ind i c a t o r s of microclimate (Helgath, 1975). These two variables are usually incorporated with biophysical mapping units which rely on other factors for c o r r e l a t i o n with impacts, such as vegetation and s o i l types or parent materials. 6. Drainage S o i l drainage i s largely a function of l o c a l topography (Smith and Atkinson, 1975). Other factors influencing drainage include p r e c i p i t a -t i o n pattern, vegetation cover, s o i l bulk density, horizon thicknesses, organic content of mineral s o i l and surface coarse fragment content (Leonard and Plumley, 1979). Smith and Atkinson (1975) att r i b u t e d poor drainage to marked t e x t u r a l and s t r u c t u r a l differences ( i n surface and subsurface horizons), perched water table above heavy or indurated horizons, and seepage s i t e s at slope bottoms. Trampling causes impacts associated with poor drainage by reducing the s o i l volume occupied by large pores, which confer high saturated hydraulic conductivity, and medium pores, which contribute to unsatu-rated hydraulic conductivity. Further, puddling occurs i n the case of f i n e textured s o i l s . 7. Permeability and moisture status I n f i l t r a t i o n capacity i s defined as the maximum sustained rate at which water can move into the s o i l . The lowest capacity horizon i n a s o i l p r o f i l e determines to a large extent the types of impacts which may occur. If a r e l a t i v e l y impermeable horizon e x i s t s close to the s o i l surface, and i s ov e r l a i n by a porous horizon, then mass movement on slopes and mud formation on l e v e l t e r r a i n may occur. If the order of these horizons i s reversed, then the s o i l surface w i l l be drought prone due to rapid runoff. Some inves t i g a t o r s have noted lower i n f i l t r a t i o n rates associated with areas of severe impacts (Lutz, 1945; Roemer, 1975a; and Hoffman e_t a l . , 1975). Root and Knapik (1972) c i t e d four authors who f e l t that of a l l environment variables measured i n impact i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , s o i l moisture and drainage were the most important i n pr e d i c t i n g impact types 22 and i n t e n s i t i e s . Root and Knapik found that areas of bare ground which l o s t moisture most rapidly, and areas characterized by low i n f i l t r a t i o n rates, provided a more x e r i c vegetative habitat, which affected species composition and caused regeneration problems. T r o t t i e r and Scotter (1973) recommended that t r a i l s located on areas of poor drainage (cool, moist v a l l e y bottoms and north facing slopes) i n Banff National Park be closed, and new ones be constructed i n areas of better drainage. Shorter recovery times for trampled dry meadows than for wet meadows have been reported (Strand, 1979). 8. Organic matter As organic matter content increases, a p a r a l l e l increase i n nutrient and water holding capacity occurs. This reduces runoff, by increasing i n f i l t r a t i o n of water into the s o i l (Leonard and Plumley, 1979). It i s apparent from the conclusions of Landals and Scotter (1973) that i n i t i a l heavy r e c r e a t i o n a l use of a t r a i l or campsite removes l i t t e r layers from some or a l l of the mineral s o i l surface. Morgan (1979) stated that i n general, s o i l s with less than two percent organic matter were erodible. 9. Vegetation Vegetation e f f e c t s on s o i l impacts are mainly those of reducing erosion (Leonard and Plumley, 1979) and mud formation (Landals and 23 Scotter, 1973). S o i l surface s c u f f i n g which causes disaggregation of p a r t i c l e s i s less under ground cover than on bare ground. Roots help to bind the s o i l , and decomposing plant material increases cohesive strength of mineral s o i l . Root channels i n the s o i l improve permeabi-l i t y so that puddling i s less l i k e l y . Recolonization of bare ground by hardy adventive plant species can reduce erosion and mud formation. Other vegetation a t t r i b u t e s which influence impacts include rooting habits, which a f f e c t s o i l permeability, foliage configuration which a f f e c t s ground shading, and nutrient l e v e l s i n leaf l i t t e r , a f f e c t i n g regeneration success. 2 . 2 Impacts on Vegetation 2 . 2 . 1 P h y s i o l o g i c a l considerations Direct physical damage to a e r i a l plant parts reduces the amount and functioning of photosynthetic t i s s u e . This causes a decrease i n carbo-hydrate production. In spring, the reduced amount of stored carbohy-drate i s r e f l e c t e d i n reduced shoot growth, p r i o r to replenishment by photosynthesis. The end r e s u l t i s a smaller, l e s s vigorous plant with lower reproductive p o t e n t i a l (Hartley, 1976). Trampling also a f f e c t s uptake and transport of water. Hartley (1976) found that water stress was often greatest i n trampled vegetation on compacted s o i l s . This r e s u l t was not consistent within his study, however. He r a t i o n a l i z e d the inconsistency by st a t i n g that there may be less competition for water on compacted s o i l s , because of lower stocking 24 d e n s i t i e s , and the tendency towards higher water holding capacity, with decreased pore s i z e , i n some s o i l s . Liddle (1975) noted reduced germination and establishment of Festuca rubra on compacted s o i l , and suggested that compacted s o i l may reduce root penetration. However, he also found that t h i s species, once established on compacted s o i l , survived better than other species under drought conditions. He also c i t e d several other grass species as 'increasers' a f t e r l i g h t trampling. It appears from t h i s , that s o i l compaction and reduced water a v a i l a b i l i t y a f f e c t the s u r v i v a l of d i f f e r e n t species under trampling s t r e s s , to varying degrees. It i s also evident that these two variables (water a v a i l a b i l i t y and degree of compaction) act separately, and i n combination. The r e l a t i v e degree of ef f e c t however, i s s t i l l open to question. Many attempts have been made to c l a s s i f y and categorize plants on the basis of trampling resistance. These attempts have followed various taxonomic, morphological, and 'reproductive strategy' guidelines, to i d e n t i f y classes of plant species with s i m i l a r responses to trampling pressure (Wagar, 1964; W i l l a r d and Marr, 1971; Palmer, 1979; Liddle, 1975; Young, 1976; Cole, 1977; Schreiner, 1979; Speight, 1978; and Bay f i e l d , 1979). 2 . 2 . 2 Vegetation impact measurement methods Recreation impact assessments can be categorized into three groups, according to Schreiner (1979). 1. Observations of vegetation change over time ( d e s c r i p t i v e ) . 25 2. Simulated trampling experiments using mechanical devices (experimental). 3. Trampling experiments using known or controlled human d i s t u r -bance (experimental). Studies using 'observation' r e l y on measurement of vegetation changes from both natural causes and recreation. The r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s from these two sources are separated by using paired 'experimental' and 'control' vegetation inventory p l o t s . Both 'trampling" and 'simulated trampling' experiments rely on the measurement of vegetation changes from known l e v e l s of stress. These stress l e v e l s may vary from 'none' to 'severe', with the 'none' category serving as a 'control'. Vegetation inventories are used to determine damages i n n a t u r a l l y occurring plant communities. Different procedures can r e s u l t i n variable amounts of measurement p r e c i s i o n (for i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes) depending on methods, sampling i n t e n s i t i e s and frequencies. Appendix 2 i s a summary of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n para-meters and sampling techniques used i n some recreation impact assessments. The d e r i v a t i o n of suitable indices to predict vegetation resistance to trampling and recovery can be achieved from a number of approaches: primary productivity and biomass community structure population dynamics reproductive strategies timing of growth and development plant species morphology plant physiology (Liddl e , 1975) F r i s s e l (1978) f e l t that measurement units used for comparisons, must be consistent with an operational d e f i n i t i o n of f r a g i l i t y . He stated that three such 'unit types' were commonly used: 1. Relative heights of vegetation between trampled and control p l o t s . 2. Percent cover differences. 3. Oven dried c l i p p i n g weights. Other such measurements which f i t t h i s d e f i n i t i o n include 'species presence and absence' and stem counts. Vegetation data may be c o l l e c t e d and analyzed i n several forms. These forms may be quantitative (nominal, o r d i n a l , i n t e r v a l and r a t i o scales, i n c l u d i n g cover and abundance, species presence/absence and ranking) or q u a l i t a t i v e (vigor ratings, etc.) measures. A l l have advan-tages and disadvantages, although as Green (1979) stated, e c o l o g i c a l l y meaningful information obtained at low 'cost or e f f o r t ' i s the most important point to consider when choosing a variable measurement strategy. Recreation r a t i n g scales are used to simplify monitoring processes. W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) studied e x i s t i n g impacts and subjectively rated them on a 0-5 scale according to damage severity. These ratings were correlated with s o i l and topographic variables to determine r e l a t i v e l e v e l s of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and c a p a b i l i t y for other s i t e s of known character (Table 2). Roemer (1975b) established three c r i t e r i a for ranking physical damages and carrying capacity on campsites and t r a i l s . These were: 1. Permanence of observed damage. TABLE 2. Impact r a t i n g scale based on evaluat ion of trampling effects on meadows and campsites V i s i t o r Impact Degree of Disturbance Scale 0 No disturbance - plant cover 100X. 1 Used, but no apparent changes to vegetat ion or s o i l . 2 Obvious e f f ec t , 85 - 90% of na tura l groundcover present, as determined from comparisons w i t h adjacent undisturbed p l o t s . 3 Plants showing reduced v i t a l i t y due to growth a t t r i t i o n . S o i l exposed and eroding. 25 - 85% of na tura l ground cover present. U Rad ica l a l t e r a t i o n , "A" hor izon exposed on most of the area, and eroding. 5 - 25% of natural ground cover present. 5 Ecosystem destroyed. " B " and " C " horizons exposed by e ros ion . 0 - 5% of na tura l ground cover present. From W i l l a r d and Marr (1970). 2. S o i l damage depth. 3. Degree of obstruction to t r a v e l caused by observed damage. Parent materials and s o i l s were then ranked according to t h e i r capacity for t r a i l and camping use i n Mt. Assiniboine Park, based on actual impacts at d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . Carrying c a p a c i t i e s ranged from very low, on poorly drained t i l l s with gleyed s o i l s to very high on well drained t i l l s with podzols and degraded d y s t r i c Brunisols. The f i n a l r e s u l t was s i x carrying capacity classes including 53 combinations of vegetation, s o i l and parent materials. Tables specifying s u b j e c t i v e l y determined l e v e l s of use l i m i t a t i o n related to s o i l wetness, texture, surface coarse fragments, stoniness, flo o d hazard and slope are widely used for Parks Canada impact assess-ments (Coen et a l . , 1977, for example). Other impact rating scales have been developed and used as follows: 1. T r a i l impact rating scale - T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973, Lake Louise 2. Campsite c a p a b i l i t y scale - Lesko and Robinson, 1975, Egypt Lake 3. Index of vegetation v u l n e r a b i l i t y - L i d d l e , 1975, England 4. Trampling s e n s i t i v i t y index - Hartley, 1976, G l a c i e r Park, Mo. 5. Relative cover index - B a y f i e l d , 1979, Scotland 6. Species, plot community, habitat and t r a i l resistance indices -del Moral, 1979, Si e r r a s , C a l . Impact indices based on simple variable combinations and manipula-tions such as those used by W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) appear to be the best approach for recreation assessments, since r e s u l t s can be e a s i l y 29 and cheaply obtained, and are of most s i g n i f i c a n c e to the user, since they (the r e s u l t s ) represent gross physical changes. 2.2.3 Summary of vegetation impact measurement r e s u l t s A l i s t of plant species and t h e i r associated tolerances to trampling impacts i s contained i n Appendix 3. Results from eight d e s c r i p t i v e studies c a r r i e d out i n mountainous areas of western North America were combined to provide trampling indices of ' r e s i s t a n t ' and 'susceptible'. The ratings shown were derived by the present author from subjective assessments of narrative comments contained within each of the studies reviewed, and included only those species found i n the present study. Generally, a r e l a t i v e l y constant pattern of s i t e changes occurs with i n i t i a l recreation use. Herbaceous vegetation i s trampled, with the degree of injury dependent on variations i n plant moisture content, i n i t i a l vigor and s i z e . Some tree removal for firewood occurs, and rocks are moved for f i r e p l a c e construction. If campsites are subject to horse use, a d d i t i o n a l grazing and trampling e f f e c t s are evident, with manure and exotic seeds deposited along t r a i l s and around camping areas. F r i s s e l (1978) said that t h i s i n i t i a l l y low impact i s r e v e r s i b l e . With continued l i g h t use, s o i l impacts occur. Compaction and erosion e f f e c t s are most noticeable around access t r a i l s , f i r e rings and trees where baring of roots occurs. Ground cover species composition s h i f t s to more durable types. Tree reproduction i s reduced, and with grazing, non-forage plant species become more abundant. These e f f e c t s p e r s i s t as use increases with l i t t l e more damage occurring. One noticeable feature of 30 older campsites i s usually t h e i r size with expansion occurring as camping p a r t i e s choose and clear new tent s i t e s ( F r i s s e l , 1978). In alpine areas, l i g h t random use of meadows may cause l i t t l e damage. If use occurs during the height of the growing season, any damage may be immediately erased by the r e s i l i e n c y of the tundra plants. Use during freeze up periods often leaves no v i s i b l e impression (Willard and Marr, 1970). W i l t i n g and matting of ground vegetation a f t e r two weeks, and elimination of blooming a f t e r eight weeks of heavy use was found i n an alpine area i n the Colorado Rockies (Willard and Marr, 1970). After 12 weeks, plant cover was reduced to 87%, on wet meadows. At t h i s time, a e r i a l portions were badly damaged or dead. Eroded areas of 'cushion plants' increased over a range of from 20 to 75% of the o r i g i n a l surface area, and lichens were t o t a l l y eliminated. Two a d d i t i o n a l seasons of use reduced cover to 33% of the o r i g i n a l amount, and increased damages to a e r i a l plant parts. Areas of newly denuded vegetation were subject to wind d e f l a t i o n , leaving sand and gravel. Young (1976) noted that most damage occurred at newly established I l l i n o i s campsites i n the f i r s t 33 days of use. Few changes i n the number of plant species and amount of bare ground occurred a f t e r t h i s amount of use ( i n midsummer). Generally, t h i s preponderance of damage occurring with i n i t i a l use r e s u l t s i n a lack of c o r r e l a t i o n with use l e v e l s (Cole, 1982). P r i o r to any denudation, l i g h t l y disturbed plant communities can however, be recognized by the dominance of a small number of common species, while undisturbed stable communities possess 31 more species which more equally shared the space available ( F r i s s e l , 1979). Graminoid type species are highly r e s i s t a n t to trampling damage due to good protection of flowers and meristems, and f l e x i b i l i t y i n stems. It has also been shown that rhizomatous species have high trampling resistances (Cole, 1978). T r a i l study r e s u l t s show that most impacts occur i n the f i r s t few meters adjacent to t r a i l s . This zone of disturbance i s dependent on l o c a t i o n and amount of use. On dry meadow paths, reproductive p o t e n t i a l of plants can be retarded within approximately two meters of the t r a i l (Hartley, 1976). Roemer (1975b) f e l t that a period of heightened s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to damage existed i n the spring, when moisture l e v e l s were high, and carbohydrates were being mobilized and transported for growth. Damages associated with increasing controlled trampling l e v e l s may be characterized thus: f i v e tramples per day for a few days causes only temporary v i s i b l e e f f e c t s . Hundreds of tramplings can destroy a f e l l -f i e l d or snowfield ecosystem i n about two weeks, and a turfgrass eco-system i n eight weeks (Willard and Marr, 1971). Small plant s i z e , f l a t growth form, small leaves, f l e x i b l e vegeta-ti v e parts and early germination and flowering are a l l important i n maintaining high trampling resistance. These a t t r i b u t e s , are common to species which tend to invade bare areas subsequent to trampling damage. B r i t t l e plants are both susceptible to breakage and slow to regenerate, thus allowing opportunities for invading species (Cole, 1977). Often, 32 cover and annual biomass production changes occur before e f f e c t s are noted upon casual observation (Hartley, 1976). Several environmental variables are of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n explaining vegetation impact va r i a t i o n s . These include percent slope, aspect and elevation. Others of less s i g n i f i c a n c e include: percent clay (at 1-4 inch depth) and percent of stones greater than 2 mm i n diameter. S o i l pH (at shallow depth), s i t e p o s i t i o n , season long percent of d i r e c t sun-l i g h t and distance from drainage bottom. Survival of vegetation on NE facing (cool) slopes i s usually higher than on SW facing slopes. This trend i s accentuated by slope steepness. Elevation controls average temperature f l u c t u a t i o n s ( i n pa r t ) , and therefore higher elevation species are often more susceptible to trampling damage, because of a decreased growing season and higher instances of stress due to cold s p e l l s during the growing season ( C i e s l i n s k i and Wagar, 1970). Exclosure studies of damaged areas demonstrated that i n general, over a several year period, increases i n number of species, v i t a l i t y and reproduction can occur. W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) demonstrated that a f e l l f i e l d ecosystem could recover almost completely i n two growing seasons, i f subject to only one year's heavy use. But, on the other hand, i f subjected to more than one season of use, then the f e l l f i e l d would require many more years for comparable recovery. Weaver e_t_ a l . 1979) reported s i t e rejuvenations of 100, 65 and 55% f o r grassland, alpine meadow and forest shrub understory, f i v e years a f t e r t r a i l trampling ceased i n recreation areas of the U.S. P a c i f i c Northwest. Turf mat ecosystems are generally r e s i s t a n t to disturbance. How-ever, once this mat i s punctured, erosion removes s o i l , and leaves 33 coarse gravel behind. Af t e r t h i s , secondary succession back to the turf ecosystem would be very slow (Willard and Marr, 1970). Lichens also have slow recovery periods due to slow establishment and growth rates, on bare substrates. 2.3 Impact Assessments and Recreation Management Al t e r n a t i v e s A f t e r impacts (actual or po t e n t i a l ) have been determined, the recreation manager can choose to l i m i t use or to i n i t i a t e procedures to reduce damage i n f r a g i l e areas. Attempts to revegetate trampled ground have met with varying degrees of success depending on choice of species (Schreiner, 1978; Hartley 1977), f e r t i l i z e r and watering treatments (Hoffman et a l . , 1975), s o i l t i l l a g e (Palmer, 1979) and exclosure times (Willard and Marr, 1971, T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973). Site hardening d i r e c t l y changes use capacity, by modifying user behavior, or the s i t e s ' s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to impacts. Behavior can be altered through educational or i n t e r p r e t i v e programs. Recreational users can be instructed on safe waste and sewage disp o s a l , firewood c o l l e c t i o n and use and ethics concerning plant picking and campsite r o t a t i o n . Use can be confined to s p e c i f i e d impact r e s i s t a n t areas with ba r r i e r s ( t r a i l borders e t c . ) , and construction of f a c i l i t i e s such as t o i l e t s , p i c n i c benches and f i r e p l a c e s ( F r i s s e l , 1978; Palmer, 1979). Impact s u s c e p t i b i l i t y may be changed by the addition of less e a s i l y compacted substrate materials such as tree bark mulch, rock stepping, and gravel (Roemer, 1975a). Waterbars, boardwalks, bridges and culverts a l l help to reduce impacts and obstructions to t r a v e l . Overstory t thinning helps to dry out areas susceptible to mud formation (Leonard and Plumley, 1979). Packstock use regulation may a l l e v i a t e severe impacts i n f r a g i l e areas, during wet periods and at overgrazed s i t e s . Possible measures include banning untethered grazing, requiring feed baskets, l i m i t s on animal numbers and r e s t r i c t i o n s on locations of use (Roemer, 1975a; Palmer, 1979). Areas are often protected from overuse i n a passive manner. P u b l i c i t y may not be encouraged to s h i e l d an area's impact s e n s i t i v e a t t r a c t i o n s from over-use ( T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973; F r i s s e l , 1978; Stanley et a l . , 1979). Buffer zones can be established and regulated to ensure that commercial encroachment does not d i s t u r b the wilderness character ( e s t h e t i c or e c o l o g i c a l ) of the areas of concern. Guidebooks often increase use of areas to such an extent as to cause overcrowded conditions and heightened impacts (Ferber," 1978). If t h i s occurs, use regulation which r e q u i r e s . l i t t l e i n the way of manpower and equipment, i s often the best way of avoiding severe impacts. Palmer (1979) l i s t e d a number of factors which af f e c t management decisions to l i m i t use of a given area. They are provided here as a summary of c r i t e r i a to be considered i n deciding which of the various courses of action to follow. 1. season of use 13. area available 2. s o i l 14. size and number of campsites 3. slope 15. number of t r a i l s 4. e r o d i b i l i t y 16. amount of cross-country use 5. b i o t i c s u s c e p t i b i l i t y 17. use c o n f l i c t s 6. f r a g i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l species 18. user behavior 35 7. duration of use 19. regulation enforcement 20. f a c i l i t y provision 21. a c t i v i t y supervision 22. use scheduling 8. types of disturbances 9. a c t i v i t y types 10. party sizes 11. d i r e c t i o n s of t r a v e l 23. access locations 12. r e c o v e r a b i l i t y of species and communities If impact assessments are i n i t i a t e d early i n the recreation use h i s t o r y of an area, vegetation monitoring programs which are easy to carry out on a periodic basis can be devised at l i t t l e cost. I f , however, impacts are measured at an advanced stage without previous use data, less r e l i a b l e damage c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and procedures w i l l r e s u l t . Recommendations must then be directed towards repair of e x i s t i n g damages instead of enhancing opportunities for accommodating higher use l e v e l s with minimum damaging impacts. Goldsmith et a l . (1970) gave a c r i t i q u e of the problems confronting development of v i s i t o r impact research i n parks. They mentioned lack of experimental controls, time lags between use and damage, and the long time i n t e r v a l s required for succession to occur. Recommendations were to choose the proper s p a t i a l scale to meet desired objectives, and use of extended monitoring periods. When discussing the f e a s i b i l i t y of doing impact assessments, they cautioned that there must be enough lead time, so that decisions do not precede r e s u l t s , and that there must be s u f f i c i e n t differences between findings and expectations to j u s t i f y any p o l i c y changes. Even i f r e s u l t s suggest that a l t e r n a t i v e actions or p o l i c i e s are necessary, nothing w i l l be done unless the a l t e r n a t i v e s f a l l within the constraints of p o l i t i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y . In conclusion, 36 they s t a t e d , recommendat ions must be r e a l i s t i c a l l y i m p l e m e n t a b l e , and g e n e r a l i z e a b l e to ex tend to o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s . There i s no q u e s t i o n tha t the f i e l d of r e c r e a t i o n impact assessment i s s t i l l m a t u r i n g . The v a r i a t i o n of methods of measurement and u n c e r -t a i n t y about the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r management, as F o i n et^ a_l. (1977) saw i t , were i n d i c a t o r s of t h i s f a c t . I t i s ray v iew t h a t d e s c r i p t i v e Impact assessment methods are most l i k e l y to produce u seab l e r e s u l t s due to t h e i r s i m p l i c i t y and ease o f u s e . A l s o they w i l l best s e r ve the manager, whose a c t i o n s a re l i m i t e d p o l i t i c a l l y and o p e r a t i o n a l l y to a l e v e l w e l l be low tha t wh ich c o u l d be advoca ted by the i m a g i n a t i v e s c i e n t i s t . The p r e c e d i n g rev iew has s e r v e d to d e f i n e the p resen t s t a t e o f r e c r e a t i o n impact a s s e s s m e n t s , and as a gu ide to f o r m u l a t i n g the c u r r e n t s tudy methods and d e s i g n . A m u l t i s t a g e approach u s i n g a i r p h o t o s , maps, r e c o n n a i s s a n c e and f i e l d s a m p l i n g t r i p s was c h o s e n . A s t a n d a r d i z e d e c o l o g i c a l i n v e n t o r y fo rmat was used at s m a l l , s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n the w i l d e r n e s s a r e a . S u b j e c t s of c o n c e r n i n c l u d e d the use of a s imp l e f i r ewood a v a i l a b i l i t y i n d e x , s o i l e r o d i b i l i t y , c o m p a c t i o n and mud f o r m a t i o n p o t e n t i a l and v e g e t a t i o n s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n and pe r cen t c o v e r . S p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n was p a i d to f i e l d d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s o i l p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s such as h o r i z o n t y p e s , t h i c k n e s s e s and t e x t u r e s , and g r o s s d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t p l a n t s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n s and abundances . An e s t i m a t e of p e r c e n t bare ground was used as an impact i n d e x , to rank the s e v e r i t y of c u r r e n t impac ts a t d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . 37 3. STEIN WATERSHED RECREATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Study Area Description The 1000 km^ Stein basin l i e s between L i l l o o e t Lake and Lytton, i n the L i l l o o e t D i s t r i c t of the Kamloops Forest Region (Figure 1). It has been heralded as the l a s t major unlogged v a l l e y i n the southern part of B r i t i s h Columbia. There are plans however to log much of the middle two t h i r d s of the v a l l e y bottom, and several of i t s t r i b u t a r i e s . Much of the western subalpine and alpine areas of the Stein basin have been (and s t i l l are) subject to mining exploration. Active mining i s minimal ( S i l v e r Queen Mine i n the upper Cottonwood). Current r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the watershed i s r e l a t i v e l y low due p r i n c i p a l l y to the d i f f i c u l t i e s of access and i t s r e l a t i v e obscurity. Freeman and Thompson's (1979) wilderness t r a v e l guide* to the Stein has increased public awareness and r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the v a l l e y i s increasing. One four-wheel-drive mining road ( i n the Cottonwood Creek area) penetrates the Stein watershed for a distance of 11 km. Other than t h i s , access must be gained on foot, horseback or by a i r . Hikers may enter the v a l l e y from v i r t u a l l y any point on the Stein's 'height of This guide contains comprehensive summaries of the v a l l e y ' s history (including the present natural resource a l l o c a t i o n controversy), geology, weather, vegetation, f i s h and w i l d l i f e as well as current access points and descriptions of over 40 wilderness t r i p s ranging from a few hours to several days. 38 land' boundaries. R e l a t i v e l y easy access however, may be gained from L i z z i e Creek and Van Horlick Creek logging roads, the Blowdown Pass logging and mining road and two locations a short distance upriver from the confluence of the Fraser and Stein (Figure 2). Routes branching o ff from these points generally follow water courses or adjacent ridges. E x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l campsites may be found at l i t e r a l l y hundreds of l e v e l streamside l o c a t i o n s . If logging plans are c a r r i e d out, a single hauling road w i l l be extended i n t o the heart of the v a l l e y . This w i l l allow motorized access to most of the Stein's t r i b u t a r i e s and to locations close to the upper lakes and large areas of subalpine and alpine meadows. The S t e i n contains two c l i m a t i c regions. These are the 'Subcon-t i n e n t a l ' i n the western t h i r d , and 'Dry' i n the eastern section. With-i n these there e x i s t four biogeoclimatic zones (Krajina, 1969): Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass (PPBG), I n t e r i o r Douglas-Fir (IDF), Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine F i r (ESSF) and Alpine Tundra (AT), moving from east (dry) to west (Subcontential = wet) and low (warm) to high (cool) elevations (Figure 2). Subzones and zonal associations have been defined for the Dry c l i m a t i c region. Such information for the Subcontinental Region i s s t i l l incomplete ( M i t c h e l l et a l . , 1981). Figure 2 also represents the state of present e c o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s at the subzone l e v e l for the Stein. Appendix 4 i l l u s t r a t e s further c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d i v i s i o n s to the a s s o c i a t i o n l e v e l as defined by M i t c h e l l et a l . (1981). Associ-ations were named according to the above sources, using a standard 10.0 10.1 11.1. 11.0 12.1 12.0 3.0 3 A \ A " A 4.0 2J0 2.1 o r .i 8J0 8.1 7.1 7.0 5.0 6y0 • 1.1 10 A A 15.1 15.0 format recommended by Dr. K. Klinka (1982, Personal Communication^). The Stein River contains seven major species of f i s h . These are pink, coho and Chinook salmon, d o l l y Varden char, steelhead and rainbow trout and Rocky mountain whitefish (Freeman and Thompson, 1979). A 1980 study by the B.C. Department of F i s h and W i l d l i f e (Ministry of the Environment) has documented spawning beds for the anadromous f i s h species over much of the Stein's length. Results will.be incorporated i n a resource f o l i o for the basin. G r i z z l y and black bears range over much of the watershed. It has been suggested by Freeman and Thompson (1979) that the Stein i s subject to immigrations of these two species, as logging and mining d i s t u r b adjacent v a l l e y s . To date, casual observations by hikers in the watershed have also indicated the presence of mule deer, moose, mountain goat, mountain sheep, wolf, elk, coyote, cougar, small mammals such as wolverine, raccoon, marten, weasel, beaver, pika, marmot, porcupine, and numerous species of r a t s , shrews, mice and bats. Over 30 b i r d species have been sighted including blue and spruce grouse, ptarmigan and golden eagle. No attempt at a systematic w i l d l i f e inventory has yet been made i n the Stein (Freeman and Thompson, 1979). Dr. K. Klinka, 1982 personal communication, Associate Professor, Faculty of Forestry, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 41 The Stein River Basin geology has been studied and reported by Glenn Woodsworth i n Freeman and Thompson (1979). The following i s a b r i e f summary. The oldest rock formations i n the Valley are metamorphosed s e d i -ments and basalt volcanics which were part of a 200 m i l l i o n year old ocean f l o o r . Mixed with these are large s l i c e s of extruded serpentinite. B i o t i t e , hornblende and c h l o r i t e , underly most of the basin, some of which has been metamorphosed in t o gneiss and s c h i s t . The lower 3 km of the basin was under s a l t water, for several m i l l i o n years and subject to sedimentation. The Fraser River marks the l o c a t i o n of a f a u l t , along which a northerly movement of the rocks i n the Stein Basin occurred (several hundred kilometers). As of 50 m i l l i o n years ago t h i s movement had stopped. Renewed volcanic a c t i v i t y and g r a n i t i c i n t r u s i o n occurred 16 m i l l i o n years ago. During the cooling phase, f r a c t u r i n g and f a u l t i n g occurred. Most of the creeks and t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y s present today, follow these features. Present topography has been lar g e l y determined by water and ice movement working i n combination with u p l i f t i n g forces. Today, erosion processes continue, with new rock avalanches on steep slopes yearly. Mining p o t e n t i a l i n the Stein i s r e s t r i c t e d to vein deposits of quartz-associated sulphide minerals, as there are no known orebodies i n or near the Stein, with the exception of some low grade porphyry south of Stein Lake, and vesuvianite on Antimony mountain. Ryder (1981) has mapped bedrock geology, landforms and s u r f i c i a l materials and described current slope processes i n her Terrain Condi- tions and Interpretation f or Forest Engineering report. M i t c h e l l et a l . (1981) i d e n t i f i e d the s o i l s e x i s t i n g i n most of the ecosystem associations occurring in the Western part of the Kamloops Forest Region. Appendix 5 l i s t s those s o i l subgroups known to occur i n the Stein. This information was derived from unpublished BCFS Kamloops e c o l o g i c a l inventory data ( M i t c h e l l , 1980) as well as M i t c h e l l et a l . (1981). These s o i l s include Regosols, Luvisols and Brunisols on x e r i c to submesic s i t e s , Humic Gleysols and Organic s o i l s on subhygric to hydric s i t e s and Brunisols or Humo-Ferric Podzols on mesic s i t e s . Podzols are found only i n the wetter Subcontinental C l i m a t i c Region. Most of the landforms of i n t e r e s t i n a recreation impact study of the S t e i n are of f l u v i a l o r i g i n , as those areas subject to use are i n v a r i a b l y at streamsides. Much of the Stein v a l l e y bottom was shaped by floods associated with the current p o s t g l a c i a l period (10,000 years ago). Landforms consist of g l a c i a l and c o l l u v i a l deposits which have been eroded by flowing water, and redeposited as terraces, fans and f l o o d p l a i n s . The texture of these deposits varies from coarse bouldery gravel to sand and s i l t . Gravel i s more common i n the lower S t e i n on fans and terraces. Sand and s i l t occur on low gradient areas of the upper Stein and adjacent t r i b u t a r i e s . Former ponded areas ( l a c u s t r i n e ) and t i l l p lains i n hanging t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y s are also important as r e c r e a t i o n a l areas, because they are l e v e l . Lacustrine deposits are composed of sand and s i l t , while the t i l l consists of a s i l t y - s a n d matrix with up to 30% coarse fragments and large boulders. In many 43 instances ponding i n hanging v a l l e y s resulted from c o l l u v i a l materials blocking the passage of runoff and sediment. Ultimately this has led to i n f i l l i n g with sand and s i l t , leaving poorly drained l e v e l valley f l o o r s (Ryder, 1981). The S t e i n watershed i s subject to dramatic r a i n f a l l and temperature gradients. Moisture laden co a s t a l a i r i s driven by pr e v a i l i n g westerly winds over the Coast Mountains, where i t loses much of i t s moisture as r a i n or snow. R e l a t i v e l y dry a i r then descends onto the Int e r i o r Plateau. While descending, the a i r masses are warmed, without further moisture l o s s . An excess of evaporation over p r e c i p i t a t i o n coupled with i n i t i a l l y low p r e c i p i t a t i o n , creates a semi-arid climate i n the PPBG zone. Krajina (1969) l i s t e d c l i m a t i c data f o r the AT, ESSF, IDF and PPBG zones. The above order follows gradients of high to low elevation and western to eastern locations i n the Stein. Features shown to increase along these concurrent gradients include mean and maximum temperatures and f r o s t free days. Features that decrease Include minimum temperatures, and annual r a i n and snowfall. A l l four zones follow the same seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r e c i p i t a t i o n : wet winter, dry summer. Climatic information may be derived from permanent weather stations In the v i c i n i t y of the S t e i n . These are: Lytton: 50' 14" N, 121' 34" W l a t i t u d e , 177 m L i l l o o e t : 50' 41" N, 121* 56" W l a t i t u d e , 228 m Ashcroft: 50* 42" N, 121' 19" W l a t i t u d e , 492 m Duffey Lake: under construction. 44 3.2 Methods of Study 3.2.1 Summary Fi f t e e n areas i n the St e i n watershed were subjectively determined as being of high present or p o t e n t i a l recreation use. Ground inven-t o r i e s of paired 'experimental' (campsites) and 'control' plots followed. I n i t i a l spring f i e l d t r i p s included permanent plot e s t a b l i s h -ment and descriptions of s o i l physical properties, plant species and percent cover, and s i t e variables such as slope p o s i t i o n and gradient, e c o l o g i c a l moisture regime and l o c a l topography. In add i t i o n , r e l a t i v e measures of s o i l compaction and e r o d i b i l i t y were determined using a s o i l penetrometer and i n f i l t r a t i o n rate t e s t s . Additional inventories i n summer and f a l l were carried out at 14 of the s i t e s to determine optimum inventory times based on phenology (for r e l i a b l e plant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ) , and "within area" v a r i a t i o n s i n plant cover estimates. Evidence of impacts such as bare ground, tree cutting and presence of garbage were noted. Biogeoclimatic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n units were i d e n t i f i e d using M i t c h e l l et a l . (1981). Plant species were then compared i n tabular form to determine present l e v e l s of impacts to vegetation. A l l data c o l l e c t e d were then stored on computer tape for comparisons with future inventories. 3.2.2 Study s i t e s e l e c t i o n Recreation a t t r a c t i o n areas were subjectively determined through interviews with the authors of Exploring the Stein River Valley (Freeman and Thompson, 1979). They were interviewed separately, and asked to choose 10 areas of high present and/or future use and rec r e a t i o n a l value 45 (scenic, f i s h i n g , mountaineering etc.)- From t h i s l i s t , 15 campsites were chosen to represent the range of e c o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y i n the St e i n Basin, at the Biogeoclimatic Zone l e v e l (Krajina, 1969), and a range of current impacts. Figure 2 contains a l i s t of campsites chosen, t h e i r associated e c o l o g i c a l zone c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and access descriptions. Plots were paired so that f o r each campsite (experimental p l o t ) , there existed a 'control' plot nearly i d e n t i c a l i n topography, climate, s o i l , vegetation and environmental influences such as plant diseases. The only difference being that the experimental plot was to be used for re c r e a t i o n a l purposes only (past and/or future) while the control plot was to be subject to no human disturbance of any kind. These require-ments were subj e c t i v e l y judged at each s i t e . 3.2.3 Recreation use Past s i t e use determinations were made subjectively i n consultation with R. Freeman and D. Thompson (1980, Personal Communication^), and v i s u a l inspection on s i t e ( f i r e rings, evidence of tree c u t t i n g , presence of garbage). Sites were simply rated as 'no previous use', 'some' and 'much' use. As stated previously, Dr. P.J. Dooling has i n i t i a t e d a study, so that comparisons based on access point r e g i s t r a -tions and t r a i l t r a f f i c counts may be made over a period of years. This 'R. Freeman and D. Thompson, 1980 personal communication. Authors of Exploring the Stein River Valley, 1979. Douglas and Maclntyre, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 46 w i l l be done i n conjunction with further e c o l o g i c a l inventories of the permanently located study s i t e s , from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 3.2.4 Site mapping Campsites were approximately located using: 1. Hiking t r a i l descriptions i n Freeman and Thompson (1979) 2. 1:50,000 scale NTS map sheet Mercator coordinates (estimated l o c a t i o n to w i t h i n +100 m). 3. 1:28,000 scale B.C. government black and white a i r photos (locations pinholed to within approximately 100 m). T r a i l d e s c r i p t i o n pages, photo s e r i e s , map sheet numbers and mercator grid coordinates were l i s t e d for each s i t e chosen, along with 1:50,000 and enlarged 1:5,000 scale maps showing exact s i t e locations i n Appendix 9. The 1:5,000 scale maps were supplemented by d e t a i l e d "experimental" and " c o n t r o l " inventory plot l o c a t i o n descriptions using the following format: Campsite Number: 1. Control landmark: A permanent topographic feature adjacent to the s i t e on which to base further l o c a t i o n procedures with compass bearings and tape measured distances. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake: A 25 cm r o l l e d s t e e l rod embedded i n the substrate at the f i r s t desired plot corner outside the perimeter of an e x i s t i n g 47 campsite, or at the location chosen as the s t a r t of the f i r s t c o ntrol plot boundary l i n e . Each primary t i e - i n stake p o s i t i o n was described as 'X* meters i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the 'control landmark' (as i n '1' above). 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake: As i n '2' above, with the stake p o s i t i o n (plot corner) described as 'X' meters i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the 'primary t i e - i n stake' or 'control landmark', depending on convenience. 4. & 5. Remaining two rectangular plot corners: As i n '2' and '3' above, with the corner locations described as 'X' meters i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the 'primary t i e - i n ' or 'secondary t i e - i n ' stake, depending on the side defined. Plot sizes v a r i e d , depending on campsite s i z e , and v a r i a b i l i t y of vegetation. Future campsite expansion was considered, and included within inventory plots and boundaries were chosen so that the range of l o c a l l y occurring plant species were sampled. Actual plot sizes ranged from 270 to 1860 m^- depending on the above c r i t e r i a . 3.2.5 Inventory procedures S o i l , vegetation and s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n variables measured were chosen from among those c i t e d and marked with an a s t e r i s k (*) i n Appendices 1 and 2. Procedures used for t h e i r measurement followed Describing Ecosystems i n the F i e l d (Walmsley et_ a l . , 1980) and Describing S o i l s i n the F i e l d (Dumanski, 1978). A copy of the f i v e page s i t e survey form used has been included i n Appendix 5. 48 S o i l inventory p i t s were dug adjacent to each campsite, to charac-t e r i z e s o i l horizon types, thicknesses, textures, stoniness, presence of roots and mottles, depth of rooting and depth to seasonal water table. Control plots were located w i t h i n several hundred meters on s i m i l a r s o i l s . S i m i l a r i t i e s were determined by digging shallow p i t s (25 cm deep) at control plots to match surface horizons with those from the p i t at the campsite. Humus forms were i n f e r r e d from the presence and com-po s i t i o n of LFH and A horizons. A l l s o i l p i t s were photographed for future reference, and as an aid to determining s o i l subgroups. Plant species found on inventory plots were c o l l e c t e d for i d e n t i f i -cation using manuals and procedures l i s t e d i n Appendix 7. Estimates of percent cover of each species occurring i n one or more of the 10 f o r e s t canopy layers present (Veteran, A^, A 2 , A 3 , and seedling trees, t a l l and low shrubs, grasses, herbs, mosses and lichens) were recorded. Stem counts were also made for each tree species and canopy layer, during one of the inventories. A tree of average height was subje c t i v e l y selected from each canopy layer for height measurement with a clinometer and tape measure. Species vigor ratings were made according to the following scale: 0 = dead (or senescent i n the case of grasses) 1 = poor vigor 2 = moderate 3 = good 4 = reproducing ( i n flower or f r u i t i n g ) . Forty-seven of the 54 s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n parameters l i s t e d i n Walmsley et_ a l . (1980) (numbers 13, 15, 28, 29, 44, 45 and 46 were not used) were 49 assessed and recorded for each campsite for use i n future comparative studies. Deviations i n these parameters at paired control plots were noted. A 'proving r i n g ' cone penetrometer (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978) was used to assess s o i l shear resistance i n the 0-25 cm depth range at campsites and co n t r o l p l o t s . Penetrometer readings ( C a l i f o r n i a Bearing Ratio units) were derived for each p l o t , by averaging sets of 10 penetration tests at several locations over the area of each p l o t . I n f i l t r a t i o n rate determinations were made on campsite p l o t s . The method used was modified from that described by Helgath (1975). A 'spade width' 25 cm deep p i t was excavated and f i l l e d with water. The p i t was then r e f i l l e d twice more over the space of an hour. Af t e r a further period of two hours, the p i t was again r e f i l l e d . At t h i s time, a r u l e r was inserted into the p i t , and the i n f i l t r a t i o n rate measured. Values derived were expressed as cm/hour. In addition to the parameters l i s t e d above, information concerning the following variables was also c o l l e c t e d : evidence of erosion t r a i l d i f f i c u l t y presence of seepage water distance to water landslide hazard l o c a l r e c r e a t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n s access type ( e x - t r a i l or overland) evidence of human waste evidence of tree damage constructed f a c i l i t i e s stage of plant development evidence of w i l d l i f e D e t a i l s of procedures followed and u n i t s used have been provided i n Appendix 6. Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y was assessed by determining average scaveng-ing distances for one night's supply of firewood (two people). In addi-t i o n to t h i s , notes were made on the kind and d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o t e n t i a l firewood w i t h i n 200 m of each campsite. Photo stations were chosen for each pl o t . They were located on one of the plot boundaries at the highest l e v e l of ground, or on top of a boulder or stump, to obtain a maximum v i s i b l e plot area i n photographs. From three to f i v e photographs were taken i n panoramic sequence, to record current vegetation conditions. Two Pentax K-series 35 mm cameras, one equipped with normal color, (Fujichrome) the other with f a l s e color i n f r a r e d f i l m (Kodak IE 135 Ektachrome) were used. Each camera was equipped with a 50 mm lens. The camera with i n f r a r e d f i l m was also equipped with a Wratten 12 color compensating f i l t e r . Slide photos were used for references when checking the subj e c t i v e l y deter-mined 'percent cover by species' and 'species vigor' r a t i n g s , and may be used i n future to i l l u s t r a t e v i s u a l changes. 3.2.6 Chronology of study An i n i t i a l s i t e reconnaissance i n June 1980 preceded the f i r s t set of plot inventories. Hiking t r i p s to groups of campsite plots were scheduled throughout the summer f i e l d season. T r i p durations were from 3 to 10 days, depending on the access t r a i l s used and number of s i t e s inventoried. Since the Stein contains such wide c l i m a t i c d i v e r s i t y , a strategy was established to sample each s i t e i n spring, summer and f a l l to account for va r i a t i o n s i n plant growth and development (Table 3). Two summer f i e l d seasons were required to complete the seasonal 51 TABLE 3. Inventory Chronology to obtain spring, summer and f a l l v egetation records at 15 campsites i n the Stein Subzones and access S i t e points from Figure 3 numbers Months inventoried Season occurring PPBG-d (access A) IDFC IDFd IDFe (access B) 5,6 7, 8 > 9,2,3,4 ) June '80 Sept. '80 May »81 J u l y *80 Sept '80 May-June '81 summer f a l l spring summer f a l l spring ESSFf (access E) 15 Sept. •80 (1) (2) f a l l spring summer ATb ESSFpf (access E) ESSFpf (access D) 13 14 11. 12 mid-Aug. * 80 ea r l y Sept.'81 (3) Aug. '80 J u l y '81 (4) summer f a l l spring summer spring f a l l ATb (access C) 10 e a r l y Aug. Jul y '80 '81 (5) summer spring f a l l 1 J u l y '81 2 August '80 3 e a r l y August '81 4 l a t e August '81 5 mid August '81 Aborted due to bad weather r e p l i c a t e s of the 15 plot p a i r s . As noted i n Table 3, f i v e of the seasonal inventories were not completed. Future sets of seasonal plot inventory r e p l i c a t e s could e a s i l y be carried out i n a single f i e l d season, owing to the fact that only vegetation and some s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n parameters would need to be measured. 3.2.7. Data analysis Information derived from plot inventories was archived i n three ways, to ensure easy re-use: 1. A l l understory plant species encountered were i d e n t i f i e d using appropriate references (Appendix 7), and stored i n the UBC Botany Herbarium (Appendix 8). A l l samples and pertinent l o c a t i o n data have been made available for future use. 2. Site l o c a t i o n maps and de t a i l e d boundary descriptions have been included i n t h i s report (Appendix 9). 3. A l l s i t e descriptions and vegetation and s o i l inventory data were coded i n free format and entered on computer tape using UBC computing f a c i l i t i e s . In addition to data archiving as a baseline for future use i n a long term impact study, some analyses were carried out: 1. Tabular comparisons of species composition and percent cover between control and experimental plot records were made to assess current impacts to vegetation. By noting differences i n these two para-meters, several species and plot a t t r i b u t e s were i n f e r r e d : (a) species removed e n t i r e l y by trampling 53 (b) decreasing species - those which reduce i n cover with trampling (c) species showing no change as a r e s u l t of trampling (d) increasing species - those which thrive with trampling (e) adventive species - those which e s t a b l i s h and grow at trampled s i t e s . A l l s i t e s were ranked according to the occurrences of the above species categories. Total o v e r a l l impacts to vegetation were i n f e r r e d using the impact rating scale of W i l l a r d and Marr (1970). Major stand influences such as p e r i o d i c f i r e s and flooding, presence of seepage water or tree disease, elevation and microtopography, were related to species composition and abundance to demonstrate that natural successional changes can and do occur at the range of s i t e s surveyed. In addition to t h i s , gross v i s i b l e human disturbances such as tree cutting and presence of l i t t e r were tabled for future reference. 2. Vigor ratings were subjectively estimated for each species at a given plot during each seasonal inventory. Comparisons of species vigor r a t i n g t o t a l s were made to determine which seasons were best for vegeta-t i o n inventories. Tables were generated showing t o t a l number of species per plot for each season, as well as the frequency of occurrence of each subjective vigor c l a s s . From t h i s , an aggregate value for classes '3' and '4', expressed as a percentage of the t o t a l number of species for each p l o t , was determined. Mean percent values for plot p a i r s (control and experimental) were then compared for each season to determine which seasons would provide the best time for inventory, based on the ease of 54 species i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Species with vigor classes 3 and 4 (p. 48) were easiest to i d e n t i f y on s i t e , and from pressed and dried specimens. 3. Firewood scavenging distances necessary to obtain one night's supply of firewood f o r two people were ranked for each s i t e , to make recommendations concerning campfire use. Only deadfall and dead standing wood was considered. 4. S o i l Great Groups were i d e n t i f i e d for each s i t e using s o i l p i t information and data supplied by W.R. M i t c h e l l (1980) and J.S. Nichols (1982, Personal Communication^). 5. Comparisons of differences i n the composition of ground cover (exposed mineral s o i l , stones, decaying wood, organic matter and standing water) at control and experimental plots were made to rank the sever i t y of present impacts at the 15 s i t e s . The impact r a t i n g scale from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) (Table 2) was also used. 6. S o i l e r o d i b i l i t y l i m i t a t i o n s were assessed according to texture ( f i e l d determined) and percent cover of coarse fragments- These l i m i t a -tions were discussed i n r e l a t i o n to current and future impacts. Limitations for camping use based on measurements of i n f i l t r a t i o n rates, drainage and s o i l depths ( e f f e c t i v e rooting depth, depth to water table and LFH and Ah horizon thicknesses) were i d e n t i f i e d with the aid of the l i t e r a t u r e review. J.S. Nichols, 1982 personal communication, S o i l S c i e n t i s t , B.C. Forest Products. 55 7. Each of the 15 study s i t e s was given an o v e r a l l campsite c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g based on 21 environmental factors described by Walker (1978). A c h e c k l i s t describing l i m i t a t i o n s posed by these factors was used, to produce an overview of p o t e n t i a l impacts. The inventory format used ( i . e . percent cover values and stems/ha) w i l l allow computer analyses to discover v a r i a t i o n s related to recreation use. This should be done following a d d i t i o n a l inventories.^ Future inventory information can also be input into a s t a t i s t i c a l computer package (SPSS: Nie et_ a l . , 1975) for analysis of variance (ANOVAR). This procedure would use the factors of s i t e number and control l e v e l (1 = campsite, 2 = control p l o t ) with plant species abundances (percent cover or stems/ha) to perform an areas-by-times f a c t o r i a l "control f - t e s t " . This would require an arc (inverse) sine transformation of percent cover values p r i o r to input into the SPSS program. Impacts would be i n f e r r e d from s i g n i f i c a n t areas-by-times in t e r a c t i o n s as determined from f - p r o b a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s (a large value s i g n i f i e s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ) . 5 6 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Plant I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s I d e n t i f i e d samples have been placed i n the UBC Botany Herbarium, where they w i l l be v e r i f i e d , stored and archived i n the herbarium computer database. Several lichen i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s were also made only to genus l e v e l , as further i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s required chemical t e s t i n g . 4.2 Vegetation Inventories Campsite and control plot inventory r e s u l t s are contained i n Tables 4 through 9. They have been grouped according to plant species composi-tio n s i m i l a r i t i e s and t h e i r proximity to each other. These groupings were su b j e c t i v e l y compared with zonal ecosystem association species l i s t s from M i t c h e l l et_ a l . (1981), and have been assigned a s s o c i a t i o n names based on these l i s t s (Appendix 4). Nomenclature followed the advice of Klinka (1982, Personal Communication) (Table 10). The c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n was derived from an e n t i r e l y subjective viewpoint-In the case of the Chimaphila (umbellata) - Paxistima myrsinites -PC (Pinus contorta var l a t i f o l i a ) - PM (Pseudotsuga menziesii var glauca) a s s o c i a t i o n i n the IDFd subzone (s i t e s 2, 7, 8, 9), Chimaphila was substituted for Calamagrostis rubescens, due to a s c a r c i t y of the l a t t e r . It Is quite possible that Calamagrostis was present on some or a l l of the s i t e s i n this association, since several grass species were found in poor condition f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (senescent) and indeed were never keyed out due to a lack of reproductive parts-57 TABLE 4. S i t e s 1, 5 and 6: Campsite and c o n t r o l releve' p l o t r e c o r d s S p e c i e s L i s t Canopy l a y e r 5.0 5-6.1 P l o t Numbers 6.0 1.0 1.1 TRFF.S 1 PiniU pondfio&a. Pieudot&uga minzJ-Uti v a r g&uica B&tula papyU&tiui AceA glabum var daugtcuiU AtnuA incana Thuja pticata AmztanclUlA attu^olia A/ictoitaphytoi uva-uiii. Hahotvia spp. [icpcni and aquiiotium) PaxAJ>tJjna myruirUXu Rota mitkana ShzphzAdia canadzntiA Vacc4.ni.am spp. {caupiXoiW & ovati&otium} Czancthut tangivinzub PKUadzLphuA letoliU. Plunui spp. [viAginiarvx & emaiginata) Czanothixt vziatimu CoiyluA aveJUana HclocU&cui (UACOIOK LoniceM utahzn&li Ribzt CM cum Salix sp. SymphoUcaJipoi atbai AchWLza. mitlz^olMm AttzA cltiotatiu FfiagaAAM viAginiana v a r gZauca. Alabii ImmoniA. Pzmtzmon &Mi.ticciiLi var tcoutzJu. SpiAza sp. ApocUnum andActazml^oLUm lligeAon sp. l e w f i u n t diiH-Mun v a r muLt-i^idum AglctZJU-t sp. Cupii atmbaAba HzuchzAa ctjLLndru.ca Phacztia LinzatUi Sztaginztta uxUCacc.i S o i e c . o sp. LnXogcnum sp. Hiziac-ium icoatvU Vicia amzAicana Oithet-in sp. 0>UhucaApu& sp. Putygorum sp. Ruj*e* aczto&zlla fzltima paAvHtoiA Wcodlia sp. 2 1 .2 2 .2 2 .2 1 .3 3 5 .2 5 .1 1 .1 4 5 .3 1 .3 1 .1 5 5 .3 1 .3 15 .3 9 .4 2 2 .2 4 .2 1 .0 3 6 .2 13 .2 2 .2 2 .1 4 19 .4 1 .2 4 .3 13 .2 5 10 .3 9 .2 56 .3 19 .3 4 2 .3 2 .3 4 1 .3 5 1 .3 4 1 .1 6 14,2,5.3,2,2 3,+,+.2,2,2 2,2,2 •2,2,2 4,5,9.2,2,2 6 4,4,5.3,3,3 2,2,2.3,3,3 3,3,4 .2,2,4 10,10,10.4,4,3 6 1,+,+.3,2.2 3,3,3.3,3,3 2,+.+ .3,2,2 +,+,+.3,4,3 6 +,+,+.3,2,2 2,2,2.4,4,3 6 +,+,+.3,2,2 +,+,3.3,3,3 3,+,+.3,2,2 6 l,+,-.2,3,- 1, + ,-•2,3,-6 +,+,-.3,3,- 3,3,3 .3,3,2 1,4,-.2,3,3 6 1,-.— .4,-,- 1,1,1.4,3,3 6 +,+,+.4,2,2 1,1,1 •4,2,2 6 +,1,1-3,4,3 4,1,1 .3,3,3 6 2,+,+.2,3,2 6 6 +,+,+.3,3,3 6 +,+,+.3,3,2 6 -.+ ,-6 +,-,-.3,-,-6 +,+,+.3,3,2 +,+,+.3,3,3 + , + ,+ •3,4,3 1,1,1.4,4,2 +,+,-.3,3,- 1,+ ,+ •3,2,2 1,+.+.4,3.2 +,-,-.3,-,- +,+,-.4,3,- + , + ,+ •4,3,2 +,+,+.4,3,2 +,-,-.3,-,- +,-,-.3,-,- 1,1,+.4,4,2 +,+,-.3,2,- +,-,-.3,-,- 1,-,- •4,-,-6,6,5.4,3,3 + .-,-•3,-,- 1,2,+.3,3,3 -,+,-.-,3,- + , + ,+ •2,2,2 -,+,-.-,3,--,+•+•-,3,3 -,-,+ •-,-,3 +,+,+.3,3,3 + ,+ ,+ .3,2,2 +,-,+.3,2,2 +,-,-.3,-,-+,+,-.3,3,- -,+ ,-•-,2,-+ ,+ ,+ •4,3,3 -,+,-.-,3,- -,+,-.-,3,--,5,-.-,2,- + ,+,+ .3,3,3 1,1,1.3, -,+,+.-,4,4 3 1 2 8 2 9 8 49 1 3 .1 . 1 .4 .3 .2 .3 .4 .3 .3 .3 10,6,5.3,4,2 15,15,15.3,4, +,+,+.4,4,2 1,1,1.4,4,4 +,+,+•3, +,2,2.3, +,+,+.4, -,+,+.-, -,+,-.-, 1,1,2.3, 2,+,+.3, +.-,-•3, +,-,-•2, 4,2 3,2 4,2 3,2 4,-3,3 3,2 2,+,+.3,3,2 +,-,-.3,-, +.-,-•3,-, f.RASSFS, RUSHES, SFDCF.S Pva Atznnntha PhalanJi s p . Pea fazndCcAiana Stipa s p . Agtlupitncn ipicatum Cinna (atX^ofja Slomui sp. Dan t ho ilia canr.de.niii festuca sp. • 3.2 ,!.+ .-.1.3 ,+,+.-3,3 -,+ + ,-3,--,3 3. -4. -,3,-3.-.-.4,-,-+,+,+.3,4,1 3,-,-.4,-.-+,+,-.3,3,--.5.5.-.1,1 58 TABLE A (cont'd) Species L i s t Canopy layer 5.0 MOSSES CeAatodon puApuAza Poly&u.chm commune HomalothzcMm plnYuutx^ixLijum Polytxichum piti^Vum LICHENS Plot Numbers 5-6.1 6.0 Ai.ict.ofua sp. 10 Cladonia ma.te.octja.tha 10 Cladonia ptennota 10 Cladonia sp. 1 10 Cladonia sp. 3 10 Ne.plifi.oma he.lvcticum 10 PefZiaVia. canina 10 CeXtoAitL sp. 3 10 Cladonia sp.4 10 Cladonia. cuAtatztla 10 Cladonia sp. 5 10 Cladonia sp. 8 10 lucanona sp. 10 PanmeXXa. sp. 10 +,+,-.3,3,-+,+,-.3,3,-+,+,+.3,3,3 +,+,-.3,3, +,+,-.3,3, -.3,3, +,+,-.3,3,-+ ,+,+.3,3,3 +,+,-.3,3,-+,+,-.3,3,-+i+,-.3,3,-+,+,-.3,3,-•3,-+,-,-.3,-,-+,+,-.3,3,-+,+,-.3,3,-+,+,+.3,3,3 +,+,-.3,3,-+,+,-.3,3,--,+,-.-,3,--,+,-.-.3,-+,+,-.3,3,-+,-,-.3,-,-1.0 1.1 +.5,5.3,2,2 15,10,-.3,3,-+ + + 3,3,3 3,0,5 4,4,4 + + 3,3,- + , + ,-3,3,-+ + + 3,3,3 + ,+,+ 3,3,3 + + + 3,3,3 + , + ,+ 3,3,3 - + + . -.3,3 Tree records are l i s t e d in canopy layers (1-5). 1 = veteran -2 = Dominant (A^) Tree, record format follows "a.b" where 3 = Subdominant (A 2) 4 = Suppressed (A ) 5 = Seedlings a = number of stems/plot ( a l l inventories) b = subjective vigor rating (0-4) 0 = dead 1 •= poor 2 = f a i r 3 = good 4 = reproducing (cones, flowers f r u i t ) . Shrub, Herb,. Grass, Moss and Lichen (canopy layers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format follows: "a,b,c.d,e,f" where i f i f i f 'a,b and c" = % cover in spring, summer and f a l l inventories respectively. d,e and f" = subjective vigor rating in spring, summer and f a l l respectively. a,b,c,d,e" or " f " = "x" then species was not encountered or id e n t i f i e d during that inventory, a.b.c.d.e" or " f " = "-" then an inventory was not done for that season. a,b" or "c" = "+" then species was recorded, but in quantity of less than one percent. 5 9 TABLE 5 . S i t e s 3 and 4 : C a m p s i t e and c o n t r o l r e l e v e p l o t r e c o r d s S p e c i e s L i s t Canopy P l o t Numbers l a y e r . 0 3-4 .1 4 0 TREES 1 Pseudotsuga menzi.e^i.i v a r gtauca 2 3 2 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 13 3 1 0 4 11 1 11 3 26 3 5 61 3 31 3 38 3 PinuA pondeAosa 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 PopuCus batsami ie.ta v a r txlcitocoApa 4 5 4 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 Thuja pi!icata 4 1 3 5 3 3 SHRUBS" Aine t'anc Ii i e. 1 aint flu (' < j 6 1 .+ . " 2 2 - + •+ • - 1 . 1 . - 1 . 1 . - 2 2 -AxctcitaphtjC.es uvj-un.it. 6 6 0 , 4 0 , - . 3 , 3 , - 1 0 , 3 , - 4 , 3 , - 3 , 3 , - 3 , 3 , -Ceanotliui vciutinui 6 SaCix bebbiana 6 1 ,+ •- 4 . 3 , - 1 , 1 , - 4 , 3 , - 4 , 4 , - 4 , 2 , -Sho.pluiA.dia canadensis 6 5 , 5 , - 3 , 3 , - + ,+ , - 3 , 3 , - 1 .+ , - 3 , 3 , -Ma/uniia s p p . I l c p c i i i and aoui^otium) 6 + , + , - 3 , 3 , - 2 , 1 , " 2 , 3 , - + ,+ , - 2 , 2 , -Pnunus ejna.xgi.nata 6 + , + ,+ 3 , 3 , - + , + ,+ 2 , 2 , 2 Pxunus viAgin-iana 6 + , x , x 4 , x , x 1 , x , x 3 , x , x HERBS Clumtjphita. tmbe.Ujxta 7 5. + , - 3 , 4 , - + ,+ , - 3 , 3 , - + , + , - 3 , 4 , -Apocynujrt andAosaemifcoLuun 7 + , + , - 3 , 3 , - 1 , x , - 3 , x , - + , + , - 3 , 4 , -OAXhetia secunda 7 1 , X , X 4 , x , - 1 , x , - 3 , x , - + , x , x 3 , x , -lAxaeAon s p . 7 + , x , x 3, x , x pAagaAia viAgitvoxna v a r gtauca 7 + . X . - 4 , x , - 3 , 2 , + 3 ,3 ,2 SpiAea beAuti&otia 7 + • + , - 4 , 3 , - x , x , + x , x , 2 AAabiA temmonii 7 X. + . - x , 4 , -AsteA ciZiotatui 7 + , + , - 4 , x , -Smilacina amptexicaulis 7 + , + , - 3 , 4 , -Jajiaxacum s p . 7 + , x , x 4 , x , x GRASSES, SEDGES AND RUSHES B-Xomus s p p . 8 x ,+ , - x , 4 , - x , + , - x , 4 , - + , x , x 3 , x , x Sitanion htjstxix 8 + , x , - 4 , x , - + , x , - 4 , x , -OAtjzopsis exigua 8 + , X , X 4 , x , x Stipa s p . 8 + , X ,x 3 , x , x MOSSKS AND LIVERWORTS HomaZot/iecXum p-innati^idiam VicAAHum &cvp<xiium Vicuxtuim |5u^ cc-se*Li PtaQ-Lothccium undalatum BKachtjthtcium cUbicattt V\e.)Mnoc£adu$ ana na tut Viciium pottjittiun Minimi ipttiul'i'imn lUii'ium t'/ili.Wii rjjMniMJ 9 x ,+ + X - . 3 , x , - X + - , x , 3 , -9 + + - . 3 , 3 , - + + - . 3 , 3 , -9 3,x - • 3 , x , -9 + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , - + + - . 3 , 4 , - + + - . 3 , 3 , -9 + ,3 - . 1 , 3 , - + X - . 3 , x , - + X - . 3 , x , -9 + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , - 5 8 - . 3 , 3 , -9 + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , - X 3 - . x , J , -9 + X - . 3 , x , -9 4 X x . 4 , x , x x ,'>,). x, 1,1 1 , x , - . 'I, x . TABLE 5 (cont'd) Species list Canopy P l o t N u m b e ™ layer 3.0 3-4.1 4.0 -.3,3, Atcctolia CAinatiA QeXrwAA.a sp. 2 ,_, Cladoivux chlonophaexL 10 +,x,-.3,x,- +, + ,-.3,3, Cladonia g^acitii Cladonia mitij> Heplviuma heivet.icum Cladonia .-uuigifaeAina Cladotua squamosa Pe.iCi.geAa aplitlwsa Pettige.\a Ciiiu'na Stcieocaulon spp. 10 +, ,+ ,-.3,3,- + , + ,-• 3,3, 10 . + ,-.x,3,- , •10 + , +,-•3,3,- , + ,-•3.3, 10 + , +,-•3,3,- + , + ,-•3,3, 10 + , +,-•3,3,- + , + ,-•3,3, 10 x, , + ,-• x,3, 10 + , x, -• 3,x, 10 + , + ,-•3,3, 10 10 + , •3,3,-Trvi: records; are 11 tiled lu canopy layers (l-^). 1 • veteran 1' • dominnni (A^ ) 3 • Subdominant (A.,) U • Suppressed (A^ ) 3 • Seedlings Tree record format tollows "a.b" where a = number of stems/plot (all Inventorles) b - subjective vigor rating (0-4) 0 • dead 1 • poor 2 - fair 3 - good U - reproducing (flowers, fruit, cones). Shrub, Herb, Crass, Moss and Lichen (canopies 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format follows: "a, b, c .d , e, f " X cover in spring, summer and fall inventories respec t ively. subjective vigor rating in spring, summer and fall respectively. - "x" then species was not encountered or identified during that inventory. • "-" then an inventory was not done for that season. - "+M then species was recorded, but in quantity of less than one percent. "a,b" and "c" = "d,e" and "f" « if "a,b,c,d,e" or "f" if "a,b,c,d,e" or "f" if "a.b" or "c" 61 i n n N M O N « N N rt rt K n N n x r*i m r-» +^ f-i m m rt <T X O rt C N rt + <*> X + + X * * * o - » « 1 ^ + . "1 + . + . + rt X O +" <r* +* fM "O W CJ rt rt tM m rt <N n s m -rt N N O I - + - n * - m m - - X X u-> O * -- — + + rt CM C M •4 n rt M +1 +1 +' +* +[ +* +* +" X* C N (N CM (M (s7 rt rt CN rt rt rt «tf rt rt o rt + + *o J - . - o * +- +. °1 "1 "1 N - in o -i rt rt rt <—) l~1 rt rt rt rt rt rt C M rt rt rt + + in o — * * * CM -rt rt rt rt o CM - " 0 0 * 0 C N rt CN m CM rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt O rt rt * • * CN • • ii* + CN - + + * » »o - -r> sj N + + n - N o 4 + rt C M CM rt rt ( N rt rt rt C N rt rt 00^ + + — ( N + *o + in n <N rt rt %a rt X rt x <r <j x in + — — x O x — —• X — rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt CM <r C N rt X rt rt —< i n — r-i i 0 0 —• O rt rt X + (—"i rt 7^ r*"> c**> »tn * o C N C N » rt • . * m rt — co m m X rt rt C N rt X X rt X* +^  + + " C N + " X* X* +* ' C N r t < t m ~ 5 t n r t % j m i rt <r m rt -<j 5 3 I 3 s 23 1 ! -3^ 62 x x x x* x* x" XXX +v +* X* X x +1 +V +~ mm m ( mm mi mm y, i +.+. 4-^  4-V 4-* 4-"+* x" mm i m m i m m i +A +V mm m x <r m m m m m m m +*+* X^  X + A + I + -4-V +* +* m m m +1 + + +" +" +" m m m m m m J" + 4; ' + m x m m m m +* X^  +"m* 4-^  +* +* CM X m x m m m m • X m x m + X* + r +*m* -f +" x m x" ff>* * m m < 0> W U\ l7i IJ\ o\ ( U l OA O l 0~i i m x x" m X m 4-' + X* +* x" +* X m X X m x m m m x m x X 4^  X X +* x* in +•" + X m" x" X m x m m m X 4-^  x* +* +" +* X m m m m m x m x m m m x m m X \ +. +, + +- *i + * +" +" +" x" +" 4-* m x m m X + m m x X m m X m* x" \ + * x* +" 4-" X + x* o o o o o < > C5 C7> C,i c> ' O O O O O I 63 cvj x CN Kcvirg X co CN x co x ^ X cn X X* X* X* X* +. +!. 4 +1 * +' X_ — +^  x" +* +^  x" X x" x" x" +" X CN CN CM CM X cn n f l N n co -*r co x co +' +' +' CO X +_ + +" -T +" + +" +" x" +* in o u • CJ 0\ Xi a CO CN X co -cr* x* CO co -3-+ CN X +" «T X* +" m* S X X X cn X X X en X CN CM en X CN CM X X X X cn cn cn x x" en en X X en cn X* cn CN x" X X X m <r X n -T en X* cn cn I* en x" cn cn m m cn tn +* o X + X X X X +_ X +1 \ *i X X X + x" -T ~T +" +* ~T x*-T X +" x" +* x" x" +" +*+* X CN +* +* X +* X +" X +" - o + en X O* cn x x x" X *r x cn r + x x* x" X* X* x" +" l" CN X en cn oi vr X* X*cn + X -* + * C N +* x x" + + ui + + co co co co oo co co » S o d V £ W o . 9 <? o ^ v ay y o CQ t/) < U U. CX. TABLE 6 ( c o n t ' d ) Tree r e c o r d * a r e l i s t e d l o canopy l a y e r s (1-5) 1 - V e t e r a n 2 - Doalnant (At) 3 • Subdomlnant (A2) 4 - Suppressed (A3) 5 - S e e d l i n g * Tree r e c o r d format f o l l o w s "a .b" where " a " • Number o f s t e m s / p l o t ( a l l I n v e n t o r i e s ) "b" - S u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a c i n g (0-4) 0- dead 1 poor 2 • f a i r 3 - good 4 - r e p r o d u c i n g ( c o n e a , f l o w e r a , f r u i t ) Shrub, Herb, C r a a s , Moss and L i c h e n (canopy l a y e r s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) r e c o r d format f o l l o w s : " a.b.e.d.e.f" "a.b" and " c " • X c o v e r In s p r i n g , summer and f a l l I n v e n t o r i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . "d,e" and " f - s u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a t i n g s In s p r i n g , summer and f a l l r e s p e c t i v e l y . "•>•>,c,d,e" o r " f " • " x " then s p e c i e s was not encountered o r I d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g t h a t I n v e n t o r y . "a,b,c,d,«" o r " f " • "-" then ah I n v e n t o r y was not done f o r t h a t season. "a.b" o r " c " • "+" then s p e c i e s waa r e c o r d e d , but In q u a n t i t y o f l e a a than one p e r c e n t . where I f TABLE 7. Sice IS: Campsite and control releve plot records Specie. L U t Canopy P l o C N u " b e r layer 15.0 15.1 TREES1 Abie* Ouioauipa, Pitudotiuga aenZ4.ea.ci var glauca Picea tuglOujuvu. Pinu* *onLLcola Thuja pCLcoAa Ace* giabAum var douglai-ii Tiuga met^eruidna SHRUBS2 Ame/anc/iie* atniioLin. Lbinata bcUMLcs Sotbuj 4i£cheiui£ Vacciniui* mewo/uxnaceum thododwdAon acbi^ fo/UiW Kubta perintut, HERBS ChunaphU-a xmbeJLLaXa. GoodytAA obZongi.iotia QntJieJUa. a ecu ruin MOSSES AND LIVERWORTS V-icAomun ^ aaoeaeni HylocotoLum ApLtodtnb Lophozjjx sp. Polyt>Uchum cosmune thyCixUadeZphuA LOILLU, PtiXiavuL apktkoia. Cladonia dejoAsiia 2 8 .3 6 .3 3 3 .3 8 .3 4 2 . 3 10 .3 5 3 .3 35 .3 2 16 .3 15 .2 3 7 .3 3 .2 4 5 .3 5 3 . 3 + .3 2 8 . 3 3 .3 4 + . 3 5 5 .3 1 . 3 2 10 . 2 4 .3 * + • 3 5 2 .3 1 + [] 5 5 .3 + .3 5 + • 3 6 -, + .- -,3 6 - -.1 •- -.4 - -.5.-,-,4 6 - -,+, - -.3 -6 - -.+ • - -.3 -6 - -.40.. .-.2 - -.35.-,-,2 6 -6 -6 7 -.1.- -.3 -.2.-,-,3 7 - -,+ .- -,3 7 -.3.- -,3 — . -.••-•-.3 9 -.10.- .-.3 -.7--.-.4 9 -,+ .- -,3 -, -.'•-.-.3 9 -,+ .- -,3 -, -.3.-,-,3 9 -, -, + . - -,3 -, -.+•-.-.3 9 -, -.10.- .-.3 - , -.3 9 — i -.3.-,-,3 10 -, + .-, -.3 10 -, + .-, -.3 Tree records are l i s t e d In canopy layers (1-5). I - Veteran 2 - Do*miruint (A.) 3 - Subdo»icuint (AjJ - SuppruHHud (A.^J '> - Sii-d 1 I H K -Trec record format follows "a.b" where a - percent ground cover/plot (note that s i t e IS was not Inventoried using stem/ plot counts) b - subjective vigor rating (0-4) 0 » dead 1 - poor .2 - f a i r 3 - good •* * reproducing (flowers, cones, f r u i t ) . Shrub, Herb, Grass, Hoaa and Lichen (canopy layers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format folova: "a,b,c.d,e,f" where "a, b and c" * I cover In spr ing, suaaer and f a l l invent or 1 us respect 1 vi-l y. "d, e and f" * subjective vigor rating In spring, summer and f a l l res pec t ivc1y. i f "a, b, c , d , e" or "f " • "x" then a pec les was not cniounc erod or Id ent i f 1 ud du r i ni; t hat tnvrnt ory. "A , b, w , d, c" or " f " » "-" tinn .tn Inventory w.is not .l.>ni- lor th.it •.r..:.i>n . ";i, It", or "»•" » " + " t tun spvi it.-, wast rt-ioruVd , t»m in (|U.HII 1L y t»f 1 (.•;,?. i h.m one percent. 66 m o CN m en co —< CN co cn cn cn cn <f I vt n m 101*1* i" i* • CM • • • • X * + X cn cn - o - » - • +. °1 +- +- +- + i i r i" r i* X X <r mm -cf m m m <r en x i l -a- I <r m l 1/1 i i m <r ^  ~4 - - X - + X m <r -i + r-j + + I 1 I l 1 I - + + -o - - o - + X - « m <r cn »<r - « m -mm * X - •> I -II m + in CN m x ui m m m CN cn m m X I I x m <r x x * * - - - •> <r X X -a- <r - x i i i* i* r i • r X + + X X ui + +* X X <t + ui X x m x • • »n vr CM X X m <r <r <r * • « * * . - - - X C N X vf<r<r X •> - * I I I I I X + m* + + +" +* «* X* +" I I I I l I 1 I m x <r x cn -a* x + + x x" +* +" CN x m m CN <r X irt * +*m* X^ <^j-mxmmcN<rmmmtN<t - x -a- m » en en x -cr x x <r *. '. *. '. '. C1 •* •* •* " * •* '• •* >"i* >* i* i" i +. + „ \ *i ^  \ ~ i +1+1 *i +1 +1 +1* + + + * + x* * + +« ~1 * *1 \ °i * + ^ * * * * -* -4" +" +" x" * +* x* +* +* +" I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I m m <r <r -j- m x <r <r »-sr -* <r • * - J x - <r -<r x <r - ' - I « « - »-en <r en x <r <r m <r m sr* X <t -m-- x •f +_ +^  +* +* +* + *+ + + + • - o •> * « * . * " t + . +«*1+-i i* r r i* r +- +. +- * i + . + . +* \ \ \ * i + " i i i t" r r X cn <r -cr cn x X en <r m m x x<* x x -<r <j- <f v r ~ j X N <r ~j n <r - X cn - en X m + + x m ui +" +" +* X x CN + + " +" +" CN" m* +* I I I I I I <r ui m m t/i • r*» r-* r^ - ^« r^ . r*. r-«. p j 5tiO O O cj -O c " d-tf ti ti « « a a 67 m en K X X X en en cn en 1 M en en en + -• o K + X X <f CM K X X* *t ^ r i* To r r +^  <M m + +" CN + + M x" +" +" K K K i i r i" i* r t* r + CN + -K m K* — • • I O O • M <f in X cn CN X •d- X <T en + K ^  IN en en cn cn cn <r X l cn m x l I CM t i* t* +. » o* +* +^  co +* X* CM +* +" x" + rn -+ cn m X CM cn »en • cn cn - X - cn * . <r - ^ * m x • l - l * * I • t • I t . U-l . + . . + ^  u-t * + \o - • • o - -+ X U"l CM + X cn cn •> x m « • r-> » * cn cn - cn x * * l - -. . o • • + . + „ x + + r» X I I I I* * X - - X CN - X X * -* «cn • O 1 » -* m x x m cn CM • » - • . * t~i t~\ m en x 1 +. 1 K + + +* —" +* X* I I 1 I I I cn cn x cn cn cn + + X +* 4-" ooaof loaoaooooocooDooaocof loao Cr^  Cr^  CT» CTN CT> Cf^ o o »-i TABLE S icent'd) c , , , r Canopy P l o t Numbers S p " 1 " U " layer 11.0 II.I 12.0 12.1 U.O U.I MOSSES. LIVERWORTS (cont'd) Btyum sp. Dictianun montanum VicAanw tcopaiuua PolutAichum piXi^Vum ArUhiAXa julacta &\achytht.CAjM itaAhti Rnyum blAgii CaltitAaon itramintum CtxaXodon puApuxea OicAOnum mitlhinbicbii DlipanocladuA ixaMutatut Hygnohypium icliracum UnOm ipinutosum Pohtia sp. Pohtia mutant PohtiA wallnbtnqii PotyVUchm comunl Polytrichia* tlxangulaA.t HhacomiX/Uum canucen* Rhacomitxiun suditicum Rhytidiadtlphu* tc-Xtui RhytidiadtZphuA tqua/wiui LICHENS Cladonia cklonophata Cladonia coututa Cladonia «P. (D CttAOJiia sp. (I) Cladonia bvUxdi^lo^a Cladonia coniocAata Cladonia faiabiuata Cladonia pttwtota Cladonia xangHtniM Cladonia sp. (3) Cladonia sp. (6) SttAiocauton sp. SttAlocauton tubalbicant 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -,+,x.-,3,x -.+.X.-.3.X -,X,10.-,X,3 -.+.+.-.3.3 -.X.+.-.X.3 -.+.x.-,3,x -,x,10.-,x,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.+.+.-.3,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.+,x.-,3.x -,+,x.-,3,x -,x,+.-,x,3 -.x.+.-,x,3 -,+.x.-,3,x -,x.+.-,x,3 -.X.1.-.X.3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,+,+.-.3.3 -.10,10.-.3.3 -,x,5.-,x,3 -.10,10.-.3,3 -,x,+.-.x,3 -,x,5.-.x,3 -,+,x.-.3,x -.M.5.-.K.3 -.x.+.-,x.3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,+.x.-.3,x -.+.X.-.3.K -.+.•.-.3,3 -.•.+•-.3.3 -,+.x.-,3.x - . + . « . - . 3 , * -,+,x.-.3,x ,+.x.-,3,x - .• .• . - ,3.3 -.1.1-.3.3 -,«,+.-,x,3 - ." . • . - ,» .3 - .• .• . - ,3.3 -.•.«•-.3,x -.•.X.-.3.K 'Tree records are listed In canopy layers (1-5). I - Veteran 2 - Dominant (Aj) 3 - Subdominant (Aj) Tree record format follows: "a . b" where a - number of stea9/plot (all Inventories) b - subjective vigor rating (0-4 0 - dead 1 " poor fruit) . 2Shrub, Herb, Grass, Moss and Lichen (canopy layers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format follows: "a.b.c.d,e,f" where "a,b" and "c" • X cover In spring, summer and fall Inventories respectively. "d,e" and "f" • subjective vigor rating In spring, summer and fall respectively. If "a,b,c,d,e" or "f" • "x" then species was not encountered or Identified during that Inventory. "a,b,c,d,e" or "f" • "-" then an Inventory was not o^ne for that season. "a,b" ur "c" • "+" then species was recorded, but in quantity of less than one percent. 4 - Suppressed (A3) 5 • Seedlings 2 - fair 3 - good 4 • reproducing (cones, flowers. CO TABLE 9. Sites 10 and 13: Campsite and Control Releve Plot Records Species l ist Canopy layer 10.0 Plot Numbers 10.1 13.0 13.1 TREES1 Abie* loiiocaApa. Pinui a l b i a m t i i Picea engztmannii Ttuga maxteju uxna Caiiiupz mzAtzniiana Phi/tfoduce empetMjoimcA Loa.iiztcuA.ia pAocumbeiii Phyttodocz gtanduti{,£»w Vaccitiium dzticioium Vaccitiium membAanaczum EmpztAutn nigAum JuiiipzAwi communii subsp. alpitvic. RhododzndAon albi&loAum Salix sp. Vaccinium ovali£olium HERBS kAnica spp. EAigeAon peAzgAinut HieAacium t t o u t v i i LuzXkza pzcXinaXa VzAaXAum viAide. var tic.liichotX.zii VzAonica woAmikjotdii Pulsatilla oceXdznXalii CatXha tzpta&zpala vat bi^toAa IzptaAAhziyx pyAoti otium Rammcului spp. Saxi^Aaga bAonchialii SaxifaAaga lyaJUii Saxi^Aaga occidzntalii Sznzcio tAiangulaAii Vat.eAia.na tiXchzn&ii AnlznnaAia sp. AAZitOAia capittoAii CaAtitlzja sp. Delphinium gtaucum EAigzAon sp. EAiogonum sp. Haptopappui lijalLLi Lycopodium iitchenit Viota aaunca GRASSES, SEDGES, RUSHES Coacx spp. KoZAt itl spp. tflornu.* ii|>p> AgAuitii sp. CaAex mauwchazta JuncuA spp. Luzuta hitchcockii COAZX AupZ&tAii Vahlodia alAopuApuAza EAiophoAum sp. Phatajiii sp. Stipa sp. 2 26 .2 3 35 .2 4 10 .2 6 .3 60 .2 2 .3 5 3 .2 8 .3 5 .1 2 1 .3 2 .3 3 2 .3 5 1 .3 2 .3 2 .3 2 1 .2 3 1 .3 5 5 .2 2 3 .3 4 2 .2 5 2 .2 6 -.36,10.-3,4 -,75,40.-,4,4 -,35,35.-,2,3 17,10.-,3,3 6 -,50,9.-.3,4 -.10,7.-,4,4 -.30,20.-,3,3 - 17,20.-.3,3 6 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+•+•-,3,3 -.15,4.-.4,4 6 -,x,+.-,x,4 -.5,4.-.3,4 - 6,+.-,3,3 6 -,+,+.-,3,4 -,+,+.-,3,4 - 10,10.-,4,4 6 -,+,+.-,3,3 -.2,15.- ,3,4 6 -,+,x.-,4,x 6 -,+,x.-,3,x 6 -,6,2.-.4,3 6 -.2,2.-,4,3 6 -,3,15.-.3,4 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,4 +,x.-,3,l -,x,+.-,x,3 -.+.+•-,4,2 -.1,1.-.3,4 - +.X.-.4.1 -.+,+•-,4,3 -,+,+.-,4,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 - +,x.-,3,x -,20,10.0,3,3 -.10,5.-,4,3 -,15,5.-.4,3 - +,x.-,3,x -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,4,3 -.+.x.-,4,x -,x,+.-,x,3 -,+,+.0,4,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 - . ! . + •-.3,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+,+.-,4,3 -.10,20.0,4,4 -,+,+•-.4,3 -,+,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,4,x - +,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,4,x - +,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,3,x - +,x.-,3,x ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,x,+.-,x,4 ,+,x.-,4,x ,+,x.-,4,x ,+,x.-,4,x -,x,+.-,x,4 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+•+•-•3,3 -.+.+•-.4,x ,+,x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,4,x -,x,+.-,x,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 X + .- x,4 - +,+•-.4,3 - , X +.-,x,3 X +.- x,3 ,x,+.-,x,3 - ,x + • " , * , • x +•- ,x,3 - ,x,+.-,x,3 - , K +.-,«,) X + .- x,3 ,x,+.-,x,3 - ,x,+.-,x,4 - , X +.-.X.4 - +,+•-,2,3 -,+ +.-,2,3 + + .- 3,3 - +,+.-.3,3 - x,+.-,x,4 - x,+.-,x,4 X + .- x,3 - 1,x.-,3 ,x 70 TABLE 9 (cont 'd) Spec le i U s e Canopy P lot Nuabars layer 10.0 10.1 13.0 13.1 9 -.•,+.-.3,3 - ,•,•.- ,3,3 -.2,+.-,3,3 -.3,5.-,3,4 9 - .•.•.-.3,3 -,•,+.-,3,3 -,+,x.-.3,x 9 - .3,1.- .3.3 - .2.3.- .3,3 -.1.1.-.3.4 9 -,+,x.-,3,x - . x ,2 . - , x ,3 -.1,1.-,3,4 9 - . • ,x . - ,3 ,x -,+.x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,3,x 9 9 - , x ,3 . - , x ,3 -,+,x.-,3,x 9 - , x ,5 . - , x ,3 - , x , l . - , x , 4 9 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,3,x 9 - .2,2.-.3,3 -,l.+.-,3,3 9 -,+.•.-,3,3 9 - . 2 , 2 . - ,3,3 9 - , x ,2 . - , x ,3 9 -,x,+.-,x,3 9 -.2,15.-.3,3 9 - ,2 ,x . - ,3 ,x 9 -,•,+.-,3,3 9 -,x,+.-,x,3 9 -,x,+.-,x,3 9 -,x,+.-,x,3 9 -,+.x.-,3,x 10 -.+.+•-,3,3 - , l . x . - , 3 , x -.+.+•-,3,3 10 -.+,•.-.3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 10 -,+,+.-.3,3 -.+.+•-,3,3 10 - .5,5. - .3,3 - .5,5.-.3,3 10 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,3,x 10 -,+,x.-,5,x 10 10 - , 1 .x . - , 3 ,x 10 -,+,x.-,3,x 10 -,x,+.-,x,3 10 -,+,x.-,3,x 10 -,+,x.-,3,x 10 -,+,x.-,3,x 10 10 -,x,+.-,x,3 10 MUSSES AND LIVERWORTS AutacomiUw palatini VicAanum paltLditttum Icphozia spp. PottjlAichum pitiivum RluictmucfLuiW faacicutaAt \UAsupilla sp. Plutanotut iontana Pohtia sp. PolytAAxJmix nxanguloAS. Sphagnum sp. HnXhttia jutacea CatliiAgon itAaminewn CiAotodon punpuAta DicAamm $u4Ce_se>u CicAanum montanum VicAanum nue.titiLnbii.ciuA. VicAanum tcopa/Uum Ate tua Qaleata HoAtupeila b\ivitijia RhacomJXrujm canttClAt &4.yum sandbtAgii LICHENS CtadoiUa chtoKophata SttAtocauton iu.batbA.caat SteAcocauton atbicant AllCtOAAa bicolol CeXAOfUa itlandica Baomyctt sp. Cladonia capitata Cladonia coinuta Cladonia gvicitit Cladonia pltuAota Cladonia iquanota Cladonia sp. (2) Ctadoiua sp. (7) C't 'ttma sp. rxX/mlCul sp. SCiAevcaiUon tubatbicant Tree records are l i s t e d l a canopy layers (1-5) 1 - Veteran 2 - Dominant (A,) 3 - Subdominant (Aj) « - Suppressed (Aj) 5 - seedl ings Tree record format fo l l ows : "a .b " where a - number of scema/ploc ( a l l inventor ies ) dead 1 - poor 2 - f a i r 3 • good 4 • reproducing (cones, f lowers. b • subject ive v igor racing (0-4) f r u i t ) Shrub, Herb, Graaa, Hoaa and Lichen (canopy layers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format fo l l ows : " a . b . c . d . e . f " where "a.b and c " • X cover In spr ing, summer and f a l l Inventories r e spec t i ve l y . and f " • subject ive v igor ra t ing In spr ing , summer and f a l l r e spect i ve l y , i f " a . b . c .d .e " or " f " - " x " then speclea wes not encountered or i d e n t i f i e d during that Inventory. " a , b , c ,d ,e " or " f " - " - " then an Inventory waa not dona fo r chat season. " a .b " or " c " - " • " then species waa recorded, but i n quantity of less than one percent. 71 TABLE 10. Plant associations derived from vegetation inventory plots (from Appendix 9) S i t e Numbers Biogeoclimatic Subzone^ Ecosystem As s o c i a t i o n ^ 1, 5, 6 PPBG-d, IDFC t r a n s i t i o n Arctostaphylos (uva-ursi) -Spiraea ( b e t u l i f o l i a ) - PM and PP 3 3, 4 IDFC Arctostaphylos (uva-ursi) -spiraea b e t u l i f o l i a - PP and PM 2, 7, 8, 9 IDFd Chimaphila (umbellata) -Paxistima (myrsinites) - PC and PM^ 15 ESSFf Vaccinium (membranaceum) - AL and PE 11, 12, 14 ESSFpf Phyllodoce (empetriformis) -Cassiope (mertensiana) — AL and PE 10, 13 ATb Lycopodium (alpinum) - Luetkea (pectinata) - Phyllodoce (spp.) 1Biogeoclimatic Subzones were taken from M i t c h e l l et al» (1981). ^Ecosystem associations were extracted from M i t c h e l l et a l . (1981); Klinka (1982, personal communication) and M i t c h e l l (1980, unpublished). 3 Species abbreviations: PM = Pseudotsuga menziesii var glauca PP = Pinus ponderosa PC = Pinus contorta var l a t i f o l i a AL = Abies lasiocarpa PE = Picea engelmannii ^This ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n name i s tentative pending further i n v e s t i g a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n . 72 The Lycopodium (alplnum) - Luetkea (pectinata) - Phyllodoce sp. ass o c i a t i o n i n the Atb subzone (s i t e s 10 and 13) was named despite the r lack of Lycopodium alpinum. According to Hitchcock e t ^ a l . (1959), though, this species hybridizes with L. sltchense, which was present at campsite 13. S i t e numbers 5 and 6 (Table 4) have been designated as occurring i n a t r a n s i t i o n between two biogeoclimatic subzones: PPBG-d and IDFC (Appendix 4). Vegetation composition on these sites most c l o s e l y resembles the Arctostaphylos (uva-ursi) - Spirea ( b e t u l i f o l i a ) - PM and PP zonal ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n (Table 10) as defined by M i t c h e l l et^ a l . (1981). The releve tables (4 through 9) l i s t tree species abundances i n stems/plot for each of f i v e canopy l a y e r s ^ ) . Determinations of recreation impacts to trees were made by converting stems/plot to stems/hectare. Species occurrences in canopy layers 6 to 10 (shrubs -herbs - grasses, rushes, sedges - mosses and liverworts - lichens) have been l i s t e d according to estimated percent cover, with occurrences of less than one percent designated as "+". The above tables include information on species abundances and vigor ratings for spring, summer and f a l l inventories-'With the exception of s i t e number 15 (Table 7). This s i t e was inventoried using "species percent cover" during the single survey completed. Bad weather precluded additional surveys to determine tree stems/plot. 73 4.3 Tabular Comparisons of Campsite and Control Plot Vegetation Results The vegetation data from Tables 4 through 9 were analysed to determine invading, increasing ( i n abundance), decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species, r e s u l t i n g from rec r e a t i o n a l trampling. Two analyses were made. The f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d only those species which showed a consistent change of at l e a s t one percent. Consistency was judged by the following c r i t e r i a : 1. change occurred at more than one s i t e as determined by experi-mental plot species abundance minus control plot species abundance. 2. more than 50 percent of occurrences followed the designated pattern, e.g. invading, increasing, decreasing or t o t a l l y removed species. If there was any reason to suspect that the consistent change was due to natural factors such as microtopographic d i f f e r e n c e s , then a note was made. Table 11 l i s t s the species which showed a consistent pattern. Sixty-three species were l i s t e d , with the following pattern: 41 invading, 7 increasing, 5 decreasing, and 16 t o t a l l y removed species. Of these, eight species designations are questionable, based on s i t e d ifferences. They are l i s t e d and described i n Table 11. The second analysis was s i m i l a r to the f i r s t , except that only those species which occurred at a single s i t e known to have experienced some impacts (rated as ">1" on W i l l a r d and Marr's (1970) Impact Rating Scale) were used. Table 12 l i s t s these species. In a l l , 47 species were l i s t e d , with the following pattern: 18 invading, 8 increasing, 5 TABLE 11. Impact indicating plant species: invading, increasing, decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species as indicated by > 50% of multiple occurrences. Trees: Shrubs: INVADING SPECIES Popului balsami&eAa. var tAichocaApa (3/3) 1 Grasses: Rushes and Sedges Mosses: and Liver-worts Lichens: CeanothuA'Sanguineus (4/4) Phyllodoce. glanduli(,oAa (2/3) Rhododendron a.lbi^toAum (2/3) AntennaAia spp. (2/2) AAab-u lemmbnii (5/7) AAenaAia capitlaAis1 (2/2) AsteA conspicuus (2/2) AsteA ciliotatus (4/5) CAepii atAa.baA.ba (3/3) Epitobum glarduloium (2/3) EAigeAon sp. (4/6) AgAopyAon ipicatum var ipj.cat.um (3/3) BAomuS sp. (4/6) Cinna lati&olca (2/3) Festuca. sp. (2/2) CallieAgon stAamineum (2/2) CeAatodon puApuAeus5 (2/2) VicAanum mu.eiilmbec.kU. (2/2) VAepanocladus uncinatus (2/2) Ce^totta sp.l (2/3) CetAOAia sp. 3 (2/2) R.i6&s spp. (3/3) RubuA levLCodeAmiA (2/2) lAiogonum sp. (2/3) Haptopapus lyaULii (2/2) HieAacium albi^loAum (3/3) HieAacium icoulexi (3/4) Lomatium diisectum (3/3) Pedccotou-S g-toentanctica (2/3) Pemtemon scouleAi (3/4) Taraxacum sp. (2/2) T^u-ijbfium sp. (2/2) Poa itena.nX.ha (3/4) Sita.nA.on hystAix (2/3) S-tipa spp. (4/6) Mttium 4pina£o,5um (2/2) RhacomiXAium canescens (2/3) RhytidJjxdelphus loAeui (2/2) Ctadonia $imbAiata (2/2) PeltigeAa canina (2/3) INCREASING SPECIES Tree seedlings: A£na4 -otcana subsp. ienu-ci$oita (3/3) AmelanchieA atni^olia. (6/9) Phyllodoce empetAi&oAmis7 (4/5) Ca£#ia leptoiepala Var bi^loAa5 (3/3) (CoeA^uj. sp. (3/5) Shrubs: Herbs Pinu6 pondeAOia (3/5) VeAonica woAmskjoldii (2/3) Grasses Rushes and Sedges DECREASING SPECIES Trees: Pinus contOAta tatidotia (5/7) Tree seedlings: Pinus albicauliiS (2/3) Herbs: EAiogonum sp. 5 (2/2) Lichens: PettigeAa cotlena (2/2) Pseudotsuga menziesii var g£auca (18/32) Trees: Shrubs: REMOVED SPECIES AceA glabAum var dcugla-iii (3/4) Piiiui a£b-tcau£u (2/3) CoAtjltii avellanay (2/2) Philadelphus leuisii (2/3) Herbs: MyoiO-tia Sylvatica LiXhophAagma paAvifiloAum (2/2) Au£accmnium andAogynum (2/2) BAachythecium albicans (3/3) Mosses: & Liver-worts . Lichens: Cladonia Aangi^eAina. (3/4) nc£o(icdcuJ discoloA9 (2/2) Si£ix spp. (2/2) Smi£izce»ia Aacemosa var amplexicaulii (2/3) i'ectisia sp. (2/2) PicAiinum polyietum (3/3) L-{adonia Squamosa (2/2) PeltigeAa aphthoia (4/5) "3/3" refers Co number of occurrences in category (I.e. Invading species)/total number of occurrences. 2. AAenaAia. capiltaAii has apparently invaded sites 10 and 12. Site 12 has experienced no use. Hitchcock et_ a_l^ (1964) stated that t h i s species prefers well drained habitats. This best t y p i f i e s control plots at s i t e s 10 and 12. 3. PediculaAii gAoenlandica grows i n association with creeks (Hitch-cock £it a_l., 1964). This i s the case at control plots 11 and 12. Therefore, the species i s not an invader. 4. CallieAgon StAomineum grows i n areas of late snowmelt (Schoefield 1982, personal communication). This i s most l i k e l y the case at campsites 12 and 13. 5. CeAatodon puApuAeuS was found on the edges of pools at campsites 10 and 11. Pools do not occur on control plots 10 and 11. 6. Caltha leptoiepala var bifiloAa grows i n marshy habitat (Hitchcock et_ al_., 1964), which i s more prevalent on campsites 10, 11 and 12. 7. Phyllodoce empeXAi&OAmis was an Increaser on 4 out of 5 s i t e s . This may be due to the presence of l e v e l , well drained mounds. 8. Pinm albicaulii was found only on control plot 14, and occurred i n greater abundance on control plots 10 and 13. 'This tree i s prized for firewood i n Krummholtz areas, which may account for the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n . 9. EAiogonum sp., CoAytus avellana, Philadelpkus t.euxiiii, Hotodiicus diicoloA, Lith.ophAa.gma paAvi£loAum and Wocdsia sp. were found to be removed species at sites 5 and 6. Since these two campsites had only one control p l o t , on which the above species occurred, there may be some " s i t e factor" which accounts for the di s t r i b u t i o n . 75 TABLE 12. Impact i n d i c a t i n g plant species: invading, i n c r e a s i n g , decreasing and t o t a l l y removed plant species, as ind i c a t e d from s i n g l e occurrences at s i t e s rated >1 on W i l l a r d and Marr's (1970) Impact Rating Scale Shrubs Herbs Grasses Mosses Lichens Shrubs Sedges L ic hens Tree seedlings Clematis aj.fu.na. INVADING SPECIES EmpitAum nigium Aconitum cotumbianum Rumex acetocetta AAaZia nadicauZis Saxi^Aaga occidzntaZis A/uUca spp. SibbaZdla pAocumbzns DispoAum hooktAA. TiaAzZta uniiotZaXa Pznstzmon ^Awticotus var scDuZexi TAogopogon dubiuA AgAOptjAon ipicdXum AgAostii zxaAata DicAanwn iaaAA.com Hytozomiam splzndens PohZia natani Baomiycea AU^US CziAOAia sp. 4 CttAoAia. islandica Betula gta.ndaio.ia CoAZX HlpCitAXi AACtua &alcata Ctadonia sp. 7 Vanthonia sp. OAyzopsib exigua Poa pAaXznsis Pszudolzskzzla sp. RhytXaUadztpkus tAiquztAis Ctadonia capiXata Ctadonia CAXstatelSjx Ctadonia pyxidata SttAtocuZon sp. INCREASING SPECIES JunipzAus cumnanis subsp. alpina Sambucus czAulza OicAamm sp. Pohtia ap. Picea aigei/iu/uvw. Mosses and liverworts Hylocomium splzndens Lichens Trees Shrubs Herbs Mosses Lichens AZzcXonia bicotoA DECREASING SPECIES UaASupztla sp. Cladonia sp. TOTALLY REMOVED SPECIES Populus tAzmuloidzs VibaAnwn opuZus s u b s p . tAiZobium AcXza AabAa VicAanum sp. Ctadonia sp. Ptilium sp. 76 decreasing and 6 t o t a l l y removed species. Since the second analysis included single occurrences only, l e s s confidence can be used i n i n t e r -preting the r e s u l t s . It i s useful however, i n i d e n t i f y i n g species to be further monitored over the long term. Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s of species composition differences between c o n t r o l and campsite plots were ranked according to magnitude. This was done so that the 15 s i t e s could be compared i n terms of t h e i r retention of o r i g i n a l species composition-Figure 3 shows these percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n f i v e categories: 1. consistently invading species 2. c o n s i s t e n t l y increasing species 3. c o n s i s t e n t l y decreasing species 4. c o n s i s t e n t l y removed species (found on control plots only) 5. a d d i t i o n a l species i n the above four categories, but occurring only once. Campsite numbers can be referred to Figure 2 to i d e n t i f y subzones and l o c a t i o n s . It should be noted that invading species formed the most prominent category of impact related change. Sites 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 a l l had over 10% of the t o t a l number of species occurring only on campsite p l o t s . The next largest group was " t o t a l l y removed species", (highest at s i t e #4) with increasers and decreasers being approximately equal o v e r a l l . Figure 4 compares the differences i n bare mineral s o i l between experimental and control plots with impact ratings of W i l l a r d and Marr (1970). The histogram further ranks the s i t e s from low to high impacts based on these two c r i t e r i a (bare mineral s o i l differences and impact r a t i n g s ) . Locations and subzones for each campsite can be found i n Figure 2. 17 100. 90-80-70« 60" 50-td Species c a t e g o r i e s : Species c o n s i s t e n t l y i n i t i a t i n g or p e r s i s t i n g on campsites 1 • invaders 2 " increasers Species c o n s i s t e n t l y abundant or present only on c o n t r o l p l o t s : 3 " decreasers 4 • t o t a l l y removed species j }« t o t a l % s p e c i e s / p l o t , i n c l u d i n g s i n g u l a r occurrences 1 1 of invading, i n c r e a s i n g , decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species N • To t a l number of species per p l o t . Figure 3 . Percent d i s t r i b u t i o n of impact i n d i c a t i n g species: consistent occurrences at more than one s i t e 78 1 0 0 i , D i f f e r e n « in bare mineral s o i l (Z area of substrate) between ^ experimental and con t ro l p l o t s . 25 20 15 10 5 0 S i t e If 0 1 . 11 12 10 14 15 13 3 i 4 54 Impact Rating from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) Figure 4. Comparison of differences in bare mineral s o i l between con t ro l and experimental p lo ts and impact ra t ings from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) 79 The rank order of s i t e s i n Figures 3 and 4 were compared to deter-mine i f species composition changes were consistent with the gross v i s i b l e changes inherent i n the bare mineral s o i l difference estimates and impact ratings. From t h i s comparison, i t should be noted that even though s i t e s 13 and 15 were rated as "2" on the 1-5 impact rating scale ( i n Figure 4), they possessed few impact i n d i c a t i n g species (less than 10 percent, Figure 3). The inference from t h i s i s that although s i t e s 13 and 15 have some v i s i b l e impacts, they have retained most of t h e i r o r i g i n a l species compositions and abundances. Table 13 i s a summary of vegetation plot inventory r e s u l t s for each canopy layer (1-10, with tree canopies 1-4 combined). Cover values with heavy outlines around them s i g n i f y large differences between control and experimental plot values. These are i n d i c a t i v e of recreation impacts, on a broad scale, since canopy cover values would be expected to be equal for control and experimental plots i f no impacts had occurred, and since observations suggest that control plots have received no r e c r e a t i o n a l use or damage. The following i s a plot-by-plot d e s c r i p t i o n of those impacts: Campsite #5 Grasses: Campsite 5 contained two adventive grass species (Agropyron spicatum and Calamagrostis sp.), and an extra abundance of Poa stenantha which may be a r e s u l t of trampling. Campsite #1 Tree seedlings, shrubs, herbs, mosses (etc.) and lichens : A l l were reduced i n cover on t h i s campsite as a r e s u l t of trampling. Grasses: Bromus sp., Festuca sp. and Phalaris sp. have invaded t h i s campsite as evidenced by t h e i r absence on the co n t r o l p l o t . TABLE 13. Vegetation Inventory summary with impact Interpretations Canopy layer Site number anc control leve 1 C O ' • campsite . 1 - control plot) (data per plot) 5.0 5-6. 1 6.0 1.0 1.1 3.0 3-4.1 4.0 7.0 7.1 2.0 2.1 8.0 8.1 Trees (1-4) (stems/ha) 433* 324 199* 264 240 487 800 7 39 896 1630 1047 2 339 313 631 Tree seedlings (5) (stems/ha) 167 149 1029* 389 569 1784* 800 957 274 852 496 1056 479* 175 Shrubs (6) (Z cover/0 of species) 15/6 18/13 17/10 20/6 26/5 58/5* U/7 11/7 28/10 16/6 37/11 53/10 27/12 13/8 Herbs (7) (X cover/* of species) 11/12 l l / K ) 11/18 7/10 12/10 5/4 5/7 4/7 11/16 1/2 8/14 23/6 14/22 9/9 Grasses, Rushes, 6/4 2/2 3/6 11/6 6/3 1/1 1/2 2/4 5/7 0/0 7/4 0/0 |32/3 1/2) Sedges (8) (Z cover/tf of species) bosses, Liverworts (9) (X cover/)? of species) 2/1 1/1 2/3 5/1 13/1 8/6* 15/6 4/7* 7/5 2/3 6/6 1/1 7/5 6/9 Lichens (10) (Z cover/M of species) 2/4 2/4 3/6 4/7 8/6 4/7 4/7 1/2* 7/4 1/1 0/0 1/1 3/5 5/K I I Signifies vegetation in campsite plot has been damaged or altered. * Signifies the presence of Increasing or Invading species. 'Site 15 tree records -are not stem counts. Data are presented as estimated Z cover. TABLE 13. Vesicae ion ; nventory nummary wi th impact interpretations (cont'd) Canopy l a y e r S i t e number and c o n t r o l l e v e l ('. 0' - campsite .1 - c o n t r o l p l o t ) ( d a t a per p l o t ) 9.0 9.1 15.0 :3. 1 1!. 1 (1.1 12.0 12.1 14.0 14. 1 10.0 10.1 13.0 13.1 Trees (1-4) (stems/ha) 1137 904 88Z »:» 151* 0 0 0 163* 209 88 140 922* 200 Tree s e e d l i n g s (5) 1795* 1381 8 1 33 1 430* 25 226* 0 1023* 558 I 88 18o] 73 100 (stems/ha) Shrubs (6) (Z c o v e r / * of s p e c i e s ) 19/6 21/6 46/8 42/5 13/7* 2/3 6/3* 1/1 108/10 105/9 55/9 80/6 76/10* 40/4 Herbs ( 7 ) (Z c o v e r / * of s p e c i e s ) 9/5 8/3 5/3 3/3 34/16 38/27 30/36 37/32 58/19 50/12 21/21 21/13 15/13* 2/2 G r a s s e s , Rushes, Sedges (8) (Z cover/* of s p e c i e s ) 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/4* 37/7 42/7 39/8 13/11 9/8 1/2 3/6 6/10* 3/5 Mosses, L i v e r w o r t s (9) (I cover/# of s p e c i e s ) 9/9 9/9 22/5 23/6 26/14* 6/8 15/10 9/6 87/15 84/9 2/3* 9/8 28/19* 17/11 L i c h e n s (10) 9/8 1/2 1/2 1/1 3/5 0/0 1/1 0/0 3/6 4/8 3/6 4/5 9/8 8/7 (Z c o v e r / * of s p e c i e s ) | I Signifies vegetation In campsite plot has been damaged or altered. * Signifies the presence of increasing or invading species. ^Site 15 tree records were not stem counts. Uata are presented as estimated X cover. 82 Campsite #7 Trees and tree seedlings: This campsite was cleared by axe, thus reducing overstory species cover. Shrubs, herbs, grasses, mosses and lichens: Most of these understory species have flourished under the recently opened canopy. Campsite #2 Trees, tree seedlings, shrubs, herbs and lichens: A l l have been reduced i n percent cover and abundance as a r e s u l t of trampling and c l e a r i n g . Grasses and mosses: have invaded the campsite, since i t was cleared, and the layer of Douglas maple (Acer  douglasii) l e a f l i t t e r was removed from the forest f l o o r . Campsite #8 Trees: were cleared from the center of this campsite for the erection of a Teepee frame. In addition, the camp-s i t e i s located on an elevated gravel bar which i s too well drained for dense tree growth. Grasses: Because this s i t e i s well drained and because i t has suffered some compaction from trampling, i t contained a greater abundance of r e l a t i v e l y more drought r e s i s t a n t grasses (Bromus sp. and Stipa sp.). Campsite #9 Lichens: A number of trees were f e l l e d and l e f t on the ground at campsite #9. This overstory thinning has promoted d r i e r conditions conducive to lichen growth. Campsite #15 Tree seedlings: Have been reduced by trampling on t h i s campsite. Campsite #10 Tree seedlings: Have most l i k e l y been reduced by wood scavenging on t h i s campsite. Not a l l large differences between plot pair canopy cover values are outlined. In some cases, s i t e factors such as drainage and presence of mounds are responsible for the observed differences. These instances 83 are explained i n the following s i t e - b y - s i t e summary of vegetation i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s : Campsite #5 Trees: The campsite tree canopy contained fewer larger trees (A^ and A 2 ) , but as a consequence had a much larger number of smaller trees ( A 3 ) . Campsite #6 Trees: The campsite contained more A]^  and A£ trees and thus had fewer openings for the growth of A 3 t r e e s . Tree seedlings: A large number of Douglas-fir seedlings were clustered under a stressed A 2 tree which had a heavy cone crop. Campsite #3 Tree seedlings: Same as Campsite #6. Mosses: Moss s u r v i v a l in this hot dry area (Lower Stein) requires shading. Since the campsite had less of i t than the control p l o t , moss cover was also lower. Shrubs: The campsite's shrub cover was approximately f i v e times that of the control plot as a r e s u l t of the presence of a more open overstory. Campsite #4 Mosses: Same as campsite #3. Campsite #8 Tree seedlings: Tree cutting has reduced the dominance of the overstory and increased tree seedling growth. Campsite #9 Tree seedlings: Tree cutting and disease (Pine bark beetle) has reduced the dominance of the overstory and increased tree seedling growth. Campsite #11 Trees: The campsite contained a large mound (not found on the control plot) which was drained well enough for the s u r v i v a l of trees. Tree seedlings: Same as above. Shrubs: Same as above. Also, the campsite's streamside l o c a t i o n made i t conducive to the growth of four a d d i t i o n a l shrub species. 84 Grasses, rushes and sedges: Control plot 11 contained a Carex sp. and Juncus sp. that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y grow i n 'wet meadow' habitat, which i s not as prevalent at Campsite 11. Mosses and live r w o r t s : Same as above. Campsite #12 Tree seedlings and shrubs: Same as campsite 11. Campsite #14 Trees: Same as campsite 11. Campsite #10 Mosses and live r w o r t s : Control p l o t 10 included a small ephemeral pond which supported f i v e a d d i t i o n a l moss and liverwort species (over the campsite). This accounts for the seven percentage point difference. Campsite #13 Trees: A rocky outcrop shields a large number of Krummholtz trees (Abies lasiocarpa) from bad weather at campsite 13, thus increasing t h e i r s u r v i v a l . Shrubs, herbs, grasses, rushes, sedges: This campsite i s situated on a ridge top, protected from severe weather by i t s concave shape. The control plot i s on a north easterly exposure which has made i t less conducive to the growth of several species occurring at the adjacent campsite. A number of 'trampling r e s i s t a n t ' and "trampling susceptible" plant species, (32 and 23 resp e c t i v e l y ) were chosen from eight other studies of recreation impacts i n areas s i m i l a r i n vegetation composition to the Stein basin for comparison with the species l i s t e d i n Tables 11 and 12. Each species was found at one or more campsites i n the S t e i n (Appendix 3). Since the above species were picked from available l i t e r a t u r e , representing only a portion of the f u l l complement of species i d e n t i f i e d 85 at Stein campsites, comparisons of o v e r a l l numbers of each category would not f a c i l i t a t e the development of campsite (vegetation community) trampling resistance i n d i c e s . What i s important however, i s to ascertain whether any of the species i d e n t i f i e d by other authors as impact prone or r e s i s t a n t showed a s i m i l a r pattern i n the Stein. Of the 61 species l i s t e d i n Appendix 3, only 17 showed s i m i l a r responses to trampling (Table 14). Twelve species were found to be trampling r e s i s t a n t i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as well as the previous studies reviewed. Five were consistently susceptible to trampling. An a d d i t i o n a l six species were i d e n t i f i e d as trampling r e s i s t a n t (invaders and increasers) i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and susceptible i n the previous in v e s t i g a t i o n s reviewed. No consistent patterns were i d e n t i f i e d for the remaining 38 species l i s t e d i n Appendix 3. These r e s u l t s could be interpreted i n two ways. F i r s t l y , i t i s possible that since most of the campsites studied have to t h i s point suffered only minor impacts, only a few species (17) have responded to trampling. The other explanation i s that since most of the 61 species c i t e d (38) showed no consistent pattern, or contradictory patterns (5), between control and experimental plot cover percentages i t may be that trampling resistance i s determined to a large extent by s i t e s p e c i f i c factors such as moisture regime and nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y , which vary to a small extent from s i t e - t o - s i t e . Which explanation i s closest to the truth may be ascertained once the r e s u l t s from a long term i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Stein have been analyzed. crj l-t vO r-s ct) -—> >—v ni it o OACJI 0 " > r t C T i c i c ^ c j > r j i r j N r t l - l t - l ^ t j O J t - l K L j L j L j t - l U J fl) H H H Li i O c d - H c d c d c d O c r J c d O O * u cd CO cd cd U vO r-. cd rd <d i n i n i n m cd r-v cr> m m in r-~ £ ON r -crv Q\ cr. a> o\ "" M9 •a >> TJ "™' M 1-1 U IU O >-< i-i i j OJ cu cu (Tj rH OJ OJ OJ a a B B 0 rH *J B B B OJ OJ OJ (1) rH l-i ca <D a) OJ CO o 0 o O r l CO H o o o rx< Pi 3 X u «: o i o i 4 J 4 J 4 - J 4 - > W « £ t - l « J c d c d r d c d t i s c d r d UUJJUrJ'^UU ii) (i) oi in cn"o " • cd cd i-i 4-1 0) U) *H r l r l • cd cd 4-» 4-1 in in a- Xi X> X X) 01 r l - r l T ! - r l 4J 4-* 4J 4J E o. a a a 3 OJ OJ OJ OJ 3% (J (J O O ^ 10 IA 10 IA CO 3 3 3 3 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ H H H i - l r l H X> Xt X X> XI X • r l ^ >H r l T I r l 4-t *-t 4-» 4J 4-1 4-J a a a a a a oj OJ oj oj aj OJ o u o u u o io io (A to IA n 3 3 3 3 3 3 to ui in in io tn vO CO N C A <i vo I D a ) i CN m m r-. ^ - j on I N • co r O f t o - CN - I <D H tn tn ui oi m O J O J 0 J O J 0 J O J O J O J O J ' 4 - > 4 - l 4 - J 4 J 4 - l 4 - > 4 ^ 4 - l 4 - > tn cn tn to in tn 01 L i U U M V i U I - i M M l - i t - i a ) O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J c d T j T j T J T J T J ' O T J T J T J T l T I 0) c Q c d c t l c o c O c d c d c d c d c o c t l ) - ! > > > > > > > > > > > o C C C C C C C C P C C d v f C I <y\ » » • O n c n M rt OJ 4-1 CO CO Ul OJ - H QJ OJ OJ 4-1 03 4J *J 4J > a> > > > o u o o o s . OJ OJ U TJ * - <J rt OJ OJ OJ OJ 4J 4J 4J 4-1 r l r l r l r l • ID 10 W Ul U U U U U CO OJ oj OJ OJ ai co •a T J T J T J -a OJ cd cd <t) co co > > > > > u "3 t>J c j c j J 3 " ~~ C *1 o o g o -a -a oo a : o u a . 87 Tabular analyses of vegetation data provided information concerning which campsites have sustained the greatest impacts. Since no use data are yet available to compare with these impacts, one can only conjecture as to which plant communities are most susceptible to trampling damage. 4.4 Vegetation Vigor Class Ratings Species vigor ratings of '3' and '4' were summarized for the t o t a l number of species at each plot (Table 15). The mean percent values for control and experimental plot pairs were then compared between seasons to determine when the best plant i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s from c o l l e c t e d specimens could be made. As shown i n Table 15, most s i t e s could be inventoried i n both spring and summer, with l i t t l e differences i n the percentages of 'good' and 'reproducing' vigor classed species. If 80 percent of the t o t a l number of species i s a r b i t r a r i l y used as the cut-off value for the occurrence of '3' and '4' classed species, then i t i s apparent that inventories at s i t e s 5 and 6 (PPBGf subzone) should be done i n the spring only. Because inventories were not completed for a l l season and plot combinations, some conjecture i s necessary to determine whether some of the higher elevation s i t e s should be inventoried i n spring and summer. The dotted heavy l i n e s i n Table 15 represent those s i t e s which may have high percentages of e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e species i n a given season. In the case of s i t e 13, which has the highest elevation of the 15 s i t e s , a spring inventory would most l i k e l y result i n a small number of i d e n t i -f i a b l e herb species. 1 TABLE 15. Plot vigor ratlnga from species vigor classes for spr ing, summer and r j l l Inventories S i te number and control level Season Parameter 5 .0 .1 6 .0 .1 7 .0 .1 8 .0 .1 11 .0 .1 12 .0 .1 10 .0 .1 1 .0 .1 2 .0 .1 3 .0 . 1 4 .0 .1 9 .0 .1 13 .0 .1 14 .0 .1 15 .0 .1 Number of species X of species rated SPRING ' 3 " and ' 4 ' Mean X for exper i -mental and con-t r o l p lots 33 36 85 78 40 36 77 82 33 21 100 81 41 39 88 95 39 29 97 97 38 31 97 97 35 35 94 100 33 32 75 91 30 30 90 90 29 34 90 85 33 34 82 88 27 31 95 90 i 81 80 91 92 97 97 97 83 90 88 85 93 Number of species X of species rated SUMMER and ' 4 ' Mean X for exper i -mental and cont-t r o l p lots 32 32 75 81 78 42 32 69 81 75 42 21 95 85 43 36 88 88 31 33 97 97 44 42 91 87 30 33 93 85 33 30 72 96 39 26 79 88 27 27 88 88 24 27 88 88 33 31 97 81 47 28 87 86 42 34 95 94 i 90 88 97 89 89 84 84 88 88 89 87 95 Number of species X of species rated F A L L ' 3 ' and ' 4 ' Mean X for exper i -mental and con-t r o l p lots 20 22 60 77 69 19 23 58 77 68 39 16 62 80 71 34 37 65 84 75 26 25 65 56 61 27 27 66 77 72 - -- -29 30 93 77 S3 28 89 89 52 39 98 92 31 30 94 90 85 89 95 92 ' v igor c lass codes : 0 - dead 1 - poor 2 - moderate 3 • good 4 - reproducing - flowering or f r u i t i n g S i te numbers: 1-15 Control l e ve l s : .0 - experimental plot .1 • contro l plot I I Refers to Inventories during periods of more than 80X of species rated as ' 3 ' or ' 4 ' Refers to Inventories projected to be during periods of more than 801 of species rated '3' or ' 4 ' CO CO 89 Some s i t e s may be subject to snowfalls, making them impossible to inventory. This occurred at s i t e 10 i n early July of 1980 and 1981 and s i t e s 13, 14 and 15 i n August of 1980 and early July of 1981. Based on Table 15, the f i n a l recommendation as to when to inventory are: 1. Carry out at l e a s t two inventories at each s i t e . 2. Concentrate on spring and summer seasons, leaving the highest elevation s i t e s to the l a s t , during each inventory cycle. This w i l l ensure that species flowering i n both spring and summer w i l l be c o l l e c t e d and i d e n t i f i e d , thus providing a complete species record. Vigor ratings w i l l provide the opportunity to monitor species vigor changes over a number of years. For example, a decline i n tree vigor would be evidenced by ratings dropping from 3 to 0 on campsites, and remaining at '3' on control plots. Also i n the early stages of p h y s i o l o g i c a l stress, an increase i n cone production may occur ( i n conifer stands), and would show up as an increase i n the number of '4' ratings. The need for more than one vegetation inventory per monitoring period was highlighted by the fact that d i f f e r e n t plant species may be i d e n t i f i e d with c e r t a i n t y only during the periods i n which they flower. Most of the alpine and subalpine meadows (ATb and ESSFpf subzones) bloom i n up to three 'waves', and therefore a complete species l i s t may only be obtained from more than one inventory. S i m i l a r l y , t h i s study showed that blooming periods for grass and herb species i n the lower Stein (PPBGf, IDFd, IDF subzones) tended to be at d i f f e r e n t times- In most instances grass species had shed t h e i r seeds (making i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s d i f f i c u l t ) p r i o r to the appearance of the many flowering herb species-In both survey years, most grass species were senescent by mid-June, with herbs reaching f u l l bloom a week or two l a t e r -A bark beetle i n f e s t a t i o n has begun i n the S t e i n . Dr. P. Murtha (1981, Personal Communication^) has ascertained from the v i s u a l observations of a single low l e v e l a e r i a l reconnaissance of the Lower S t e i n that a large percentage of lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce stands have been s t r i c k e n . I t i s apparent from subjective ground observations that t h i s outbreak may be a f f e c t i n g the lodgepole pines at s i t e s '7' and '9'. Evidence of pine tree cutting has been noted at sites 7, 8, 9 and 2. 4.5 Firewood Scavenging Distances Firewood scavenging distances were assessed according to the minimum radius necessary to obtain one night's supply of firewood for two people. Most campsites had ample firewood close at hand (Table 16). Sites 11 and 12 i n the ESSFpf subzone required a 100 m radius search and campsite 10 i n the ATb subzone required a 350 m search. If D a v i l l a ' s (1979) determination that an average camper i s w i l l i n g to search a radius of 70 m i s used as a firewood shortage threshold, then the above three s i t e s are candidates for a ban on campfires. Dr. P. Murtha, 1981 personal communication, Professor, Faculty of Forestry, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 91 TABLE 16. Average firewood scavenging distances Campsite # Radius for 1 night's firewood (m) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10 13, 15 20 5, 14 30 11, 12 100 10 350 92 Other high elevation campsites (13 - ATb subzone and 14 - ESSFpf) had low scavenging distances for a very limited supply of Krummholtz deadwood. This dead wood would deplete rapidly with use. Campsites i n the dry, open-grown PPBGd subzone (5 and 6) may be of future concern, due to the p o s s i b i l i t y of heavy use, and l i m i t e d deadwood production. A l l other s i t e s appear to be adequately endowed with deadwood and a capacity to produce i t . 4 .6 S o i l Inventory Results S o i l Great Group names and parent material origins for each camp-s i t e - control plot combination are l i s t e d i n Table 17. Appendix 9 l i s t s the S o i l Great groups for the en t i r e Stein according to M i t c h e l l e_t_ a_l_. (1981) and Nichols (1982, Personal Communication). As would be expected most s o i l s i n the lower flood prone v a l l e y bottom were c l a s s i -f i e d as Humic Regosols and E u t r i c Brunisols on undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material. Sites furthest west, i n the wetter subcontinental c l i m a t i c region t r a n s i t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d as Humo-Ferric podzols. A E u t r i c Brunisol was found at a cirque basin s i t e (#10), while Humic and Luvic Gleysols were found at high elevation 'le v e l meadow' s i t e s (#11 and #12). At each p l o t , 'surface substrate' was divided into six categories as defined by Walmsley e t ^ a l . (1980): 1. water 4. organic matter 2. bedrock and boulders 5. decaying wood 3. cobbles and stones 6. exposed mineral s o i l 93 TABLE 17. S o i l inventory r e s u l t s : Great groups and parent material o r i g i n s Site number Great group Parent material o r i g i n 1 2 3-4 5-6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 Humic Regosol Humic Regosol Humic Regosol Humic Regosol Regosol Regosol E u t r i c Brunisol E u t r i c Brunisol Luvic Gleysol Humic Gleysol Humo-Ferric Podzol Humo-Ferric Podzol Humo-Ferric Podzol undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l and c o l l u v i a l material - >500 cm thick undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l material on undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l and c o l l u v i a l material Cirque basin sediment l e v e l meadow i n steep sided v a l l e y -sediment trap l e v e l meadow i n steep sided valley -sediment trap sheltered g r a n i t i c ridge overlain by a th i n veneer of t i l l l e v e l meadow i n steep sided valley -sediment trap colluvium, volcanic ash i n Ah horizon 94 Each ground cover type was rated according to the percent of the surface i t occupied (Appendix 11). The 'exposed mineral s o i l ' category was most informative regarding impacts (Table 18). Exposed mineral s o i l at campsites ranged from <1 to 30% of the t o t a l surface area. When compared with control p l o t s , differences ranged from none to 20 percent. The two s i t e s rated highest were used during the construction of primitive recreational f a c i l i t i e s . Campsite 9.0 i s adjacent to the Cable Crossing, and 2.0 contains 'Adam's Shelter'. These campsites were the only two rated as '3' on W i l l a r d and Marr's 0-5 impact scale (Table 2). A l l other s i t e s , with the exception of 1.0 had 10% or le s s of t h e i r surface area as exposed mineral s o i l . In the case of s i t e 1.0, both control plot and campsite had 15% bare mineral s o i l . This was most l i k e l y due to two factors: 1. Both pl o t s at s i t e 1 are situated on f l u v i a l sand deposits, which do not support large amounts of plant cover. 2. The open nature of the IDF zone tree canopy and r i v e r s i d e l o c a t i o n of both plots promotes removal of leaf l i t t e r by wind. Sites situated on granite colluvium tended towards high bedrock and boulder coverage ( s i t e s 5, 6 and 7), while recent f l u v i a l s i t e s i n the Lower Stein tended toward high cobble and stone coverage (from highest to lowest: 3, 8, 1 and 4). S i t e 2, had no exposed rock of any kind, because i t was most probably subject to s i l t and sand accumulation during recent flooding. Sites 9 and 15 on c o l l u v i a l parent materials, had l i t t l e rock.showing at the surface. The four high elevation TABLE 18. Comparison or" exposed mineral s o i l area (X of substrate) at control and experimental plots with Impact ratings from Table J (WlUard and Marr, 1970) Site number1 and control l e v e l ^ Parameters 11 .0 .1 12 .0 .1 5 3 .0 . 1 1 .0 .1 10 .0 .1 14 .0 .1 15 .0 .1 7 .0 .1 3 4 .0 .1 8 .0 .1 13 .0 .1 6 3 .0 .1 4 4 .0 .1 9 .0 .1 2 .0 .1 Exposed mineral s o i l (Z) Cl <1 <1 <1 10 10 15 15 <1 0 2 <1 3 1 4 2 3 0 10 5 8 0 10 2 9 0 30 10 30 10 Test plot value ( I ) — Control plot value (Z) 0 0 0 0 . 5 1.4 2 2 3 5 8 8 9 20 20 Rank order of differences 1 (low Impact) to 15 (high Impact) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Past s i t e use rating 0 » none 1 - some 2 • much 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Impact rating from Wi l l a r d and Marr (1970) 0 (none) to 5 (extreme) 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 J S i t e s 5 and 6 share a single control p l o t , due to th e i r proximity "'Sites 3 and 4 share a single control p l o t , due to their proximity 5 A l l <IX values were set at .SX for comparisons l S i t e numbers: 1-15 2 ^-Control l e v e l : .0 » experimental (campsite) plot .1 - control plot 96 v a l l e y s i t e s (10, 11, 12 and 14) which have served as sediment traps had l i t t l e rock coverage of any type. Campsite 13 had some exposed bedrock (7%), due to the scouring e f f e c t s of wind on i t s slope crest p o s i t i o n . 'Decaying wood' and 'organic matter' surface substrates decreased proportionately with an increase i n percent coverage by 'mineral s o i l ' . Penetrometer measurements were inconsistent i n the lower Stein, where coarse fragments impeded i n s e r t i o n of the penetrometer. Because of t h i s problem, i t i s recommended that trampling compaction studies be discontinued or modified with the use of 'bulk density' measurements. Pot e n t i a l compaction problems related to plant growth may also be i d e n t i f i e d by examining s o i l texture and e f f e c t i v e rooting depths. As shown i n Table 19, these factors together are l i m i t i n g at campsites 11, 12 and 14. Low i n f i l t r a t i o n rates ( l e s s than 20 cm/hour) were related to fin e s o i l texture ( s i l t y and loamy c l a y ) , low coarse fragment content (less than 10 percent) and high water table (l e s s than .5 m from the surface). This was most pronounced at campsites 11 and 12, and would prove to be a severe l i m i t a t i o n for human waste disposal. A l l lower Stein s i t e s have good drainage as evidenced by high i n f i l t r a t i o n rates, coarse fragment content and low water table l e v e l s . Therefore, no l i m i t a t i o n s for waste disposal would ex i s t as long as p i t p r i v i e s are located away from ground water recharge areas (seepage s i t e s ) and running water. Hoffman et_ _al. (1975) found a high c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i n L F H and Ah s o i l horizon thicknesses and high numbers of invading plant species. TAILS 19. Cups I t * l la i tattoos b*t«d on Maiuraaenti of ««l«cted i o l l partnwtcr* S i t * Hinibor 1 aod C o o t r o l L a v a l 2 S o i l p n u i t i t 1 2 3> t J 5* 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 It 15 L l a i t a t l o o a -. .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 . 0 .1 . 0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 S o i l t a r t u r a ' CS cs frs m vcs vcs vcs vcs] s S s s FS rs s s rs PS SL SL j SICL S l c L LCL LCL L L CL q SL SI Dlap lacaaao t n u e k l o i aod a r o d l b l l l t y Surfaea C M I M f ragaanta • •a l o o l 20 10 ] 10 to IS 12 15 ts 25 S 10 i 3 5 5 « 1 5 3 10 2 3 2 3 ; E r o d i b i l i t y (X of a r e . ) I n f i l t r a t i o n r a t aa 90 so 60 to SO so •0 90 ISO 250 2t0 250 IS 22 6 ) ts tt 50 J20 20 7 t t t 10 10 100 100 55 to Dralnaga-cootaaunanta ( en /h r ) aod auck lng Dapth to v a t a r t a b l a (cm) >t00 MOO >J00 >200 400 too too too >too >too >too >too >too MOO >300 >300 >too >too 250 250 J-50 0-20 100 0-30 0-20 0-2C >300 >too >too >too E f f a c t l v * r o o t i n g dapth •0 •0 >200 >200 250 >20O >200 >200 >200 >200 >200 >200 >I50 >I50 ts ts 71 71 25 25 24 26 21 21 22 22 3t - 1 sb 50 Plan t growth < c « ) aod a u r r l y a l LFH • Ah M i l h o r l t o o t h l c k n . i a ( c a ) t t 1 « 5 s s s ) 3 1 J 5 5 t t 6 6 JO 30 12 12 13 13 9 9 1 3 7 7 | I l a f a r a to eaapat ta r a r l a b l a a a l f a l f r l o f i m i t a t i o n s f o r eaaplns I S l t o nuaber* 1—19 1 C o o t r o l . 0 - • a p a r l a a o t a l ( caapa l t a ) p l o t .1 - c o n t r o l p l o t 5 S l t a a 3 aod t ahara a coaaoo c o o t r o l p l o t do* t o t h a l r p r o x l o i t y . * S i t . . 5 and t ahara a coaaoo c o n t r o l p l o t doa t o t h a l r p r o a l a U y . 5 5 0 i i t . K t u r . : rs • f l o a aaad I " aaod CS - coa raa oand VCS - vary eoaraa aand L • l o a a SL - B a n d y l o a a CL - c l a y l o a n LCL - loan? d a y SICL - a l l t y c l a y . 98 This was not borne out by the current study, as a l l lower Stein s i t e s had less than seven cm thick LFH and Ah horizons (Table 19), but had between 5 and 3 5 percent of t h e i r t o t a l species complements as invaders (Figure 3 ) . By monitoring LFH and A horizons over the long term, i t may be possible to study further any re l a t i o n s h i p s which may exi s t between horizon thicknesses and plant species composition changes as well as obtain d i r e c t measurements of erosion and compaction re l a t e d to trampling. S o i l erosion on t r a i l s adjacent to campsites i s at present, n e g l i g i b l e . Several t r a i l s i n the lower Stein (main t r a i l , N. Shore t r a i l , Stryen Creek t r a i l for example) have been b u i l t and maintained s p o r a d i c a l l y over a number of years. Although erosion problems have been kept i n check with log bridging, cut and f i l l techniques and rock placement, some steep t r a i l sections w i l l continue to erode and cause obstructions to t r a v e l . Trouble spots i n the Lower St e i n have been i d e n t i f i e d by BCFS t r a i l crews and documented i n i n t e r n a l reports. This procedure should continue and expand into the upper reaches of the va l l e y where t r a i l s e x i s t (Cottonwood canyon pack t r a i l , 5000 foot meadow t r a i l , N. Stein meadow t r a i l for example). Further, duplicate t r a i l development could be reduced by proper demarcation of routes with flagging, rock cairns or s i m i l a r d i r e c t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r s . When campsite impact ratings (Figure 3 ) and s o i l Great Groups (Figure 4 ) were compared, no impact i n d i c a t i n g patterns were evident. 99 4.7 Campsite Limitations Based on S o i l and Site Variable Measurements 4.7.1 E r o d i b i l i t y F i e l d measurements of s o i l texture and coarse fragment surface area estimates revealed that only one of the 15 campsites was highly erodible (Table 19). Campsite 2 was situated on very f i n e sandy textured s o i l , with no surface coarse fragments. As i l l u s t r a t e d by Leonard and Plumley (1979) i n Table 1, those s o i l s possessing intermediate textures ( f i n e sand and s i l t ) with low organic matter or clay content and no surface cobbles (which reduce runoff v e l o c i t y ) are most e a s i l y erodible. It was determined through s o i l horizon examinations that a l l camp-s i t e s were situated on weak structured, single grained s o i l s . Because of t h i s , a l l s i t e s would be subject to large amounts of erosion i f run-off were of high volume and v e l o c i t y . This could occur during periods of abrupt snowmelt. Sites most e a s i l y eroded by water would be those situated i n the 'hanging v a l l e y ' topography of the ESSFpf subzone ( s i t e s 11, 12 and 14). The Lower St e i n campsites are reasonably secure from these erosion e f f e c t s except during severe flooding, which would v i r t u a l l y destroy them. Evidence for t h i s can be seen i n the Cottonwood creek area (campsites 3 and 4 ) , where numerous recent flood channels have eroded to a depth of several meters. Although the coarse sandy textured s o i l s at s i t e s 1, 3 and 4 are not highly erodible, they are prone to displacement with trampling, due to t h e i r single grained structure. Once the herb root layer i s removed by s c u f f i n g , the sand i s e a s i l y s h i f t e d underfoot, making plant re-establishment d i f f i c u l t . 100 The loamy clay and s i l t y clay s o i l s at the three ESSFpf subzone campsites (11, 12 and 14) are prone to mud formation due to t h e i r high clay content and va l l e y bottom positions. 4.7.2 S o i l drainage At s i t e s 11, 12 (N. Stein Meadow) and 13 (Tundra Lake), low i n f i l t r a t i o n rates (4-10 cm/hr) and high water tables (0-50 cm) were observed (Table 19). Site 10 (Cirque Lake) had a low i n f i l t r a t i o n rate score (20 cm/hr) but a much deeper water table (250 cm). Drinking water can be obtained from slow moving or stagnant sources within a few meters of the best tenting spots, at each of the above campsites. Because of t h i s , disposal of human waste close to them may ultimately result i n drinking water contamination. 4.7.3 Plant growth and s u r v i v a l Shallow e f f e c t i v e rooting depths were observed at high elevation campsites (10-14). These depths ranged from 21 to 34 cm (Table 19). Damage to most of the root volumes at these s i t e s could r e s u l t from human trampling thus reducing the chances of plant growth and s u r v i v a l . Also, because trampling compaction generally reduces the chances of successful plant regeneration (seed germination, root growth and nutrient and water uptake reductions) e s p e c i a l l y at higher elevations, these s i t e s may not recover well from seasonal heavy trampling. E f f e c t i v e rooting depths of 45-70 cm were observed at s i t e s 8, 9 and 15, while a l l other Lower Stein s i t e s ' rooting depths were greater than 90 cm. 101 LFH and Ah s o i l horizon thicknesses were l i s t e d f o r each campsite i n Table 19. A l l of the Lower Stein campsites (1-9 and 15) and the 5000 foot meadow s i t e (#14) had l e s s than 7 cm of Ah and/or LFH horizons, and could be subject to reduced l e v e l s of plant growth and s u r v i v a l as a r e s u l t of removal of the t h i n surface s o i l horizons (Sayer, 1978). The majority of campsites had i n f i l t r a t i o n rates ranging from 55 to 240 cm/hr, and depths to water table ranging from at l e a s t 200 to 400 cm. Depths were estimated as 'greater than 200 cm' by observing r i v e r cutbanks, since s o i l survey p i t s were li m i t e d to one meter. Low i n f i l t r a t i o n rates and/or a high water table may increase mud formation, such as at S i t e #13. 4.8 Campsite C a p a b i l i t y Ratings Each of the 15 campsites was given a c a p a b i l i t y rating based on 21 f a c t o r s . Walker (1978) stated that 20 of these were worthy of consider-ation when planning and maintaining primitive campgrounds and t r a i l s i n Canadian National Parks. One a d d i t i o n a l factor, firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y has been added, as i t i s applicable to 'primitive' camping situations such as exist i n the Stein. This c h e c k l i s t describes a l l the l i m i t a t i o n s previously outlined with the addition of several others that Walker (1978) stated were worthy of consideration. The 21 l i m i t a t i o n s are l i s t e d i n Figure 5. D e f i n i t i o n s of impact i n d i c a t i n g factor conditions were also included, where not previously described: • V ^ ^ ^ " V ^ " V S o i l order "V V , ^ v. Drainage Texture Rocklness Stonlness Depth to bedrock "V* V " V . f e r c o l a t l o n r a t e and permeability M 0 F r a g i l e dominant vegetation sact S u ccessional status indj •v. -v V Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y i—• n p> rt V . Vegetation v i g o r H -3 QQ ^ " V . V V Rooting depth < PI W i l d l i f e habitat M H -Ol Flood hazard ible •v. Surface water features •v. Water q u a l i t y Water t a b l e height Climate Landforms Aspect shading Landslide hazard 00 c BJ rt o S Ul o a-m o F i g u r e 5 (cont 'd) L i m i t a t i o n s S o i l o r d e r * Drainage Texture . R o c k l n e s s S t o n l n e s s Depth t o bedrock P e r m e a b i l i t y and p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e 2 Regosol: e r o s i o n , C r y o B o l : c r y o t u r b a t l o n , G l e y s o l and O r g a n i c : wet Imperfect to very poor: e r o s i o n or aud f o r m a t i o n S i l t y loam, s l l t y c l a y , c l a y loam, loamy sand: some mud f o r m a t i o n S l l t y c l a y , sandy c l a y , c l a y and o r g a n i c : severe mud f o r m a t i o n Rocky to extre m e l y rocky: v e g e t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and l a c k of t e n t s i t e s M o d e r a t e l y t o e x c e s s i v e l y s t o n y : v e g e t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and l a c k of t e n t s i t e s Less than •5 t o 1 • depth: severe l i m i t a t i o n s f o r v e g e t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and human waste d i s p o s a l Slow (<25 m i n ) : mud f o r m a t i o n and human waste d i s p o s a l V e g e t a t i o n type S u c c e s s I o n a l s t a t u a Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y V.K«ir R o o t i n g depth W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t * I d e n t i f y f r a g i l e communities Young s e r a i s t a g e s s i g n i f y f u t u r e changes which may b e d e s i r a b l e or u n d e s I r a b l e i . e . mode r a t e l y sparse c o n I f e roue regenerat Ion as opposed to I n v a s i o n by d e n B e shrubs. Overmature stage may s i g n i f y f u t u r e d e t e r l o r a t l u n and t r e e hazards L i m i t a t i o n t f r a d i u s t o r g a t h e r i n g one n i g h t ' s supply oi f i r e w o o d exceeds 70 m Dead t o pour ( i r - J ) awiy M . K ' i l t y d l H i * , i H . - , c u r r e n t l r a | i ( i c i M i»r ov«-rm.it ur i -s t i i K i i d i i l c o n d i t i o n Shallow-': e x t e n s i v e root damage C r i t i c a l h a b i t a t (community types or w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s presence) f l o o d hazard Surface f e a t u r e s ^ Water q u a l i t y S easonal water t a b l e h e i g h t C l i m a t e Landforms Aspect shading L a n d s l i d e hazard Severe: damage to f a c i l i t i e s and v i s i t o r s F r a g i l e a q u a t i c ecosystems, a l s o l a c k of s u r f a c e water High c o l i f o r m , t u r b i d , s t a g n a n t , choked w i t h algae or ot h e r submergents At s u r f a c e : mud f o r m a t i o n , s h a l l o w (.5 m): human waste d i s p o s a l problems Heavy r a i n or snowpack, low temperature extremes ( c o l d a i r d r a i n a g e ) , h i g h winds: u n d e s i r a b l e U n c o n s o l i d a t e d , mass movement prone landforms: e r o s i o n N aspect may be e x c e s s i v e l y shaded promoting wet and c o l d c o n d i t i o n s Below steep s l o p e s or s l i d e prone m a t e r i a l s . *A11 v a r i a b l e measurements f o l l o w W alasley et a l . (1980) w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the f u l i o w i n g : ^ P e r m e a b i l i t y and p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e : (auger hole method - Walker 1978) - r a p i d (5-15 min/era) mod (15-25 mln/cm) slow (>25 mln/cn). 3 R o o t l n g depth - s h a l l o w (<15 cm), deep (>15 cm) from Walker (1978). ^ W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s t o be avoided i n c l u d e areas used f o r r e p r o d u c t i o n and r e a r i n g of young, w i n t e r denning a r e a s , m i n e r a l l i c k s and areas c r i t i c a l to the w i n t e r s u r v i v a l of a n i m a l s . ^ S u r f a c e water f e a t u r e s : i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from Walker (1978). 104 S o i l Order Walker (1978) stated that s o i l orders were i n d i c a t i v e of general drainage, organic matter content, i c e , climate and vegetation associa-t i o n s . Those s o i l orders which he said would pose l i m i t a t i o n s for camping were Regosol ( s i t e s 1, 3-8), Gleysol ( s i t e s 11 and 12), Organic and Cryosol. However, the Humic Regosol Great Group would not neces-s a r i l y pose more l i m i t a t i o n s than the s o i l s of several other Orders e.g. Chenozemic, Solonetzic, Podzolic, B r u n i s o l i c F r a g i l e Dominant Vegetation Walker's (1978) recommendation was that f r a g i l e vegetation communities be i d e n t i f i e d and avoided when planning campsite and t r a i l l o cations. No one community was found to be more or less susceptible to trampling damage than another, based on a review of l i t e r a t u r e p e r tain-ing to trampling resistance ratings of s i m i l a r areas. Also tabular analyses i d e n t i f i e d current impacts only. Thus, f r a g i l e dominant vegetation types had to be i n f e r r e d from generalizations related to other of the 20 factors already considered i n these c a p a b i l i t y ratings. Those high elevation vegetation communities which are saturated for long periods (campsites 11, 12 and 14) must be considered as highly susceptible to trampling damage. These communities have a preponderance of species with high water content (Anemone o c c i d e n t a l i s , Lupinus lepidus and Valeriana s i t c h e n s i s f o r example), which are e a s i l y bruised and broken, as well as a number of e a s i l y displaced 'mat' and 'clump' forming mosses (Bryum sp., Dicranum spp., and Rhacomitrium canescens for example). These sites are 105 also situated at high elevation where short growing season and fast growth rates combine to increase s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to damage (Cole, 1977). Also, herb species situated on unstructured sandy s o i l (campsites 1 and 2) may be subject to some root damage due to s h i f t i n g of the s o i l underfoot. Successional Status This was assessed according to the c r i t e r i a of Walmsley et a l . (1980). Impacts may be accentuated i n overmature or declining ecosystems that may be replaced by other vegetation types. If s i t e s are situated i n overmature f o r e s t , then windthrow of snags or dying trees may become a hazard, e s p e c i a l l y on newly created forest edges, perpendicular to p r e v a i l i n g winds. Campsites were rated as MEC (maturing edaphic climax - s i t e s 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14), MS (maturing s e r a i - s i t e 1) YEC (Young edaphic climax - s i t e 7), OS (overmature s e r a i - s i t e 2) and MCC (maturing c l i m a t i c climax - s i t e s 8-12). Only s i t e 2 has overmature trees. However, the healthy mixed deciduous and coniferous ' A 3 ' canopy may grow well i n the opening created by previous tree cutting. The larges t trees i n a l l study plots were at s i t e 2 (overmature s e r a i ) . Veteran Douglas-firs over 50 m high were present at both experimental and control p l o t s . These trees have survived 'wind topping' and ground f i r e s ( f i r e s c a r s ) , but are d e f i n i t e l y d e c l i n i n g i n vigor. Their size makes them both a l i a b i l i t y (windthrow hazard) and an a t t r a c t i o n for the campsite. 106 Stand influences may also be included in the assessment of succes -s i o n a l status l i m i t a t i o n s . Lower Stein campsites ( s i t e s 1-9) have been influenced by periodic ground f i r e s . The la s t large f i r e to sweep through the area was approximately 70 years ago, as evidenced by tree branch whorl counts. This f i r e burned understory vegetation (canopies 5-10) but only scorched the veteran and dominant trees. These ground f i r e s along with chronic hot, dry conditions have maintained an open forest canopy i n the lower valley bottom, which i s excellent for hiking and exploring. Other stand influences have been dealt with separately. Vegetation Vigor Although some sporadic dead and dying trees occurred on the study p l o t s , no concentrations (of dead or dying trees) were found with the exception of the lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var l a t i f o l i a ) trees at s i t e 9. The lush meadow vegetation found at si t e s 11 and 12 showed excellent vigor, although these meadow communities may be reduced i n vigor with l i g h t trampling. W i l d l i f e Habitat Walker (1978) was concerned that c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e habitat areas be avoided, and that s i g n i f i c a n t w i l d l i f e species and community types be i d e n t i f i e d . In the Stein, a s i g n i f i c a n t population of g r i z z l y bears e x i s t s . Sightings were made at Campsite 1, and near Campsite 4 during f i e l d work. Black bears were also encountered. None of the campsites 107 inventoried appeared to be i n areas of high bear use, as tracks, sightings and spoor observations were scattered throughout the study area. Mule deer and large numbers of deer tracks were rou t i n e l y encountered throughout the Stein. Mountain goats, on the other hand, were never observed, even during seven hours of helicopter and 'fixed wing' reconnaissance of the v a l l e y . Flood Hazard Sites 3 and 4 were situated beside Cottonwood Creek, which tends to flood i n years of high runoff (numerous flood channels e x i s t ) . This hazard precludes any f a c i l i t y development at either s i t e , although a multitude of s i m i l a r s i t e s on higher benches could be used for campsite development. Sites 11 and 12 are subject to saturation by seepage. In high runoff years, s i t e 11 would be inundated. Site 12 i s close by, but situated on a bench which would remain above floodwaters. This i s s i m i l a r to the s i t u a t i o n at s i t e s 13 and 14. The general area of s i t e s 11 and 12 contains a number of elevated benches which would s u f f i c e as camping areas i n times of heavy runoff. These higher benches would also be more impact r e s i s t a n t as t h e i r vegetation composition more cl o s e l y resembles that of s i t e s 10 and 13. Water Quality No problems with water qu a l i t y such as t u r b i d i t y or obvious source of contamination were noted upon v i s u a l inspection at the time of t h i s study. Site 13 contains a small pool, which could be e a s i l y contami-nated with overuse of the s i t e . This pool i s maintained l a t e into the 108 summer by the presence of a l i v i n g moss dike. If t h i s moss were to be disturbed, then the pool may be destroyed^as drainage occurs through the dike. Climate Site 10 i s located i n a cirque basin, which acts as an area of cold a i r drainage. This, combined with high adjacent peaks which put the s i t e i n shadow for almost half the day, constitutes a moderate c l i m a t i c l i m i t a t i o n . Site 15 also suffers from the shadow e f f e c t s of high adjacent peaks. Due to the steep sidedness of the lower half of the v a l l e y , and i t s east-west o r i e n t a t i o n , d i r e c t sun does not shine for a period of several months of the year. (This was ascertained from the guest book at Adam's cabin, near the 'shelter' campsite - #2). Landforms The two campsites inventoried at North S t e i n meadow (#11 and 12) are situated on l e v e l v a l l e y bottom, which served as a sediment trap during the l a s t recession of alpine g l a c i a l i c e . This s i t e p o s i t i o n accounts for t h e i r wetness, due to slow drainage. The Lower St e i n campsites are not l i m i t e d i n t h i s way, as the g l a c i o f l u v i a l terraces are very well drained. Small sand pockets of many s i t e s do, however, constitute a minor l i m i t a t i o n to vegetation s u r v i v a l with the d i s p l a c i n g e f f e c t (to the sand) of foot t r a f f i c . Stoniness at s i t e s 1, 3, 4 and 8 and rockiness at s i t e s 5, 6 and 7 may be a minor l i m i t a t i o n to campsite use or future development. 109 Aspect It i s most advantageous to camp on s i t e s with warm aspects. Sites 7 and 15 face north and are at the bases of steep t e r r a i n , and are thus cool. Landslide Hazard Sites 7 and 15 may be subject to landslides as they are situated at steep slope toe p o s i t i o n s , with large amounts of c o l l u v i a l material close by. In summary, i t appears that campsites may be ranked from most to l e a s t desirable i n t h i s way: S i t e # 2, 9 - no l i m i t a t i o n s 5, 6, 8 - minor l i m i t a t i o n of ' s o i l order' 7 s o i l order, landslide hazard 15 shading, landslide hazard 3, 4 s o i l order, texture, flood hazard 10 drainage, rooting depth, climate 14 drainage, rockiness, f r a g i l e vegetation, rooting depth 13 depth to bedrock, percolation rate, vegetation vigor, surface water feature. 11, 12 s o i l order, drainage, texture, percolation rate, f r a g i l e vegetation, rooting depth, water table height and landforms. 4.9 Previous Campsite Use As shown i n Table 18, i t i s the Lower Stein campsites which have been used most often. These s i t e s a l l contain one or more f i r e p i t s . 11.0 Also, a number of them have leantos (#2), p i t t o i l e t s (#2 and 8), a teepee frame (#8) and benches (#2, 6, 8 and 9). Garbage has been found at s i t e s 6, 7, 8 and 9, and tree cutting has also occurred at some s i t e s 2, 6, 8 and 9). The 10 s i t e s chosen for study i n the Lower St e i n represent le s s than 10 percent of the campsites which have been i n i t i a t e d and used a number of times, over a period dating back to pre-settlement Indian hunting use. This large number of campsites has helped to d i l u t e the seriousness of impacts. The higher e l e v a t i o n upper S t e i n has apparently been les s w ell t r a v e l l e d , as few t r a i l s or established campsites e x i s t . This lack may be due to the vast, open nature of much of the alpine and subalpine areas, which allows greater freedom of movement, and tends to spread out use and impacts. It i s t h i s open nature however, which could r e s u l t i n serious widespread damages, should access be greatly improved by further logging or mining road development. Although the r e s u l t s of Dr. Dooling's use study have not yet been analyzed, i t would be safe to say that well over 100 people a year enter the S t e i n wilderness for camping t r i p s of 1 to 10 days duration. This could e a s i l y change i n just a few years to over 1000 or more, i f the Duffey Lake road i s improved and popularized, and logging roads are b u i l t i n t o the heart of the v a l l e y . Two t r i p routes appear to be most popular. The most t r a v e l l e d i s the lower Stein t r a i l up to Adam's s h e l t e r , and on to the confluence of Cottonwood Creek and the S t e i n River. The next most popular i s the Blowdown Pass-North Cottonwood Creek mining road and p a c k t r a i l through Cottonwood Canyon to the Lower Stein t r a i l . This one-way t r i p , although not well marked i n spots i s used because of the r e l a t i v e l y easy access to alpine t e r r a i n i n the area of the North fork of the Cottonwood. 4.10 Watershed Perspective A f t e r discussing the d e t a i l s of i n d i v i d u a l s i t e impacts and recreation development c a p a b i l i t i e s , these results can be generalized to the watershed as a whole. PPBGd and IDFc subzones This area situated close to the confluence of the S t e i n and Fraser r i v e r s i s hot and dry from early May to the end of October. It o f f e r s open forested flood terraces, which are excellent for camping. Also, since these subzones are endowed with a spring bloom of flowers unique to the semi-arid climate, and Steelhead trout run in the f i r s t few kilometers of the Stein, they are very a t t r a c t i v e for camping. If a logging road were to be b u i l t above the majority of flood terraces i n these subzones, camping use would dramatically increase. Three l i m i t a t i o n s for more intensive camping are important to consider. Most important would be the poor supply and production of firewood, and the high r i s k of w i l d f i r e due to the dry conditions. These problems could be eliminated by providing firewood and fireboxes, or as a l a s t resort, banning campfires. Surface sand pockets on some flood terraces would be subject to s h i f t i n g underfoot causing vegetation mortality. This constitutes a moderate l i m i t a t i o n , as most of the sand pockets are small. If these sandy areas were avoided, any of the flood 112 terraces would be suitable for campsite development and i n t e n s i f i e d use. IDfd subzone This subzone has a denser forest canopy than the PPBGd and IDFc subzones, and as a r e s u l t , more de a d f a l l i s available for firewood. The area i s dry, and may be prone to forest f i r e s during drought periods. Most of the eastern portion of t h i s subzone i s s i m i l a r to the PPBGd and IDFc subzones, with abundant floo d terraces flanking the r i v e r . Many of the lodgepole pine stands are s u f f e r i n g heavy mo r t a l i t y ( s i t e #9). These areas include a number of terraces which could be cleared of de a d f a l l (a source of firewood) and used as campsites. Some are located a distance above the r i v e r , thus providing good p i t privy locations, as well as sunny forest canopy openings. The IDFd subzone includes a large portion of the lower Stein Canyon. Steep slopes i n t h i s area constitute a severe l i m i t a t i o n for campsite development, as evidenced by new s l i d e tracks between campsites 7 and 8. The Cottonwood Creek area has good p o t e n t i a l f o r hiking t r a i l and campsite development. In addition to t h i s area's present use from two access points (Blowdown Pass - S i l v e r Queen mine road and Lower St e i n t r a i l ) and future immunity from logging (B.C. Forest Service Policy) a large remnant climax Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass community has survived from an e a r l i e r dry period, making i t i n t e r e s t i n g e c o l o g i c a l l y and e s t h e t i c a l l y . Further up Cottonwood Canyon towards the S i l v e r Queen mine, a d i v e r s i t y of ecosystems e x i s t , as attested to by Pojar (1977) i n his a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e c o l o g i c a l reserve status. 113 The drawbacks of the lower Cottonwood creek area include the pres-ence of sandy terrace areas (unstable for s u r v i v a l of undergrowth) and the p o s s i b i l i t y of severe flooding i n years of high snowpack and early melt. Numerous flood channels e x i s t on most creeks flowing into the Stein from the north i n t h i s subzone, with the Cottonwood having the highest flo o d l e v e l s and channel erosion. This problem could be a l l e v i a t e d by e s t a b l i s h i n g campsites on some of the higher benches away from the water, such as near Cottonwood f a l l s . Scudamore Creek, a short distance to the west, affords s i m i l a r opportunities and l i m i t a t i o n s as the Cottonwood. This creek can be followed into alpine areas i n the v i c i n i t y of campsite #10, and thus i s a good candidate for hiking t r a i l and campsite development. ESSFf subzone Only one campsite (#15) was chosen for study i n t h i s subzone. The reason being that t h i s subzone has a uniformly dense overstory canopy over much of i t s area. This canopy e f f e c t i v e l y blocks out l i g h t , thus reducing the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the subzone for camping. Steep north facing slopes are shaded and most of t h i s subzone i s located on slopes too steep for camping. Streamsides are often choked with Devil's Club (Oplopanax horridus) and willows ( S a l i x spp.) making access to water d i f f i c u l t . , Firewood production i s not a problem i n t h i s subzone. One area that may be of some in t e r e s t i s the confluence of the North and South forks of the St e i n , j u s t below Stein Lake. A number of open grown terraces i n t h i s area could be developed as campsites, with nearby views of w a t e r f a l l s i n three di r e c t i o n s (Elton f a l l s to the 114 South, f a l l s below Stein Lake to the west and f a l l s i n the North Stein River, j u s t North of the confluence). This area would also serve as a destination for hiking t r i p s o r i g i n a t i n g at the L i z z i e Creek and Van Horlick logging road accesses. In the event that the lower valley i s logged, i t i s possible that the road may extend as far as t h i s point, making vehicle camping and alpine hiking t r i p access possible. ESSFpf Of a l l the subzones mentioned here, t h i s one offers the most spectacular camping. Three waves of flowers bloom throughout the spring and summer. Surrounding mountain peaks and 'U' shaped valley sides are pleasing to the eye. W i l d l i f e seek the shelter of these high elevation v a l l e y s i t e s where wet meadows provide ample food and water. Three campsites were studied i n t h i s subzone (#s 11, 12 and 14). A l l three were chosen for the size of l e v e l ground area and proximity to water. Unfortunately, those two c r i t e r i a ensure a number of l i m i t a -t i o n s , a l l related to drainage. Human waste disposal would be a problem due to the high water table and degree of s o i l saturation from heavy runoff and clay s o i l texture. S i m i l a r l y , r i s k of minor flooding would be acute during heavy rains. T h i r d l y , the f r a g i l e nature of the wet meadow herbage would constitute a severe l i m i t a t i o n regarding denudation and subsequent s o i l mud formation and erosion. As firewood i s at a premium i n t h i s subzone, campfires should be discouraged. These l i m i t a t i o n s could be reduced i f camping locations were moved up off the v a l l e y f l o o r s and onto elevated, better drained small benches 115 of morainal and f l u v i a l o r i g i n . If t r a i l s were to be developed i n these areas they would be best situated on lower slopes where drainage i s adequate to prevent mud formation, denudation and excessive erosion i n the valley bottom. ATb Spectacular flower blooms also occur i n t h i s subzone. Heather (Phyllodoce spp. and Cassiope mertensiana) communities would provide the best campsite locations, as they possess a combination of resistance to trampling damage, and an abundance of showy flowers. The important l i m i t a t i o n s to note i n t h i s subzone are extremes of climate (sporadic snowfalls, exposed locations and presence of cold a i r drainage), t h i n o v e r a l l s o i l p r o f i l e causing human waste disposal problems and saturated conditions during heavy p r e c i p i t a t i o n . Campsite 13 poses a s p e c i a l l i m i t a t i o n , which has a p p l i c a b i l i t y for the e n t i r e subzone. Since the growing period i s short, and the climate severe, f r a g i l e communities must be i d e n t i f i e d and avoided, to eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y of severe damage. One such vegetation community i s the moss rimmed pool at campsite 13. This pool could be enjoyed for i t s beauty and as a source of drinking water by a few campers a year. How-ever, i f use were to increase above t h i s , i t might quickly be contami-nated and trampled, causing an i r r e v e r s i b l e impact. Because of the f r a g i l i t y of t h i s and other features such as rare plant communities, campsites should be c a r e f u l l y placed to minimize impacts i n t h i s subzone. 116 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Some generalizations regarding recreation c a p a b i l i t i e s can be made based on s i t e s p e c i f i c information (Section 4.10). 1. No severe recreation impacts have yet occurred i n any subzone, since use has been l i g h t , and dispersed over a wide area. 2. Major campsite l i m i t a t i o n s are prevalent only i n the higher elevation areas such as at campsites 10-13 (Figure 5). These lim i t a t i o n s can be overcome with c a r e f u l campsite s e l e c t i o n and continued dispersion of use. 3. Poorly drained high elevation v a l l e y bottom s i t e s may prove to be highly susceptible to trampling damage (denudation, compac-tio n , mud formation and species composition changes) and should be avoided. Adjacent terraced slopes would be favorable a l t e r -nate campsites which would be less prone to impacts due to better drainage and the presence of coarser textured s o i l s . 4. Fragile moss vegetation surrounding alpine pools could e a s i l y be destroyed with any Increased use, and should be avoided. 5. The majority of high elevation sites i n the ESSFpf and ATb sub-zones cannot sustain firewood use because of slow growth rates and sporadic occurrence of stunted tree clumps. This l i m i t a t i o n can be accommodated by insistence on stove use i n these areas . 6. In general, water a v a i l a b i l i t y i s not l i m i t i n g anywhere i n the Stein, although water q u a l i t y may deteriorate with use at high elevation campsites which possess small stagnant pools 117 (Campsites 11 and 13 for example). The remedy for t h i s problem l i e s i n public education about waste disposal. Feces should be i s o l a t e d from groundwater recharge and discharge areas such as slopes leading to streams, pools and lakes. Campsite develop-ment on shallow s o i l should also be avoided. 7. The Regosols and Brunisols at some Lower Stein campsites con-t a i n small surface sand pockets. These sandy spots which constitute minor l i m i t a t i o n s f or camping. Vegetation i s e a s i l y uprooted and trampled on t h i s substrate. In the upper Stein, poorly drained Gleysols constitute camping l i m i t a t i o n s . Coarser textured Podzols provide better substrates for camp-s i t e s , and can be found above the G l e y s o l i c v a l l e y bottoms on terraced slopes. It i s too early to say s p e c i f i c a l l y which vegetation communities can best t o l e r a t e trampling pressure as impacts are not severe, or s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t enough between s i t e s for comparisons to be made. Also c r u c i a l to these comparisons i s the need for use information which w i l l be available a f t e r a period of years. In the event that the current campsite monitoring study i s expanded to include more s i t e s , i t would be advantageous to be more carefu l i n the control plot s e l e c t i o n process. This i s e s p e c i a l l y important at high elevations where a s l i g h t difference i n slope, aspect or slope p o s i t i o n can produce a large difference i n moisture regime, which i s a major factor i n determining the severity of impacts. 118 Four campsite - control plot combinations established i n this study were not i d e a l l y matched, due to differences i n microtopography. At s i t e 11, the campsite plot contained a large hummock which could not be duplicated anywhere nearby. Consequently, the control plot was placed on l e v e l ground with a wetter moisture regime. A s i m i l a r problem existed at s i t e 12. Campsite 14 was chosen f o r i t s creekside p o s i t i o n on the lower slope of a high elevation v a l l e y bottom meadow. This combination made i t an i d e a l camping l o c a t i o n , as i t provided views of meadow flowers, a well drained surface for tenting and fresh water. Unfortunately, t h i s could not be reproduced at an adjacent control p l o t , without i t being i n danger of human use. As a consequence, the control plot was established on a bench, higher up the slope. This e f f e c t i v e l y changed the moisture regime as th i s l o c a t i o n was also subject to some groundwater seepage. Campsite 2 was equally d i f f i c u l t to match with a control p l o t . In order to include veteran trees i n the control p l o t , some understory species composition differences had to be tolerated. Another problem which should not be repeated i n further campsite inventories i s the use of one control plot for more than one campsite p l o t . The problem with t h i s doubling up comes when a species i s found only on the control p l o t . It therefore appears to have been trampled out of existence on two campsites instead of one, which may not always be the case. In the event that a logging road i s b u i l t from the Fraser River into the heart of the v a l l e y , a d d i t i o n a l campsites w i l l most l i k e l y be established on an impromptu basis, i f steps are not taken by the B.C. Forest Service to provide camping f a c i l i t i e s . If such f a c i l i t i e s were 119 to be b u i l t , i t i s recommended that they be situated at the following l o c a t i o n s : 1. Lower St e i n t r a i l , Campsite #8 - Teepee campsite. 2. In the v i c i n i t y of campsites 1, 5 and 6 on a large f l u v i a l terrace with a minimum of surface sand. 3. Cottonwood Creek, above campsites 3 and 4, close to Cottonwood f a l l s and views of other f a l l s across the Stein. 4. At the junction of the North and South arms of the Stein River, below Stein Lake. This area has numerous dry benches with views of three w a t e r f a l l s close at hand. In the event that the BCFS chooses to manage some or a l l of the alpine t e r r a i n i n the Stein for r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes, i t i s recommended that attention be focussed on the following areas: 1. Tundra Lake ridge i s an i d e a l destination campsite as well as a stopover for journeys to Stein Lake, 5000 f t Meadows and numerous other destinations. Although t h i s area i s remote, and would never be accessed by road, i t s s e n s i t i v e nature makes i t necessary to d i r e c t camping use away from the f r a g i l e moss pools. This can best be accomplished by providing campsites at hardier locations on the ridge. 2. North S t e i n meadow can be reached i n 1.5 hours from the end of the Van Horlick logging road. Because of t h i s easy access i t i s a good candidate for campsite construction, e s p e c i a l l y i f an access road i s b u i l t i n the v i c i n i t y of the North and South Stein confluence. Any development here should be r e s t r i c t e d 120 to the western valley flank where benches could accommodate several campsites with l i t t l e impact on the lush valley bottom herbage. 3. Cirque Lake can be reached from the Blowdown mining road i n a few hours. If a logging road were to make vehicle access to the confluences of the Stein and Scudamore or Stein and Cottonwood possible then this lake (campsite #10) would be i d e a l for development as a destination from two directions, and could be part of a c i r c u l a r hiking route using Scudamore and Cottonwood creeks. If logging does not proceed i n the Stein, l i t t l e or no management of the area would be necessary u n t i l such time as recreation use increases demanded i t . I n i t i a l improvements could be done to upgrade the cable crossing and maintain the Lower Stein main t r a i l . Further improvements could include lengthening the Lower Stein main t r a i l as far as Cottonwood or Scudamore Creek (thus eliminating duplicate t r a i l establishment) and clearing of the Cottonwood pack t r a i l . In either event, an ongoing campsite monitoring program would be advantageous i n giving the Forest Service an opportunity to provide sound recreation management prior to the establishment of severe impacts. This would eliminate costly remedial measures and esthetic problems. It i s my view that the Stein could serve as a 'model area', i l l u s t r a t i n g what can and should be done by the Forest Service to protect and enhance recreation opportunities for the citizens of B.C. This could be done to great benefit with or without the removal of 121 timber. On the one hand, i f logging were to proceed, i t would be best to protect views, enhance hiking and camping opportunities and provide the public with an example of how d i f f e r e n t uses can be compatible and accommodated i n a workable management framework, based on thoughtful planning. On the other hand, i f no logging were to take place, an ongoing t r a i l and primitive campsite maintenance program would demon-stra t e the seriousness of the Forest Service's intent to use i t s recreation management mandate to improve re c r e a t i o n a l opportunities for the people without f i r s t having to maximize the government's revenues by extracting timber. Future campsite monitoring and impact assessments i n the S t e i n should be c a r r i e d out at an i n t e r v a l of years which r e f l e c t s escalated use. I f , a f t e r f i v e years i t i s apparent that use has doubled, then a reconnaissance could determine whether impacts were progressing. If so, then a f u l l set of seasonal inventories could be carried out so that the areas-by-times f a c t o r i a l experimental design could be completed. This optimal impact assessment would then provide the basis for planning decisions regarding campsite improvement and establishment of new s i t e s . From a purely experimental standpoint, t h i s study r e p l i c a t e d over several i n t e r v a l s would provide an opportunity to study r e l a t i o n s h i p s between vegetation vigor, s u r v i v a l and composition and trampling pressure over the long term. Further, i f road access were to be b u i l t to some of the Lower S t e i n campsites, then changes i n impacts due to use type changes could also be investigated. 122 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Baillargeon, M.K. 1975. Recreation Impact on Campsite Vegetation. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Ba l l a r d , T.M. and J . Otchere-Boateng. 1974. S o i l Survey of Kluane National Park. Douglas Ecology Consultants Ltd. , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Unpublished manuscript. B a y f i e l d , N.G. 1979. Recovery of Four Montane Heath Communities on Cairngorm, Scotland, from Disturbance by Trampling. B i o l . Conserv. 15(3). Bekker, P. 1981. Es t h e t i c Judgements of Forest Trees i n Relation to Timber Quality. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, B.C. Boorman, L.A. and R.M. F u l l e r . 1977. Studies on the Impact of Paths on the Dune Vegetation at Winterton, Norfolk, England. B i o l . Conserv. 12(3):203-216. Bryan, R.B. 1977. Assessment of S o i l E r o d i b i l i t y : New Approaches and Directions. In: T.J. Toy (ed.), Erosion: Research Techniques, E r o d i b i l i t y and Sediment Delivery. Geo Abstracts. Norwich, England. Christensen, H.H., R.E. Packa, K.J. Varness and R.F. Lapen. 1979. Human use i n a Dispersed Recreation Area, and i t s E f f e c t on Water Quality. In: It t n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. lrR-6-001-1979. C i e s l i n s k i , T.J. and J.A. Wagar. 1970. Predicting the D u r a b i l i t y of Forest Recreation Sites i n Northern Utah. Preliminary Results. USDA Forest Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. Ogden, Utah. INT-117. Coen, G.M., P.F. Epp, J . Tajek and L. Knapik. 1977. S o i l Survey of Yoho National Park, Canada. Alberta S o i l Survey Rept. #37. A l t a . Inst, of Pedology #S-77-37, Land Resource Inst. Public. #1. Cole, D.N. 1977. Man's Impact on Wilderness Vegetation. An Example from Eagle Cap Wilderness, N.E. Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oregon, Dept. of Geography. Cole, D.N. and E.G.S. Schreiner. 1981. Impacts of Backcountry Recreation. Site Management and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n - An Annotated Bibliography. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-121. 123 Cole, D.M. 1982. Wilderness Campsite Impacts: E f f e c t of Amount of Use. USDA For. Serv. Research Paper INT-284. Crawford, A.K. 1977. The Ef f e c t of Trampling on Neutral Grassland. B i o l . Conserv. 12(2):135-142. D a v i l l a , B. 1979. Firewood Use and A v a i l a b i l i t y . In: Stanley, J.T. J r . , H.T. Harvey and R.J. Hartesveldt (eds.), A Report on Wilderness Impact Study. Sierra Club Outing Committee (Consolidated Pub. Inc., C a l i f o r n i a ) . d e l Moral, R. 1979. Predicting Human Impact on High E l e v a t i o n Ecosystems. In: Ittner, R., D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Sea t t l e . USDA F.S. Publ. #R-6-001-1979. Douglas, G.W. and L.C. B l i s s . 1977. Alpine and High Sub-alpine Plant Communities of the North Cascades Range, Washington and B.C. Ec o l o g i c a l Monographs, 47(2):113-150. Duffey, P. 1967. As c i t e d i n Liddle, M.J., 1975. A Se l e c t i v e Review of E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems. B i o l . Conserv. 7:17-36. Dumanski, J . (Ed.) 1978. The Canada S o i l Information System Manual for Describing S o i l s i n the F i e l d . Land Resource I n s t i t u t e Research Branch. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. Ferber, P. 1978. Guidebooks - For Better or For Worse. In_: I t t n e r , R., D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. #R-6-001-1979. Foin, T.C. E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham and R.O. Schultz. 1977. Quantitative Study of V i s i t o r Impacts on Environments of Yosemite National Park, C a l i f o r n i a , and the i r Impacts for Park Management P o l i c y . J . Environmental Management 5:1-22. Freeman, R. and D. Thompson. 1979. Exploring the Stein River V a l l e y . Douglas and Maclntyre, Vancouver, B.C. F r i s s e l , S.S. 1978. Judging Recreation Impacts on Wilderness Camp-s i t e s . J . For. pp. 481-83. F r i s s e l , S.S. J r . and D. Duncan. 1965. Campsite Preferences and Deterioration i n the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. J . Forest 63(4):256-260. Goldsmith, F.B., R.J.C. Munton and A. Warren. 1970. The Impact of Recreation on the Ecology and Amenity of Semi-Natural Areas. Methods of Investigation Used i n the Isles of S c i l l y . B i o l . J . Linn. Soc. 2:287-306. 124 Greacen, E.L. and R. Sands. 1980. Compaction of Forest S o i l s . A Review. A u s t r a l i a n Journal of S o i l Research Vol. 18:163. Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and S t a t i s t i c a l Methods for Environmental B i o l o g i s t s . John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. Hartley, E.A. 1976. Man's E f f e c t s on the S t a b i l i t y of Alpine and Subalpine Vegetation i n G l a c i e r National Park, Montana. Ph.D. Thesis, Duke Uni v e r s i t y , Dept. of Botany. Helgath, S.F. 1975. T r a i l Deterioration i n the Selway B i t t e r r o o t Wilderness. USDA F.S. Res. Note INT-193 Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. Hitchcock, C L . , A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey and J.W. Thompson. 1959. Vascular Plants of the P a c i f i c Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle ( f i v e volumes). Hoffman, M.K. , J . J . Macintosh and D.W. Smith. 1975. Impact of Recreation Use of S o i l and Vegetation i n Rushing River P r o v i n c i a l Park, Kenora Ont. F i n a l Report, Phase A. Dept. of Land Resource Science and Botany, Uni v e r s i t y of Guelph. It t n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell. 1979. Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. Proc. Oct. 1978. Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. //R-6-001-1979. Ketchledge, E.H. and R.E. Leonard. 1970. The Impact of Man on the Adirondack High Country. The Conservationist (Oct. Nov.) 14-18. Klock, G.O. 1979. S o i l Factors Influencing Quality of Wilderness Impact. In: I t t n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell. (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. l/R-6-001-1979. Krajina , V.J. 1969. Ecology of forest trees i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Ecology of Western North America 2:1-146. Landals, M. and G.W. Scotter. 1973. V i s i t o r Impact on Meadows, near Lake O'Hara, Yoho National Park. C.W.S., Edmonton. A l t a . Leeson, B.F. 1979. Research i n Wildland Recreation Impact i n the Canadian Rockies. In: Itt n e r , R., D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. 0R-6-OO1-1979. Legg, M.H. and G. Schneider. 1977. S o i l Deterioration on Campsites: Northern Forest Types. S o i l S c i . Soc. Am. 41:437-441. Leonard, R.E. and H.J. Plumley. 1979. The Use of S o i l s Information for Dispersed Recreation Planning. In: Itt n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. 0R-6-OO1-1979. 125 Lesko, G.L. and E.B. Robinson. 1975. Impact Study and Management Recommendations for Primitive Campgrounds i n the Sunshine-Egypt Lake Area, Banff National Park. Northern Forest Research Centre, Can. For. Serv. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-132. Li d d l e , M.J. 1975. A Selective Review of the E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems. B i o l . Conserv. 7:17-36. Lutz, H.J. 1945. S o i l Conditions of P i c n i c Grounds i n Public Forest Parks. J. For. 43. 123 pp. M a g i l l , A.W. and E.C. Nord. 1965. An Evaluation of Campground Conditions and Needs for Research. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Res. Note PSW-4. 8 pp. Pac. S.W. For. and Range Exp. Stn. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . M i t c h e l l , J.K. and D.G. Dubenzer. 1980. S o i l Loss Estimation. In: Kirkby, M.J. and R.P.C. Morgan (eds.), S o i l Erosion. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto. M i t c h e l l , W.R., R.E. Green, D. Lloyd, F. R u s s e l l , W. Erickson and D. Walkem. 1981. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Interpretation of Ecosystems of the Western Kamloops Forest Region. Land Management Handbook //2. Vols. I and I I . Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Forests, V i c t o r i a , B.C. M i t c h e l l , W.R. 1980. E c o l o g i c a l Inventory Plot Data for the Stein Valley. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Forests, Kamloops Region, unpublished manuscript. Monti, P.W. and E.E. Macintosh. 1979. E f f e c t of Camping on Surface S o i l Properties i n the Boreal Forest Region of Northwestern Ontario, Canada. S o i l S c i . Soc. Am. 45:1024-1029. Morgan, R.P.C. 1979. S o i l Erosion. Topics i n Applied Geography. Logman Group Ltd., London, Eng. Nie, N.H., C.H. H u l l , J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner. 1975. S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences. MacGraw H i l l Book Co., N.Y. Palmer, R. 1979. Experiments on the E f f e c t s of Human Trampling Damage on Vegetation i n S i e r r a Nevada. In: Stanley, J.T., H.T. Harvey and R.J. Hartesveldt (eds.), A Report on Wilderness Impact Study. S i e r r a Club, Consolidated Pub. Inc. C a l i f . Pojar, J. 1977. A p p l i c a t i o n for E c o l o g i c a l Reserve. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Environment, Land Management Branch, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Pojar, J . 1977. F l o r a of the Stein Valley. Unpublished manuscript. BCFS, Kamloops Region. 126 Ream, C.H. 1980. Impact of Backcountry Recreationists on W i l d l i f e . An Annotated Bibliography. USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-84. Roemer, H.L. 1975a. E c o l o g i c a l Impact of Recreation Use i n the Berg Lake T r a i l Area, Mt. Robson P r o v i n c i a l Park. Biocon Res. Ltd., V i c t o r i a , B.C. Roemer, H.L. 1975b. E c o l o g i c a l Impact of Recreation use i n the Magog Area, Mt. Assinniboine P r o v i n c i a l Park. Biocon Res. Ltd., V i c t o r i a , B.C. Root, J . and L. Knapik. 1972. T r a i l Conditions along a Portion of the Great Divide T r a i l Route, Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia Rocky Mountains. CWS unpubl. rept. 45 pp. Ryder, J.M. 1981. Stein River Basin: Terrain Conditions and Interpre-tations for Forest Engineering. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of the Environment, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Sayer, R. B. 1982. A S e n s i t i v i t y Mapping Scheme Based on E c o l o g i c a l Land Survey. Wood Buffalo National Park ( d r a f t ) . Parks Canada, Ottawa. Schreiner, E. 1979. Human Impact Inventory and Management i n the Olympic National Park Backcountry. In: It t n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. //R-6-001-1979. Smith, R.T. and K. Atkinson. 1975. Techniques i n Pedology. E c l e c t i c Science. London. Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor Recreation and i t s E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s , A Bibliography and Review. Discussion Papers i n Conservation #4, University College, London, England. Stanley, J.T. J r . 1979. Si e r r a Club Wilderness Impact Study Conclu-sions and S p e c i f i c Findings. In: It t n e r , R., D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. Proc. Oct. 1978. Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. #R-6-001-1979. Stanley, J.T. J r . , H.T. Harvey and R.J. Hartesveldt. 1979. A Report on Wilderness Impact Study. Prepared for the Outing Committee of the Sie r r a Club. Consolidated Pub. Inc., C a l i f . Stein Basin Study Committee. 1975. Stein Basin Moratorium Study. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Forests, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Strand, S. 1979. Recovery of Sierran Meadows a f t e r Trampling by Pack-stock. In: Stanley, J.T. J r . , H.T. Harvey and R.J. Hartesveldt (eds.), A Report on Wilderness Impact Study. Prepared for the Outing Committee of the Si e r r a Club. Consolidated Pub. Inc., C a l i f . 127 Taylor, R.L. and B. MacBryde. 1977. Vascular Plants of B r i t i s h Columbia: A Descriptive Resource Inventory. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Thompson, D. and R. Freeman. 1975. The Stein River Watershed: A Recreational Resource Study. Vols. 1 & 2. Federation of Mountain Clubs, Vancouver, B.C. T r o t t i e r , G.C. and G.W. Scotter. 1973. A Survey of Backcountry Use and the Resulting Impact near Lake Louise, Banff National Park. C.W.S. Edmonton, A l t a . USDA Forest Service. 1969. S o i l Survey Procedure Handbook, 1969. USDA F.S. Washington FSH 2559.1. Void, T. 1976. A Resource and V i s i t o r of Inventory of Yoho Valley.... 1975. M.F. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forest ry, Vancouve r. Wagar, J.A. 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation. For. S c i . Mon. Washington, D.C. Society of American Foresters. 24 pp. Walker, C.J. 1978. Information Requirements for T r a i l and Campground Planning and Management. Resources Studies Section, Natural Resources D i v i s i o n , Parks Canada, Ottawa. Walmsley, M., G. Utzig, T. Void, D. Moon, J . van Barneveld (eds.). 1980. Describing Ecosystems i n the F i e l d . RAB Technical Paper #2. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Environment and Minis t r y of Forests, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Weaver, T., D. Dale and E. Hartley. 1978. The Relationship of T r a i l Condition to Use, Vegetation, User, Slope, Season and Time. In: It t n e r , R. , D.R. Potter, J.K. Agee and S. Anschell (eds.), Recreation Impact on Wildlands Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. Publ. //R-6-001-1979. W i l l a r d , B.E. and J.W. Marr. 1970. E f f e c t s of Human A c t i v i t i e s on Alpine Tundra Ecosystems. Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. B i o l . Conserv. 2:257-65. W i l l a r d , B.E. and J.W. Marr. 1971. Recovery of Alpine Tundra under Protection a f t e r Damage by Human A c t i v i t i e s i n the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. B i o l . Conserv. 3:131-90. Wischmeier, W.H. 1974. New Developments i n Estimating Water Erosion, pp. 179-186. In: Land Use: Persuasion or Regulation. S o i l Conservation Society of America. 128 Wischmeier, W.H. 1975. Cropland Erosion and Sedimentation. In: Control of Water P o l l u t i o n from Cropland, Vol. I I , An Overview. U.S. A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Service and Environmental Protection Agency. Wischmeier, W.H. 1977. S o i l E r o d i b i l i t y and R a i n f a l l Runoff. In: T.J. Toy (ed.), Erosion: Research Techniques, E r o d i b i l i t y and Sediment Delivery. Geo Abstracts Ltd. , Norwich, England. Wischmeier, W.H. , C B . Johnson and B.V. Cross. 1971. A S o i l E r o d i b i -l i t y Nomograph for Farmland and Construction S i t e s . J. S o i l and Water Conserv. 26:189-193. Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1960. A Universal S o i l Loss Equation to Guide Conservation Farm Planning. 7th Int. Cong. S o i l S c i . , Madison, Wise. VI, 418-725. Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting R a i n f a l l - E r o s i o n Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains. Agr. Handbook 282. USDA Agr. Res. Serv., Washington, D.C. Young, R.A. 1976. Camping Intensity Effects on Vegetation Ground Cover i n I l l i n o i s Campgrounds. J. S o i l and Water Conserv. 30(1):36-41. 129 A P P E N D I C E S 130 APPENDIX 1. S o i l Sampling Methods Used by Previous Investigators Those used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are marked with an a s t e r i s k (*) 1. S i t e S e l e c t i o n : Based on i n i t i a l reconnaissance and designation of three t r a i l impact classes for each impact type: low, medium and high impacts for deepen-ing, mucking and braiding. Followed by estab-lishment of several "experimental" and "con t r o l " plots for each impact class and type. Picked 70 meadow s i t e s from i n i t i a l reconnais-sance showing signs of erosion and associated impacts due to trampling. *- Chose impact s i t e s on the basis of s i z e , uniform typography and geolog i c a l substrate c r i t e r i a . "Control" and "experimental" p l o t s sampled. - I d e n t i f i e d meadow s i t e s showing trampling and camping impacts. Established l i n e transects with vegetation and s o i l sampling one meter on eith e r side of the l i n e at designated i n t e r v a l s . S o i l P i t s : *- Measured s o i l horizon thicknesses to bedrock and sampled each horizon for laboratory a n a l y s i s . - T r a i l grade and slope - i n percent, measured with an Abney l e v e l . *_ Slope length and p o s i t i o n on slope - estimated. 5. *- Aspect and ele v a t i o n , measured with compass and eleva t i o n meter. 6. Stoniness: *- Measured surface stoniness i n percent of area. *- Measured stoniness of each s o i l horizon i n percent of exposed surface. Roemer, 1975a Burden and Randerson, 1972. Hoffman, Macintosh and Smith, 1975. T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. a l l Investigators. Helgath, 1975. Wagar, 1964. T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. Hoffman, Macintosh and Smith, 1975. T r o t t i e r arid Scotter, 1973. 7. Consistence measured using C.S.S.C. (1971) methods. Roemer, 1975a. 131 Texture: *- Measured o v e r a l l texture using hand methods. Hoffman e_t a l . , 1975. Measured texture using the Bouyoucos hydro-meter method. Measured texture of fine f r a c t i o n using standard sieves. Landals and Scotter, 1973. Roemer, 1975. *- Structure: Used f i v e structure classes: IA single grained, lB^ amorphous, 2A angular blocky, 2B subangular blocky, 2C granular. B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974. 10. *- Color: Used Munsell color chart for moist and dry samples. Ba l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1975a. 11. Organic matter: - Measured depth of organic matter s t a i n . - Measured organic matter i n percent by weight for each horizon, using wet oxidation with dichromate. Wagar, 1964. 12. Tree roots; *Size («a - micro, b_ - very f i n e , c - f i n e , d - medium, e - coarse) B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974. *abundance (V - very few, F_ - few, P - p l e n t i f u l ) ^ E f f e c t i v e rooting depth. 13. Parent materials Subjectively assessed as to o r i g i n ; t i l l , colluvium and alluvium. *- t i l l , colluvium, alluvium, loess, e o l i a n , l a c u s t r i n e , g l a c i o f l u v i a l and bedrock materials. *- Ash-mica, s c h i s t , loess, b i o t i t e granite, gniess and horneblende. T r o t t i e r , and Scotter, 1973. B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974. Helgath, 1975. 14. *Geologic substrate: Rock analyzed as to type and age. T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. 132 15. pH: 16. - Measured using bromothymol blue and bromo cresol green i n d i c a t o r s . - Measured using a laboratory pH - meter i n CaCl2 and water. S o i l temperature: Using a YSI thermistor at 5-10 cm depth, at the surface and at an elevation of 15 cm above the surface. Hoffman et a l . , 1975. Hoffman et a l . , 1975. Landals and Scotter, 1973. 17. Moisture conditions: - Measured i n f i l t r a t i o n rates using PVC cylinders 10.8 cm i n diameter; sunk to a depth of 7.6 cm a f t e r saturation of adjacent s o i l , sealed by turning; measured i n cm/minute. *- Measured i n f i l t r a t i o n rates using standard USDA methods. Roemer, 1975a. Helgath, 1975. - Measured percent moisture of surface horizons at 1/3 bar and 15 bars to determine a v a i l a b l e water. Hoffman et a l . 1975. 18. *- Subjectively determined moisture classes as dry, mesic, wet mesic and wet. Drainage determined as good, moderate and poor based on weekly samples at depth of 5-10 cm moisture percent on a dry weight basis. - Moisture index developed from vegetation i n d i c a t o r species. S o i l strength: - Measured bulk density, using standard methods. *- Used penetrometer measurements as an i n d i c a t o r of shear resistance. T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. Landals and Scotter, 1973. Roemer, 1975a. Landals and Scotter, 1973. Hoffman et a l . , 1975. 133 APPENDIX 2. Vegetation Inventory Methods Used by Previous Investigators *2.1 S i t e Description Parameters 2.2 Experimental Methods *2.3 Vegetation C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Schemes *2.4 Macroplot Sampling Techniques 2.5 Microplot Sampling Techniques Those methods used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are marked with an a s t e r i s k (*)• 134 Author 2.1 S i t e Description Parameters 1. Camping l o c a t i o n , distance from access, elevation, s i z e , number of tent pads, f i r e p i t s and tree scars. 2. Area of bare ground, number of s o c i a l t r a i l s , trampling depressions around trees, ocular estimates of crown closure i n 20% classes, and evidence of horse trampling. *3. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e s t r i c t e d and common plant communities on s i t e , through subjective assessment of adjacent areas, photos of v i s i b l e impacts, and descriptions of plant development stage (phenology). *4. Recorded f i e l d s i t i n g s of a l l w i l d l i f e during vegetation inventories, garbage, plant species occurring i n adjacent stands and estimated damages to sampled communities. 5. Noted rare plants, adventives and 'grazing' species present. Lesko and Robinson, 1973. Schreiner, 1978. Borman and F u l l e r , 1977, T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. Roemer, 1975a. 2.2 Experimental Methods 1. Located two plot types (3 x 3 m with 9 1 m 2 F r i s s e l , 1978. subplots and 1 x 10 m with 10 1 m2 sub-plots) on locat i o n s of gentle r e l i e f , vegeta-t i o n uniformity and inconspicuousness. Trampled them with hiking boots by systemati-c a l l y stepping on a l l the area within p l o t s . An i n t e n s i t y gradient of 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 per week was used to demonstrate the step-by-step process of d e t e r i o r a t i o n . Percent cover estimates were derived by sampling 100 random points within each m2 subplot, before and a f t e r trampling t r e a t -ment. Also c l i p p i n g t r i a l s to estimate standing crop biomass (oven dried) were ca r r i e d out on one tenth of each subplot at season's end. Developed a s e n s i t i v i t y index as the percent d i f f e r e n c e between the number of sample points between samples taken at 1 and 10 m from paths, as determined from least squares regression and c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i -cients calculated f o r each. 135 Author Established 10 m l i n e transects permanently marked with holes d r i l l e d i n bedrock at 3 m in t e r v a l s along a 30 m baseline p a r a l l e l i n g a newly established campsite shoreline. Sub-jected t h i s campsite to 2 days use by a group of 30. Measured species composition and frequency on each l i n e transect before and a f t e r use. Boguicki et_ a_l., 1975. Transects 5 m long tampled 5, 25, and 200 times 3 days per week for 4 weeks, by a 59 kg walker i n tennis shoes (7 steps per pass) established on 2 community types. Percent covers determined by l i n e intercept method. The sums of each species under a straight l i n e was used. Also, used 20 x 50 cm quadrats on each transect a f t e r one year to measure cover changes and invader species. Ground l e v e l c l i p p i n g done on two 10 x 50 cm plots per transect. Oven dry weights from before and a f t e r trampling treatments compared. B e l l and B l i s s , 1973. Applied a range of normal walking treatments to a variety of ground vegetation types to discover the number of passages needed to reduce cover or biomass by 50%. This number was to be used as an index of species f r a g i l i -ty. Percent cover of l i v e vegetation remain-ing at various measurements was regressed on l o g e of the number of passages to produce a c u r v i l i n e a r equation y = ax 2 + bx + c, then a, b and c were used to estimate the precise number of passages needed to reduce vegetation cover or biomass by 50 percent, using this equation. L i d d l e , 1973. x at y = 50 = b + b 2 - 4a(c - 50) 2a" Used normal walking on newly established wood-land plots (20 x 30 m) to evaluate changes i n average l i t t e r depths a f t e r 7900 passes. Burden, 1970. Measured average leaf heights on transects established at right angles to a r t i f i c i a l paths, (.4m wide) subject to 10, 40 and 80 tramples per month, and 120 tramples performed a l l at once i n June and December. Boorman and F u l l e r , 1977. 136 Author Defined 3 grades of v u l n e r a b i l i t y 1) > 50% bare ground 2) 10-50% bare ground 3) < 10% bare ground. S i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s (R = .97 p <.05) between log of the number of tramples and percent reduction i n sward height. 7. 1.2 x 4.6 m plots s p l i t into 5 equal subplots, B a y f i e l d , 1979. subjected to 0, 40 and 80 tramplings at once, and 120 and 240 tramplings s p l i t into 3 month-l y treatments. Trampling was performed by a 70 kg man i n climbing boots. Each treatment was r e p l i c a t e d 3 times and randomized within blocks. V i s u a l estimates of cover and damage made by 2 people, before, immediately a f t e r and 2 years a f t e r treatments. Relative cover was expressed as: g£ _ cover on trampled plots ^ i n i t i a l cover on co n t r o l plots x 100 cover on control plots i n i t i a l cover on trampled plots 8. 10, 3 x .5m lanes were l a i d out i n 6 x 3 m Landals and pl o t s , with 2 lanes per plot as controls. Scotter, 1973. Plots were subjected to weekly tramplings of 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 for 5 weeks, and single tramplings of 25, 50, 100, 200 and 400 at peak anthesis. Damage was determined by assessing changes i n species composition, cover i n percent and vegetation height. 9. Used l i n e intercept inventory techniques on Palmer, 1979. 30, 20 m l i n e a r p l o t s , l a i d out i n series of 3 (experimental, c o n t r o l , experimental) on sub-alpine meadows. Concentric c i r c l e plots were also established. Trampling i n t e n s i t i e s of 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 210 and 600 were used on several community types. These were done using heel to toe and normal walking (concen-t r i c c i r c l e p l o t s ) . Sets of plots were estab-l i s h e d i n June, July and August. Vegetation was sampled p r i o r to trampling and 2 times during the following year ( e a r l y June and l a t e August). Some plots trampled 1 year previous-l y , were further subjected to an incremental series of trampling i n t e n s i t i e s by adding 1 pass at each succeeding meter on the 20 m transects. Cover values on the plots subject-ed to various trampling timings and i n t e n s i -t i e s were compared to determine the r e l a t i v e s u s c e p t i b i l i t i e s to trampling for each com-munity sampled. 137 Author 10. Constructed and used a square tamper as an impact simulator, on 16 x 64 inch plots i n uniform vegetation at various s i t e s . Vegetation was clipped, dried, and weighed, from both control and experimental p l o t s . Multiple regressions were used to re l a t e vegetation dry weight to trampling i n t e n s i t y and percent of plots covered by grasses and t r a i l i n g raspberry. Derived trampling damage pr e d i c t i o n equations useful f or comparing the r e l a t i v e d u r a b i l i t y of vegetation on s i t e s assessed for p o t e n t i a l development, guiding the design and placement of f a c i l i t i e s and guiding use r e s t r i c t i o n s . Wagar, 1964. 11. Constructed and used a 100 pound configurated cement r o l l e r (6 l b s / i n 2 ) on 40, 16 x 64 inch p l o t s . These plots represented a range of overstory types, s o i l textures, stone content, amount of d i r e c t sunlight (measured with an i n s o l a t i o n g r i d ) , basal tree areas, drainage and aspects (coded as 1.0 x sine of the azimuth from South East, so that 0.0 = cool NE exposures, 1.0 = moderate SE and NW exposures, 2.0 = hot SW exposures). Treatments of 12 passes per week for 11 weeks were done. Vegetation was measured i n 2 ways: 12 by 30 inch grids with 200 1.2 x 1.5 inch c e l l s were put on each ha l f of the 16 x 64 inch p l o t s . Account was taken of the number of stocked rectangles. These values (2 per pl o t ) were expressed as the percent of the t o t a l of 400 c e l l s , and used as dependent v a r i a b l e s . C i e s l i n s k i and Wagar, 1974. 2.3 Vegetation C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Schemes Community types based on e c o l o g i c a l moisture regimes: wet meadow, heath-moss, dry meadow, rocky ledges associated with snow melt, rocky ledges associated with dessicating conditions, well drained f e l l f i e l d and rock communities ( t a l u s , scree and moraine). Hartley, 1976. Ecosystem d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n according to Ohmann (1971). Cluster analyses used to v e r i f y u n i t s . Hoffman £t_ j i l . , 1975. 138 Author *3. Vegetation c l a s s i f i e d using releve species l i s t s i n a computer sorting method. Roemer, 1975a. Meadow vegetation c l a s s i f i e d according to plant growth form. Grouped into erect and prostrate growth forms. Landals and Scotter, 1973. 5. Community types defined and i d e n t i f i e d according to Daubenmire (1968). B a y f i e l d , 1977, Vegetation inventory techniques may take a v a r i e t y of forms, depending on vegetation types ( f o r e s t or meadow) and the desired degree of i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n . The following i s a l i s t of procedures used i n several investigations of a d e s c r i p t i v e nature: 2.4 Macroplot Sampling Techniques 1. Forest stand survey plots established, using Foln et a l . , 1972. variable sized quadrats of from 235 to 330 m2 (2500-3600 f t 2 ) . A l l species i d e n t i -f i e d . Adult tree, seedling and sapling densi-t i e s measured along with c a l c u l a t i o n s of basal area, diameter at breast height (dbh) and o v e r a l l tree height. 2. Braun-Blanquet (1932) releve method forest Lesko and stand survey plots established, using variable Robinson, 1973. plot sizes greater than 400 m2. Percent cover of each species present determined for six canopy laye r s : dominant trees (A^), secondary trees ( A 2 ) . high shrubs (B^), low shrubs ( B 2 ) , herbs (C), mosses (D). Trees examined for branch removal wounds. 3. Forest stand survey plots established and F r i s s e l , 1978. mapped, twice yearly for f i v e years, using campsite area as plot boundaries. Tree species i d e n t i f i e d . Tree increment borings taken for growth record, and crown conditions (subjective vigor rating) noted. Permanent photo points established and mapped. 1 139 Author Block design forest stand survey plots estab-l i s h e d . Samples taken at 50 foot (15.4 m) i n t e r v a l s . F i r s t sampling point chosen at random. Trees and shrubs sampled by point quarter method. T a l l shrubs and tree seedlings sampled i n milacre point-centred p l o t s . Herbs and low shrubs noted i n one by two foot p l o t s . Hoffman e_t al^. , 1975. F i f t y meter grid sampling of forest stands, using two meter wide l i n e intercepts to measure species d i v e r s i t y and percent cover. Hoffman et a l . , 1975. Forest stand survey plots established, using variable plot s i z e s . Plot traversed with l i n e transects ( f i v e ) . Random s t a r t i n g points and compass bearings. Noted species and cover i n overstory, shrub and herb l a y e r s . Boorman and F u l l e r , 1977. 2.5 Microplot Sampling Techniques Five rectangular plots of dimensions 7 x 10 m established p a r a l l e l to contours. Ten meter sides divided into ten rows of which f i v e were sampled. Daubenmire frame (20 x 50 cm) systematically placed at one half meter i n t e r v a l s on each sampled row, al t e r n a t i n g i n a checkerboard pattern. Species percent cover, and tree damage noted. T r o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973. Line transects established on campsites. One meter square plots inventoried for species and percent cover at i n t e r v a l s of from f i v e to twenty meters, depending on the rate of change (of species and cover) and length of transect. Lesko and Robinson, 1973. Four meter square plots placed at random on campsites. Used ordinal scale of cover and abundance (taken from Westhoff and Maarel 1975). Roemer, 1975a. Established meadow transects using a point-quadrat method. Used 235 m2 quadrats (2500 f t 2 ) with 100 points per sample (exclusive of bare ground). Species noted at each point. Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of species occurrence over the 100 points. Foin et a l . , 1972. 140 Author 5. Five to twenty l i n e transects established at F r i s s e l , 1978. each meadow s i t e . Species recorded under sample points at 10 cm i n t e r v a l s on each transect. Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of species occurrence over a l l points sampled. 6. Line transects established p a r a l l e l to t r a i l F r i s s e l , 1978. margins at predetermined distances represent-ing a sampling gradient. 100 to 250 sample points per transect. Species i d e n t i f i e d at each point. Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of species occurrence over a l l points sampled. 7. Use of a one square meter welded s t e e l quadrat F r i s s e l , 1978. frame with e l a s t i c 10 cm square g r i d pattern for counting flowers and inflorescences produced within a v i s i t o r impact gradient on t r a i l c o r r i d o r s . Placed on l i n e transects perpendicular to t r a i l s . Three side by side quadrats analyzed at each 10 m i n t e r v a l along the t r a i l . 8. T r a i l c o r r i d o r transects established using Dale and Weaver, f i v e by f i v e decimeter quadrats l a i d p a r a l l e l 1974. to the t r a i l centre l i n e at distances of 50, 120, 240 and 460 cm. Species and percent cover recorded. 9. Measured distance to f i r s t l i v e plant on l i n e Schreiner, 1978. intercepts r a d i a t i n g along eight points of the compass from campsite centre. Used average distance to compute bare ground area (radius of a c i r c l e ) . 10. T r a i l c o r r i d o r transects established using Foin et a l . , 1972. three transects, two meters long, placed along each t r a i l and at equal distances on each side. Transect sets r e p l i c a t e d three times each at one l o c a t i o n . Transects also placed perpendicular to the t r a i l . Sampling done by l i n e intercept method, using l i n e a r distance covered by each species as an estimate of cover. APPENDIX 3. RESULTS DERIVED FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES 1 Trampling Resistant Plant Species from Eight Authors. 2 Trampling Susceptible Plant Species from Eight Authors. APPENDIX 3.1 Trapip! im; "li-sistant Plant Spi'iies Mm I i I i ril Species A u t h o r 1 Found at S i t e #s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Abies ta-iivCOApct. ( s e e d l i n g s 2 ) 1 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 P i c e a CngeimantvLi ( s e e d l i n g s ) 1 13, 15 Vacciniuin membAartaceum 2 10, 13, 14, 15 Vaccinium spp. 3 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 AclUUea mitie^ottMitt 1 1 , 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AiUerviaAia neglecta and umbAineZla 1 7, 8, 10 AAabv, spp. P P 4 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 AsteA sp. [cil-LOiata] 5 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 Catiiu. tcplcscpaia 1 10, 11, 12, 14 CasCillejd tnt.ti.uiMt 1 10, 11, 12 Ipiicbium aipinum and angasti^titium 4 2, 7, 11, 12 li-igtAOn peAegAinat, (spp.) 4 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 F u j a ^ c a viA.gitiia.tui 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, b, 7, 8 HieAaouur, gAaccte (spp.) 2 6 , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Potentcitd di.veASiioi.ia 4 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Kat iu i ic iuus agAciX-i-i and ^ 10 11 12 14 R. vccA.den(atis (spp.) Ruincx. acetocetla ' b, 8 Sedwn sp. 6 12, 13 Se.ittiC.ic tn.Utlgu.td.XLS (spp.) 4 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 Sibbaidia pAvcumbcni 4 13 T i f u n a c u i n OflQ to ina l 'c 1 7, 8 T/uif ictAiutt cccidctttdte 7 12 TA-i^viiutn sp. 1 2 , 7 Mi'l'fuij afbt'^i'uAiii and Caxui 1 12, 14 fivui(mutt viAide 2 10, 12, 13 IV.v,n,\i U V - J N J I . - j o ( d i t 2 10, I I , 12, 11 A . l l . ' J ( l S s r b / 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 4 I'.lli-v s p p . b.l.l IU. I I , 12, I I . 14 / o fucd S | i p . b I . 7 J u n c u s spp. 5 12, 13, 14 Pliteum atpiimm 1 12 Poa spp. 5,1 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 T o t a l of 32 t r a m p l i n g r e s i s t a n t p l a n t s p e c i e s S i t e # 1: 9 t r a m p l i n g r e s i s t a n t s p e c i e s 2: 6 Authors f o l l o w : 3: 3 4: 4 1. Roemer, 1975a 5: 6 2. H a r t l e y , 1976 6: 8 3. T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973 7:13 4. Palmer, 1979 8:10 5. W i l l a r d and M a r r , 1971 9: 1 I). S p e i g h t , 1973 10:12 7. C o l e . 1977 11:13 8. Crawford, 1977 12:17 , 13:14 •"Notes In parentheses '( )' i n d i c a t e a 14:13 d e v i a t i o n from the a u t h o r . For example, 15: 4 ' ( s p p ) ' means t h a t the s p e c i e s i n t h i s s tudy d i d not match those of the author. G e n e r i c s i m i l a r i t i e s a l l o w e d t h e i r i n c l u s i o n as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t r a m p l i n g r e s i s t a n c e s of the s p e c i e s i n q u e s t i o n . 'APPENDIX 3.2 Trampling Susceptible Plant Species Identified Species Author Found at Site 0s 1, 2, 3, A,-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, O u i U ' l - v . mnAtoiAiana 4 10, I 1, 12, 13, 14 Co.'uiui liyuei'.a 1 2 , 8 'Madoiuui i c p c i u (spp. 2) 1 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Phytlodoce. sp. 1 10, 11. 12, 13, 14 Salix nivalii (spp.) ; 4 5, 11, 12, 14 SympkoiXcxuipoi albuA 8 2 5, 6 Anemone octUdentaLU 1 10, 11, 12, 14 AAenaAia. aapillAAii 2 10, 11 Mtuca c<Vuii|So.tUa 2 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 AiieA conip-tcuai 5 2, 8 Gejitiana amoAelta (spp.) 1 11, 12 lupuiui lepidui (spp.) 2 11, 12, 13 Luzula IvUchcockii 2 11, 12, 13, 14 Piilox di&ltUAa (sp.) 5 io OAthelia itauiida 8 2, 3, 4, 9, 15 ValiAiana iitchzniii i 10, 11, 12, 14 Viola sp. t 10, 11, 12 Ag-lopy-ton ipicatum 8 2 5 6 7 Vanthonia ititervrnzdia (spp.) 1 6, 14 Vuciumpiia caeipitoia 8 12, 13, 14 t>^ (/cuii sp. 4 11,12 VicAanum 4,1 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Homatotliecium sp. 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Hylocomium sp. 1 9, 15 Polijttichum spp. It 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 RliacomitAitim catieiccni 1 8, 11, 13, 14 Cctn.aA.ia spp. 1 1. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 Ctadonia spp. [ t j 3, 4_ 5_ 0 , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 PeltigeAa polydactylui, (spp.) 1 i_ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 Total of 29 trampling susceptible plant species Site # 1: 5 trampling susceptible species 2: 10 ^Authors follow: 3: 7 4: 7 1. Roemer, 1975a 5: 7 2. Hartley, 1976 6: 8 3. Tr o t t i e r and Scotter, 1973 7: 8 4. Palmer, 1979 8: 11 5. Willard and Marr, 1971 9: 8 6. Speight, 1973 10: 11 7. Cole, 1977 11: 14 8. Crawford, 1977 12: :15 13: :10 ^Notes i n parentheses 1 ( )' indicate a 14: 14 deviation from the author. For example, 15: ; 6 '(spp)' means that the species i n this study did not match those of the author. Generic s i m i l a r i t i e s allowed their inclusion as representative of the trampling s u s c e p t i b i l i t e s of the species i n question. 144 APPENDIX 4. ECOSYSTEM ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT IN THE STEIN WATERSHED, WITH CAMPSITE INTERPRETATIONS BASED ON SLOPE POSITION Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i ons for the Stein were f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d by M i t c h e l l , Forest E c o l o g i s t f o r the Kamloops Region of the B.C.F.S. ( M i t c h e l l , personal communication, 1980). Ecosystem associations f o r the Western Kamloops Region were defined and l i s t e d i n M i t c h e l l et a l . , 1981. Ecosystem associations used i n Appendix 4 were extracted from the above sources. Campsite i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were based on slope, which represents a c r u c i a l l i m i t i n g f a c t o r f o r camping. Ecosystem association nomenclature used i n Appendix 4 followed Klinka (personal communication, 1982). APPENDIX 4. Ecosystem Associations Present in the Stein Watershed with Campsite Interpretations Based on Slope Position Approximation? Subsone Ecosystem Associations of Hygrotope Possible Campsite Locations PPBGd IDPc02 IDFd IDFd02 IDFe ESSFe ESSFf ESSFpf ATb 3 A,g\opyion {ipicatum) - AAtUoitaphyloi (utu-u-vsi! - PP AgAopyAon [ipicatum) - PP KozAtia [macnantha) - kaiwpywn {Spicatum) - PM - PP SymphoAicaApoi iatbui) - AmzlanchizA [alniiotia] - PP - PM CzanothuA [\izlutinui) - PM - PP AActoitaphytoi [uva-uAii) - SplAza [bztuli(,olia) - PM - PP Czanothui [\izlutinuA] - PM - PP CalamagAOAtit [AubZACznA] - PaxiAtima [myAiinitZi) - PC - PM EquA^ztum [oAvZnAz) - R i b t i [lacuAtAZ.) - CCAKUA [izMcza) - PE Combination of 1 and 3 above CalamagAOAtii [AubzicznAI - Paxiitima [myAAiaitlAl - PC - PM ChAnaphila lumbztlata) - Paxiitima [myAiinitzA) - TH - PM Paxiitima [myAAinitZi) - Vaccinium [ACopaAium) - TH - PM ViipoAum ihookzAi) - ACZA IglabAum) - TP - PE GymnocoApium idiyopteAit} - Oplopanax [hoAAiuuA) - TP - PE Vaccinium licopaAium] - PE - AL ValzAiana [iitchzmii) - Vaccinium [mzmbAanaczum) Oplopanax [hoAAiduA] - AL - PE AL - PE AAcXoitaphyloA [uva-uAAi) - PC - AL Phyllodoce [zmpziAiiOAmii) - Vaccinium Ucopo-vcunl - PA-AL + PE CalamagAOitiA [AubzicznA) - Paxiitima [myAAinitZA) - PE - AL Vaccinium [mzmbAanaczum) - AL - PE Rhytidiopiii [AobuAta) - Vaccinium {mzmbAanaczum) - AA + AL-PE ValzAiana [iitchznAii) - RAbzA [lacuAtAZ) - P E - A A + AL EquiAztum (spp. I - VzAatAum [viAidz) - PE-AA + AL LupinuA loACticui) - Ph£ox (spp.I - JanipzAui (ccmnmuA) - AL + PE Phyllodoce IzmpztAifioAmii) - Caiiiopz (me/Lte.vs.car.a) - AL + PE COAZX [ipzctabitU) - E/Uge*on (peAeg/unuil - Al + PE Cotex (nigAicani) - Antenmttca [lanata) - Salix IcaAcadznAii) -AL + PE Ca/iex (nig/ticaiu) - Caltha [IzptoAzpala] - AL + PE C<w.ex (atboniayia) - Fzituca [bAachyiilla) - VAIJOA - [octopztalla) fZAtuca [viAidula) - Phlzum [alpinum) - Cattilllia [miniata) Lycopodium [alpinum) - LueXkza [pzctinata) - Phyllodocz (spp.) COAZX [nigAicanA) - AjvtznnaAia [lanata.) - Salix [coicadznAiA) 1 3 4 5 6 1 4 . 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 4 5 6 7 1 3 4 5 on lower to middle gentle slopes on middle gentle slopes on middle gentle slopes on lower slopes and le v e l t e r r a i n none on l e v e l crest to midslope positions none (too steep) on gentle midslopes on gentle slopes and le v e l ground on gentle slopes on h i l l crests and gentle slopes on gentle slopes on gentle lower slopes on gentle lower slopes too wet - Devil's club i s l i m i t i n g on crest to upper gentle slopes on gentle slopes on lower gentle slopes and le v e l ground on gentle slopes on gentle slopes none - too steep on gentle slopes on gentle lower slopes on l e v e l ground none - too wet on gentle upper slopes on l e v e l meadows none - too wet on l e v e l meadow in basin on l e v e l r i p a r i a n t e r r a i n unknown unknown on gentle lower slopes on l e v e l meadow in basin Extracted from: Mitchellet aj_. (1981), M i t c h e l l (1980, unpublished Plant Species L i s t ) and Klinka (1982, personal communication). Approximate Hygrotope where: 1 - xer l c , 2 • subxeric, 3 - submeslc, 4 - mesic, 5 • subhygrlc, 6 • hygrlc, 7 • subhydrlc. Tree species abbreviations follows i n order of occurrence: PP = PinuA pondzAOia, PM • PAzudotAuga mznziziii var glauca, PC - Pinui contOAta var lati&olia, PE - Picza zngzlmannii, TH • Tiuga hetZAophylla, TP » Thuja plicata, AL - AbiZA lOAiocaApa. APPENDIX 5. Soils Occurring i n the Stein Watershed 1 S o i l Subgroups PPBGd Subzones and Approximate Hygrotope i n which they occur IDF IDFd IDFd IDFe ESSFe ESSFf ESSFpf Atb Orthic Regosol Orthic Cumulic Regosol Orthic Melanic Brunisol Orthic E u t r i c Brunisol Orthic Sombric Brunisol Orthic Dystric Brunisol Eluviated D y s t r i c Brunisol Gleyed E u t r i c Brunisol Gleyed Dystric Brunisol Gray L u v i s o l Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol Orstein Humo-Ferric Podzol Gleyed Humo-Ferric Podzol Orthic Humic Gleysol Rego Gleysol Organic 2,3,5 1,2 1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,2 1,3,4 5,6 1,4 4 1,3 6,7 2 2 1,2,3,4 3,4 1,4 3,4 1 5,6 5,6,7 5 Extracted from B, Green et a l . (1981), B. M i t c h e l l (1980, unpublished S o i l Survey Results) and S. Nichols (1982, personal communication). Approximate Hygrotope where: 1 = x e r i c 2 = subxeric 3 = submesic 4 = mexic 5 = subhygric 6 = Hygric 7 = Subhydric. 147 APPENDIX 6. SITE SURVEY FORMS 6.1 Site Description form (from Walmsley e£ a l . , 1980). 6.2 S o i l Description form (from Walmsley et a l . , 1980). 6.3 Vegetation Description form (from Walmsley et a l . , 1980). 6.4 Site Description Supplement #1. 6.5 Si t e Description Supplement #2. 6.1 SITE DESCRIPTION FORM 0 3 8 2 7 P A G E OF H a r k a c r o s s ( x ) o v e r p a r a m e t e r n u m b e r w h e n n o t t o b e e n t e r e d I n t o c o m p u t e r . M a r k a s l a s h (/ ) o v e r p a r a m e t e r n u m b e r * h e n n o t f o u n d . P a r a m e t e r s w h i c h m u s t b e f i l l e d i n a r e c i r c l e d . 1 . P r o j . I D . 2 . P l o t N o . © D a t e ( Y / M / D ) _ / / _ ©NTS Sheet L. / _ © U > t . ' • • t L o n g . _ _ • • » 6 . UTM S y s t e m 7. L o c a t i o n 2 o n e E a s t i n g N o r t h i n g 8 . P h o t o # & C o - o r d . f l i g h t l i n e p h o t o n o . X © A s p e c t * r© S l o p e p e r c e n t © E l e v a t i o n , 1 2 . T e r r a i n Y r . 19 J ^ . P h y s . S u b 1 4 . Z o n e / S u b z o n e S y s t e m t m e t r e s T e r r a i n T e x t u r e G e n . M a t . Q u a l . O e s c . S u r f a c e E x p r e s s . H o d . P r o c . Q u a l . j e s c . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! -U- 1 v p 1 6 . V e g e t a t i v e C o v e r S y s t e m J * . E c o l o g i c a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S y s t e m A s s o c . ; T y p e . s * p 1 7 . S o i l C l a s s i f . P h a s e Y e a r 1 9 9 T . T _ _ — 1 8 . P l o t r e p r e s e n t i n g F a m i l y P a r t i c l e S i z e f l 9 J S i t e p o s i t i o n m a c r o a . a p e x b . f a c e c . u p p e r s l o p e d . m i d d l e s l o p e e . l o w e r s l o p e f . v a l l e y f l o o r q . p l a i n S i t e p o s i t i o n m e s o a . c r e s t b . u p D e r s l o o e c . m i d d l e s l o p e d . l o w e r s l o p e e . t o e f . d e o r e s s i o n g . l e v e l (zij S i t e s u r f a c e s h a p e ^-^^ a . c o n c a v e b . c o n v e x c . s t r a i g h t ( ? 2 ^ M i c r o t o p o g r a p h y 2 3 . M e s o s l o o e l e n g t h m 2 4 . v e s o u p - s l o p e l e n g t h m 2 5 . S i t e p o s i t i o n d i a g r a m ( r e f e r t o d a t a * ; r m n o . p h o t o r o l l n o . , p h o t o n o J D i r e c t i o n s m o o t h b . m i c r o m o u n d e d c . s l i g h t l y m o u n d e d d . m o d e r a t e l y m o u n d e d e . s t r o n q l y m o u n d e d f . s e v e r e l y m o u n d e d g . e x t r e m e l y m o u n d e d h . u l t r a m o u n d e d E x D O S u r e T y p e a . n o t a p p l i c a b l e b . w i n d c . i n s o l a t i o n d . f r o s t e . c o l d a i r d r a i n a g e f . s a l t s p r ay q . a t m o s p h e r i c t o x i c i t y o t h e r C o m m e n t s : s c a l e J 1 2 7 . E c o l o g i c a l M o i s t u r e R e g i m e JB. N u t r i e n t R e g i m e Jf. S o i l T e m p e r a t u r e C l a s s a . v e r y x e r i c a . o l i g o t r o p h i c a . e x t r e m e l y c o l d a b . x e r i c b . S ' - i b m e s o t r o o h i c b . v e r y c o l d n c . s u b x e r i c c . - e s o t r o p h i c c . c o l d c d . s u b m e s i c d . o e r m e s o t r o p h i c d . c o o l ' d e . mes i c e . e u t r o o h i c e . m i l d e f . s u b h y g r i c f " i v p e r e u t r o p h i c f 9- h y g r i c g h. i . s u b h y d r i c h y d r i c h i 3 0 . S o i l M o i s t u r e S u b c l a s s j . p e r a q u i c 149 32. P e r v i o u s n e s s a . r a p i d l y b . m o d e r a t e l y c . s l o w l y 3 1 . S o i l d r a i n a q e a . r a p i d l y b . w e l l c . m o d . w e l l d . i m p e r f e c t l y e . p o o r l y f . v e r y p o o r l y 35. D e p t h t o ( c m ) a . w a t e r t a b l e r o o t i n g ( e f f e c t i v e ) r o o t r e s t r i c t i n g l a y e r f r o z e n l a y e r ; 33. F r e e W a t e r a . b . n r e s e n t a b s e n t 34. F l o o d h a z a r d a . f r e q u e n t a n d i r r e g u l a r b . f r e q u e n t c . m a y b e e x D e c t e d d . r a r e e . n o h a z a r d 36. B e d r o c k t y p e 37. B e d r o c k s t r u c t u r e b . c . d . e . f . 9-b e d r o c k c a r b o n a t e s a l i n i t y •38. C o a r s e f r a g m e n t l i t n o l o q y a . t y p e ( i n o r d e r o f d o m i n a n c e ) b . m i x e d 3 9 . S u c c e s s i o n a l S t a t u s P r e s e n t S t a g e : P S , Y S , M S , O S , Y E C , Y C C , M C , M C C , M E C , D C , NV E x p e c t e d c l i m a x R a t e o f s u c c e s s i o n a . v e r y s l o w d . r a p i d b . s l o w e . v e r y r a p i d c . n o r m a l 41. V e g . P l o t : A r e a # ( h a ) S h a p e _ Dim . x 4 0 . F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g S t a n d E s t a b l i s h n e n t 4 2 . Humus F o r m C l a s s . — V a r i a n t s : ; ; (m) P r o f i l e S t a t u s a . m o d a l b . v a r i a n t c . t ' a x a d j u n c t d . u n d e c i d e d 4 3 . S u r f a c e S u b s t r a t e it. P r o f i l e D e v i a t i o n a . n o n e b . s o l u m t h i c k n e s s c . c o l o u r d . t e x t u r e e . d r a i n a g e f . c h e m i c a l g . h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s o t h e r 4 6 . S o i l M a p p i n q U n i t a . b . c . d . e . f . s e r i e s f a m i l y a s s o c i a t e a s s o c i a t i o n c a t e n a c o m p l e x S U B S T R A T E X COVER D e c a y i n g Wood B e d r o c k C o b b l e s a n d S t o n e s M i n e r a l S o i l O r q a n i c M a t t e r U a t e r T o t a l 100» 4 7 . S o i l name 4 8 . A s s o c i a t e d s o i l 50.) P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t o r S u r v e y o r 4 9 . P r o f i l e N o . (5U) A g e n c y l a n d s y s t e m l a n d t y p e o t h e r 52.) T y p e o f S o i l S a m p l e A . S a m p l e d 1 . C h e m i c a l a . f u l l b . p a r t i a l B. No S a m p l e 53. V e q . S a m p l i n g T e c h . 2. P h y s i c s ! a . f u l l b . p a r t i a 1 5 4 . N o t e s o n S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n 1 HORIZON DESIG. 2 HORIZON DEPTH cm. 3 HORIZON THICKNESS cm. HORIZON ^ BOUNDARY COA 5 RSE FRAGMENT DESCRIPT 6 7 STRUCTURE 8 MST / CONSIST. 1 LABOf 0 MTORY 1PLE IBER HORIZON ^ BOUNDARY • Gravel • 7.5cn Cobbles 7.5-25cm Stones •> 2 5 cm SOIL TEXTURE PR:MA-:Y SECONDARY dry I moist | .1 SAI NUI HORIZON ^ BOUNDARY o <t OL O CLASS •;I;;D KIND MOD. c <: re CLASS KIND KIND MOD. D M W dry I moist | CJ 2 «-> LO ro C No. 1 No. 2 MIN MA A 1 Form by vol Itype 1 Itype 1 Itype 1 < 2min KIND MOD. KIND MOD. dry I moist | 1 > i 1 1 I -4— ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I I 1 — j — 1 . I.... 1 1 1 1 ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l _ j _ r I i i ! —1—I—1~ i i i 1 _ i . L_ 1 t j - i i - „ . L , 1 1 - H + i i i cr» CO g r~ D m co O DO n O J3 1 HORIZON DESIG. COLOUR 1 11 COLOUR 2 1? MOTTLES ROOTS 1 3 ROOTS 2 14 aspect aspect AB SI CO COLOUR LO 3 a o cn s C D «=C Size L. o Dist Ab. Size Dist HORIZON aspect aspect F C M F M C F D P aspect aspect aspect aspect V F P A V F M C V H 0 R IN EX M A V F P A V F M C V II 0 R IN EX MX NOTES - 4 — ( • —1—1 1 1 1 1 i —1 I I I ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i — J 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i -i i i i —1 M i l | I I I 1 1 .1 1 i I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II • i II -—1—|—|—1- 1 i i -+ ! 1 1 1 1 -•I U l |. I 1 1 1 I i i I J 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 l I I l I i 1 1 1 1    1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i.„ i i I— o -n O 2} s z c 2 03 m 3) 00 O U i o - ZT un m re C L n c r I— m < m (— o HORIZON DESIG. - Kind Material Composi t ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION r o Kind Material Composi t ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Decom n: 3 o o z Material Composi t ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION < i w ^ oT a. Woody Material ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Vol Woody Material ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Index ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION von Post Scale ORGANIC MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J L ~o m 8 ? DEPTH (cm) - fc n c r r— m «c m r— o HORIZON DESIG. r e ac t i on - a 3 : \ method 3> "o -n <: Ab. PORES * — r~> 3 "n <= Si ze PORES 7a o ac <c Ori PORES 3 m _ x . x z o PORES o o o o Cont' PORES o o o o Mor PORES .—<"--•< Type PORES o o TO PO --o 3 o -n o o Freq. CLAY FILMS •= -1 3 —1 —1 —1 2 Thi CLAY FILMS <=cT-Loc. CLAY FILMS Degr EFFER *>o -Cont SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION r o o 3 n -n Ab. SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION o 3 -n Size SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION PO < Str. Shape SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION — — O TO Spo Shape SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION - Mst Consist. SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION 1 Dry Consist. SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION 1/1 3 SC SAL — o Ki nd CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS r o r o 3 c~i -n Ab. CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS n 3 "n Si ze CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS O J r o Loc CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS •X) — O o o Shape CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS Aspect CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS Number c fD Coloi CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS Let ter(s ) Coloi CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS Value CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS Chroma CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS ^ o Agent n n m r o CO oo 3 n Degree Extent —^ 151 152 6 . 3 V E G E T A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N F O R M I—I—I—I—TTT—|— PKUJLCT I.D. PLOT NO. PAGE OF SURVLYOR FLORISTIC L IST STRATUM NOTES specify entr ies here Veteran + J c TO C l/l • — OJ E OJ o s-O r -a. c o ro na 5 : <_) M A3 Trees Total Trees JC •— 3 ro JT 1— LO CO CO z> 3 S-O -C _ i LO CNJ CO Total Shrubs C Herbs > _ l l/! cr-» c »/i - i -. OJ t — ui ~o l/l OJ O GJ s: co All Strata Height of top of strata(m) Number of dead snags Iota 1 percentage cover of each layer SPECIES LIST • Comments on Vegetation Character i s t i c s 153 6.4 Site Description Supplement #1. Stoniness (Cansis, 1978 - 8J) (loose material) Rockiness (Cansis, 1978 - 8K) (bedrock) Non stony <.01% S l i g h t l y Stony .01-.1 Moderately Stony .1-3 Very Stony 3-15 Exceedingly Stony 15-50 Excessively Stony > 50 Non rocky S l i g h t l y rocky Moderately rocky Very rocky Exceedingly rocky Excessively rocky Erosion (Cansis, 1978 - 8H) % of surface General water erosion - s l i g h t < 25 moderate 25-75 severe > 7 5 g u l l i e d severely g u l l i e d Seepage (Cansis, 1978 Some Moderate Landslide hazard (Cansis, 1978 - L) Sli g h t Moderate 5. S u s c e p t i b i l i t y to f r o s t (Cansis, 1978 - R) Sli g h t Moderate % of surface wind eroded 25-75 severely wind eroded >75 blown out p r o f i l e destroyed High Severe Severe 7, 8, Average penetrometer reading I n f i l t r a t i o n rate (Cansis, 1978 - P) range cm/hour 154 6.5 Site Description Supplement #2. Access type - constructed t r a i l road other cross-country animal t r a i l T r a i l d i f f i c u l t y (1-10 scale-subjective) Distance to: water nearest a c t i v i t y area specify type Attractions: destination f i s h i n g climbing meadow flowers scenic other Evidence of Human waste, garbage and constructed f a c i l i t i e s photo # Role # Tree: root exposure: % of surface damage photo # role #  disease photo # role #  crown closure (% class) 1) none 2) 1-20 3) 21-40 4) 41-61 5)61-80 6) 81-100 Stage of plant development overstory (Phenology) shrubs ground Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y : radius to obtain one evening's firewood (15 kilograms) F i r e r i n g : construction diameter photo # role # W i l d l i f e : browse damage fe c a l p e l l e t s footprints other 155 APPENDIX 7. REFERENCES USED IN PLANT IDENTIFICATIONS. PUBLICATION OR SOURCE Arno, S.F. and R.P. Hammerly. 1977. Northwest Trees. The Mountaineers, Seattle .* Hale, M.E. 1969. How to Know the Lichens. Wm. C. Brown Co. Dubuque, Iowa.** Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. Vols. 1 and 2, Dover Publishing Inc., N.Y.** Hitchcock, C L . 1969. Key to the Grasses of the P a c i f i c Northwest, Based on Vegetative Characters. U. of Washington Press, S e a t t l e . * * Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular Plants of  the P a c i f i c Northwest. U. of Washington Press, S e a t t l e . * * Lawton, E. 1971. Moss F l o r a of the P a c i f i c Northwest. The H a t t o r i Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, Miyazaki, Japan.** Lyons, C P . 1974. Trees, Shrubs and Flowers to Know i n B r i t i s h  Columbia. J.M. Dent and Sons, Toronto.* Spellenburg, R. and S. R a y f i e l d . 1979. The Audobon Society F i e l d Guide  to North American Wild Flowers - Western Region. A.A. Knopf, N.Y.* Taylor, R.L. and B. MacBryde. 1977. Vascular Plants of B r i t i s h Columbia: a d e s c r i p t i v e resource inventory. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.* UBC Botany Herbarium moss c o l l e c t i o n . * * *** * F i e l d guide for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s on s i t e . ** Used with a 20X zoom dissecting microscope. *** Used with a l i g h t microscope for c e l l u l a r examination. APPENDIX 8. Plant Species L i s t for Stein Valley Recreation Impact Assessment Collection (UBC Herbarium) TREES 1. AbieA ta6iuc.aA.pa (Hook.) Nutt. 1 2. AceA. glabmm var dougtabii Torr. 3. AtnuA -incana subsp. tznul^otla (Nuttal.) Breitung 4. Septula papijtii&eAa Marshall 5. Picua gtauca e.nge£immuX Parry ex. Engelm. 7 . Rinai albicaatu Engeimann H. PuiuA contofita var la-ti^ot-ia Douglas ux Loud. '). P.umi munt icola 1). Douglas 10. P.6lu<J pondiUio6a D. Douglas ex. Lawsun and Lawson 11. Poputiu Oiemuto4.dz6 A. Michaux 12. Popular baldaniiiiLKa var tA.ic.kacaApa L. 13. P&eudo&iuga menzieAAA. var gtauca (Belssher) Franco 14. Tkuja pLicata Donn ex. D. Don in Lamb. 15. T6uga meAte.n6-iana (Bongard) Carriere SHRUBS 16. AiiuLtandilcsi atnl^otia (Nutt) Nutt. 17. AA.cto6-taph.yto6 tiva-mteA. L. 18. SeXata gtandtxto6a A. Michaux 19. Qa66X.opQ. moAXtnUi-iana var xnQjiten6iana (Bongard) G. Don 20. CeanotkiU 6angiu.ne.u6 Pursh. 21. Ceanothu6 veZutina6 D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker 22. CttmaXU alpina (L.) P. M i l l e r 23. CoKytiM aveZtana (L.) 24. Con.nu6 6QAA.cea (Torrey + Gray) Fossberg 25. Empe,Vium nigKum (L.) 26. HotodiAcab dUtColoi (Pursh.) Maxim 27. JunipeAiU command subsp. atpina (Neilreich) Celakovsty 29. Katnita mtCAophytta (W.L. Hooker) A.A. Heller 30. • Linnaea bo^ejicu L. 31. LontceAa utahcn6-i6 S. Watson 32. loAJiQJLzjjJiia fM.ocumbe.nA (L.) N.A. Desvaux 3 3. PaxAJituna my>u>inite6 (Pursh) 34. . PhtZadetpku6 tmi&isi Pursh 35. Pkyttudoce. mpeXnX^OfmLit (J.E. Smith) D. Don 36. Phyttodoce. gtandati^toAa (W.J. Hooker) C o v i l l e 37. PtumuA eina/iginata (D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker) Walpers and Prunus v-iAgxiniana D. Douglas 38. Makonta aqul^otiam (p Ursh) Nuttall and Mahouia fie.pe.n6 (Lindley) G. Don 39. Wznz.ieM.ia faeAAuginea. J.E. Smith 40. Rhododendron aZbl^lotvm Hook. 41. Rtb£6 C C A e u w D. Douglas and HibeA vAl6C066-iA6imum Pursh 42. Rota mtfkana K.R. P r e s l . 43. Rufaoi .a/atiui L. 44. Rubu6 teuCOde/wUA D. Douglas ex Torrey and Cray 4 5. Rubu6 pa/iv^to/uu N u t t a l l 4 6. RubaA pzdatu6 J.E. Smith 47. Sambucu6 CQAutea Rafinesque 4 8. Satix ca6Cade\i6AJ> Cockerall (and others) 4 9. Satix behbiana Sargent 50. SkepheAdia canade.n6l6 (L.) N u t t a l l 51. SoA.bu6 6C0puLina var ca6cade,n6AJ> (G.N. Jones) C.L. Hitchcock 52. Solbu6 6itche.n6-L6 M.J. Roemer 53. Sympho/vicoApoA atbu6 S.F. Blake 54. VaccUnium ca<Lt>ftiXo&um A. Michaux VacCAnium mijhXWLoidZA A. michaux (and others) 55. Vac<Unium dtticio6am Piper 56. UaccXnium membfianacejjxn D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker 57. VaccirUum ovati^otium J.F. Smith i n Rees 58. VAlbuAnum 0putu6 subsp. txXtobum (Marshall) R.T. Clousen Subalpine f i r Douglas maple Thin-leaved Mountain alder Common paper birch I n t e r i o r spruce Whltebark pine Lodgepolu plne W e s t e r n w h i t e p l n u Ponderosa pine Trembling aspen Black cottonwood Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir Western red cedar Mountain hemlock Common saskatoon Kinnikinnick Scrub glandular birch Merten's cassiope Redstem ceanothus Snowbrush ceanothus Alpine clematis Common f i l b e r t Western Red Osier dogwood Black crowberry Ocean spray Common juniper Western swamp kalmia Northern twinflower Utah honeysuckle Alpine azalea Oregon Boxwood Lewis Mock-orange Red Mountain-heather Cream Mountain heather B i t t e r cherry Western chokecherry T a l l Oregon-grape Creeping Oregon-grape P a c i f i c menziesia White-flowered rhododendron Squaw currant Sticky currant Nuotka rose American Red raspberry Black raspberry Western thimbleberry Five-leaved creeping raspberry Blue elder Cascade willow (and others) Bebb's willow Soopolalie Western mountain-ash Sitka mountain-ash Common snowberry Dwarf blueberry Velvet leaved blueberry Cascade blueberry Black blueberry Oval-leaved blueberry American bush cranberry 157 APPENDIX 8 (cont'd) FLOWER I Nt: PLANTS S ' l . A c / u f f i M m<r"f v faHum L. Comintin y.-irruw t.il. Accmfuin i'('fumu<a*1imt N u l l . - i l l In Tnrri-y ;in<l Ci.iy Cn I nmli 1 .-in u o n k c h o i M l (i l . Ai'd'.l m l i l i l (W. A l t o n ) U l l l d i ' i u i w K'-u u;uiulu:i'ry t i ; . AguAliA-t-s spp. KafluitaQue F a l s e d a n d e l i o n b.l. PuCiotilla occidentalii (S. Watson) Fnei/11 Western pasqueflower bU. AntennaAia spp. J . G a e r t n e r P u s s y t o e s 65. UicAoieAii boAealii (Bongard) S c h u l t s - B l p o n t i n u s Apargidlum 66 Apocmwi andAoiaemi^olium L. Spreading dogbane 67. AAabii spp. L. Rock c r e s s bb. AAabii lemmonii S. Watson Lemmon's Rock c r e s s 69. AAa.Ha nudicaulii L. W i l d s a r s a p a r i l l a 70. AAenaAia capitlaAii P o l r e t In Lamarck Thread leaved sandwort 71. AAnica COAdi^ol.ix w.J. Hooker H e a r t - l e a v e d a r n i c a A l u c c a iatiiolia (Rydberj;) A r n i c a diicuidea 7:'. AitCA conipicuui L i n d l e y i n W.J." Hooker Showy a s t e r 73. AiteA ciliotatui L i n d l e y i n W.J. Hooker L i n d l e y ' s a s t e r 7;. AthyAium ip. Roth Lady f e r n 7s Caltha te.ptoie.pala var bi^loAa (A.P. C a n d o l l e ) Two-flowered w h i t e marsh-G. Lawson m a r i g o l d 7c. Caltha leptoiepala var leptoiepala A l p i n e w h i t e marsh-marigold 77. Caititteja spp. M u t i s ex. L. f i l . I n d i a n p a i n t b r u s h 7a. ChimaphXtla umbellata (L.) Bar t o n Common Western p i p s l s s e w a Ti. Coltiniia gAandi^loAa L i n d l e y Large f l o w e r e d Blue-eyed Mary 80. C t c p t i otAabaAba A.A. H e l l e r S l e n d e r hawksbeard 81. Delphinium glaucum S. Watson Glaucous d e l p h i n i u m 8 J . DiipoAum hookeAi ( T o r r e y ) N i c h o l s o n Hooker's f a i r y b e l l s 83. E p i t o b i u m anagattidiioHum Lamark A l p i n e w i l l o w h e r b 8 i . Ipilobium anguAtifaotium L. Fireweed 85. Epilobium gtandutoium Lehmann S t i c k y w i l l o w h e r b 8ti. iQui&etum sp. L. S c o u r i n g rush 87. lligeAon sp. L. Fleabane 8 .S . ttligeAOn COmpoiitui Pursh C u t - l e a v e d f l e a b a n e 89. tAigeAon peAegAinui Pursh S u b a l p i n e f l e a b a n e 90. Eliogonum spp. A. Michaux Umbrella p l a n t 91. £AiophoAum anguitifaolium Hanckeny Narrow-leaved c o t t o n g r a s s '9J. FAagOAia viAginiana var ptatypetala Rydberg B r o a d - p e t a l l e d w i l d s t r a w -b e r r y v a r glatica (S. Watson) Staudt B l u e - l e a v e d s t r a w b e r r y 93. GuudyeAa oblongifaolia Raf. R a t t l e s n a k e p l a n t a i n 9~. Gcntianella pAopinqua J . R i c h a r d s o n i n F r a n k l i n F o u r - p a r t e d g e n t i a n 95. PtatantheAa sp. L.C.M. R i c h a r d Rein o r c h i d 96. PtatantheAa ditatata Pursh F r a g r a n t w h i t e r e i n o r c h i d 97. PtatantheAa itAicta L i n d l e y S l e n d e r r e i n o r c h i d 9.S. Hdpfupapui lyaltii A. Cray L y a l l ' s goldenweed 99. HeteAotheca sp. C a s s l n l Golden a s t e r 100. HeucheAa cytindAica D. Douglas ex. W . J . Hooker Round-leaved alumroot 101. HeucheAa sp. L. Alumroot 102. HieAacium albiitoAum W . J . Hooker White hawkweed 103. HieAacium QAacile W .J. Hooker S l e n d e r hawkweed 104. HieAacium AcouleAi W . J . Hooker S c o u l e r s hawkweed 105. LeptOAAhena pyAotiiolia (D. Don) R. Brown L e a t h e r l e a f s a x i f r a g e 106. Lomatium diiiectum ( N u t t a l l ) M a thias & Constance F e r n - l e a v e d lomatium 107. Lolium columbianum Hanson e x J.G. Baker Columbia l i l y 10b. Lomatium sp. Ra f i n e s q u e Lomatium 109. Luetkea pectinata (Pursh) C.E.O. Kuntze Luetkea 110. Lup-cnUA sp. L. Lupine 111. l i / c o p o a U l i J n iitchenie Rupreckt A l a s k a c l u b moss 11J. Uimatui tetoiiiii Pursh Lewis's m o n k e y f l o w e r 113. Utjoiotii iylvatica L i n k e x Roemer and S c h u l c e s Wood forget-me-not 114. Hicia amcAicana N l c i a 115. OAthelia sp. R a f i n e s q u e One-sided w i n t e r g r e e n l i b . OAthelia Aecanda L. Many-flowered One-sided w n t e r g r e u n 117. OAthoCOApui sp. N u t t a l l Owl c l o v e r 118. OAthoCOApui lutein N u t t a l l Y e l l o w owl c l o v e r 119. OAthoCOApui tenuifaolini (Pursh) Bentham T h i n - l e a v e d owl c l o v e r 1211. PedicutoAii, gAoentandica Retziui Elephant's-head lousewort l - ' l . PenitCtivil sp. M i t c h e l l Penstemon APPENDIX 8 (cont *d) FLOWERING PLANTS (cont'd) 122. Pcn&tzmon (ifiutico6u4. v a r 6C0utesU P u r s c h 123. Pzn&tzmon ptioceAui D. Douglas ex. R.C. Graham 124. PcXa^ltzs paljna£u& A. Gray 125. Pkacztia tinnzaAc& (Pursh) H o l z l n g e r 12*>. Piifox di^a&a Bentham 127. PlzctAitU congz&ta L i n d l e y 128. Polygonum sp. L. 12^. PotznUtta spp. L. 1 U). P o f c n t i f f a dtvCLiirfotta Lehmann I ' l l . P t j f c n f t f f a tfuheXtiftoLia W.J. Hooker ex To r r e y and Gray 132. PoUntilla gtandulo&a. L i n d l e y 133. KanuHcu&i* spp. L. 13^. Rumex acc£uce££a L. 135. SaJUola kati L. 13". SaiUfjAnga spp. L. 137. Saxx^taga DAOtichlatU L. 13*. Saxi^Aaga lijalLLL E n g l e r 139. Saxl^Aaga cccUdzntciLLt, S. Watson. 14Q. Saxx-fj-taga tolmzi T o r r e y and Gray 141. S e d u m ui^egA-t^utuurt (Rafinesque) A. Nelson and Sedurn divcAgenA 142 . Sztaginztla U.'J.C£ac<U Hieronymus 143. SzmcA.o spp. L. 144. Sznzcio CtjmbalzoAO-idz6 Bueck 145. Senecx.0 VUanguta/iUi W.J. Hooker 146. Sibbaldla pA.ocumbe.ru> L. 147. Smiiaczna Aaczmoia v a r amplzxicaulXA S. Watson 14S. Sfncfacena /lacemoaa var tiacemota (L.) D e s f o n t a i n e s 149. Sp^tea spp. L. 150. SpiAan-t/ieo Aomanozo^iana. Chamissa 151. LtXkophA-xgma paAvi&loium (W.J. Hooker) N u t t a l 152. ToAaxacum spp. H a l l . 153. TiaAztla urU&otiata W.J. Hooker 154. ThaLictAum occidztUolz A. Gray 155. To&izlda g£utoio-ia (A. Michaux) Persoon 156. To^izlda puAitta (A. Michaux) Persoon 157. TAOIIMIA laxiU S a l i s b u r y 158. TAagopogon dub-LuA S c o p u l i 159. TsUfiotuim spp. L. 160. \JalZAiana &<Xckzni><4> Bongard 161. VzAaXAum vvu.de v a r z6ckt>cko£Xzii 162. VzAonica MOAm^kjotdLi Roemer and S c h u l t e s 163. Viola adunca J.E. Smith i n Rees 164. Woodi-OX sp. R. Brown Shrubby penstemon Sle n d e r b l u e penstemon Palmate c o l t s - f o o t Thread-leaved p h a c e l i a Spreading phlox Rosy p l e e t r l t i e Knotweed C i n q u e f o i l B l u e - l e a v e d cInquefo 11 Fan-1eaved c i n q u e f u i l S t i c k y c i n q u e f o i l B u t t e r c u p Sheep s o r r e l R u s s i a n t h i s t l e S a x i f r a g e P r i c k l y s a x i f r a g e L y a l l ' s s a x i f r a g e Western s a x i f r a g e Tolmie's s a x i f r a g e Rosefoot Spreading s t o n e c r o p W a l l a c e ' s s e l a g i n e l l a Ragwort I v y - l e a v e d ragwort Arrow-leaved ragwort C r e e p i n g s i b b a l d l a F a l s e Solomon's-seal F a l s e Solomon's-seal S p i r e a Hooded L a d i e s ' - T r e s s e s S m a l l - f l o w e r e d woodland s t a r D a ndelion u n i f o l i a t e - l e a v e d foam f l o w u r Western meadow-rue S t i c k y f a l s e asphodel Common f a l s e asphodel White g l o b e f l o w e r Y e l l o w s a l s i f y C l o v e r S i t k a v a l e r i a n Green f a l s e h e l l e b o r e A l p i n e s p e e d w e l l E a r l y Blue v i o l e t Woodsia GRASSES, RUSHES AND SEDGES 1 br> . AgioptjAon sp. J . Gae r t n e r 1 6<> . Agioptjion & pi cat tun var inZAmc A.A. H e l l e r l e / . A g tuf - U / A U H ipicatum v a r ApicaXum S c r l b n e r and Smith 16S. AgAO&tli sp. L. 169. AgA0&ti& ZXOAaXa T r i n i u s 170. ScrUziga&hyKium ^copaAum Nash i n S m a l l 171. BVLOma6 sp. L. 172. CciZamagA06tL6 sp. Ad an son 173. COAZX spp. L. 174. COACH faoznza Wlldenow 175. COAZX macAockazta c.A. Meyer 176. COAZX rUgAicatt& C.A. Meyer 177. COAZX AupZ&tAiA B e l l a r d i ex A l l i o n i 178. Cinna tatiiotia L. 179. VatUkonui sp. Lamarck and de C a n d o l l e 180. VatUkonia canddznt-U F i n d l a y and Baum 181. VahlocUa atAOpuApuAza E . M . F r i e s 182. iAoiphoAum sp. L. 183. Fw-tuca spp. L. Wheat g r a s s B e a r d l e s s Bluebunch Whe.it gr.'i Bluebunch wheat g r a s s B e n t g r a s s S p i k e b e n t g r a s s L i t t l e Bluestem Beard g r a s s Brome g r a s s S m a l l Reed g r a s s Sedge Wind sedge Large-awned sedge B l a c k A l p i n e sedge C u r l y sedge Wood Reed g r a s s Oat g r a s s Canadian oat g r a s s V a h l o d i a C o t t o n g r a s s Fescue 159 APPENDIX 8 (cont'd) CRASSES. RUSHES AND SEDGES (cont'd) 184 18'. 18l> 187 188 189 190 191 19-' 193 194 Juncus spp. L. KoeAlia spp. I.. Luzula luXcha.ic.kiA. Hamet-Ahtl Ofiyzopsis exigua Thurber in Torrey PkalaAis ajwndi.na.cca L" . Phlcum alpinum L. Poa spp. L. Poa fcendleAiaiia (Stuedel) Vasey Poa sXenanXha Trinius Poa pnaXensis L. SiXanion hysXCAAX (Nuttall) J.G. Smith Rush Koerlia Smooth wood-rush L i t t l e Rice grass Reed Canary grass Alpine timothy Blue grass Mutton grass Trinius' Blue grass Kentucky Blue grass Bottlebrush s q u i r r e l t a i l 195 Stipa spp. L. grass Needle grass MOSSES 19b. AntheXia julacea 197. AuXacomnium andKogynum Hedw schwaegr. 198. AuXacomnium patusXAC Hedw. schwaegr. 199. Bnachythecium albicans Hedw. 200. B>mchijXhccium staAkci Brid. 201. Bflijum spp. Hedw. 202 . BAiium beAgii Hedw. 203. CaltieAgon sXnaminium (Brid) Kindb. 204. CeAaXodon punpuneus (Hedw) Brid. 205. Oicnanclla sp. (C. Muell.) Schlmp. 206. P(Cul»tujn spp. Hedw. 207. Pic-tailum d'niCJCCfli Turn. 20s. Ptc-tammi mcntanum Hedw. 20 4i. Viciamun mucltt cnbecki.i B.S.C. 210. Otcnamun pall idesetum ( 1 1 iy) l r e l . . ' It. P ( i " I ( l i t i l » l prlusctuin Sw. .'}.'. P* ( '"i.ttiiun Si'i'l M t t I I I H l l c i l w . 21 I . Pd ' l . lmt in tau 1 (cum S . I | K - I I In 21'.. Oncpiiiwcladus exannulatus (B.S.C.) Warnst . 2 13. Dicpatu'ctadus unanatus (Hedw.) Warnst 21b. Hcmatol iiccium pinnaLifoidium ( S u l l . and Lesq.) Lawt . 217. HygAchypnum ocllAaceum (Wlls) Loeske 218. Hijlccomiumiple.nde.nS (Hedw.) B.S.C. 219. AAcXoa dalcaXa Hedw. 220. LepXoblijum pyU(,onme (Hedw.) Wils. 221. Lophozia spp. Hedw. 222 . t*\aASupeXla spp. Hedw. 223 . HaAsupeXXa bACoisima Hedw. 224 . Miiitun spinulosum B.S.C. 225 . PiUtanoXws donXana (Hedw.) Brid. 226 . PlagioXheCAjum unduXaXum (Hedw.) B.S.C. 227. Pohtia spp. Hedw. 228. Pohtia nuXans (Hedw.) Lindb. 229. Pohtia walenbeAgii (Web and Mohr) Andr. In Grout 230 . PolijXAichum commune Hedw. 231 . PolytAichum pitiiCAum Hedw. 232 . PolijtAichum sexangulane Floerke ex Brid. 233 . PseudolcskeeXa sp. Klndb. 2 34 . PXiLium chAAJtXa-casXAensis (Hedw.) De Not. 235. Ptilium sp. (Sull.) De Not. 2 36. RiiacomiXnXum ^aciculoAe (Hedw.) Brid. 237 . RhacomiXAium canescens (Hedw.) Brid. 238. RhacomiXAium sudeXicum (Funk) B.S.C. 239 . RhyXidiadeXphus loieus (Hedw) Warnst. 240 . RhyXidiadeXphus squaAOius (Hedw.) Warnst. 241. RhytidiadeXplius XAiqueXAis (Hedw.) Warnst. 242 . Bli/um sandboAgii (Broth). Andrews 243. ^p/iagnu/Ti sp. Hedw. 244. ToKula AU.WIAS (Hedw.) Caertn. APPENDIX 8 (cont'd) LICHENS 24.. Myotonia bicoton (Khrh.) Nyl. 24ii. Alc.ctOA.ia sp. Acli. 24,'. tiaoi'ini/ce.5 AnQU5 (Huds.) Rebcnt. (YM.lK.t up. I A<ii. .'•Vi. l Y f l . i l i . i up. .' Ai-Ii. J ii). CctlilAU -sp. 3 Ach. 251. CetAJViia sp. 4 Ach. 252. CctAOAia iilandica (L.) Ach. 253. Ciadoivia sp. 1 Wlgg. 254. Cladonia. sp. 2 Wigg. 255. Cladonia sp. 3 Wigg. 2 56. Cladonia sp. 4 Wigg. 257. Cladonia sp. 5 Wigg. 25s. Cladonia sp. 6 Wigg. 259. Cladotvia sp. 7 Wigg. 2on. Cladonia sp. 8 Wigg. 261. Cladonia biill.idi&loAa (Ach.) Schoer 262. Cladonia capitata (Michx.) Spreng. 2 63. Cladonia ckloAOpliatLa (Florke ex Somm.) Spreng. 26~. Cladonia coiiiocAaza (Florke) Spreng. 26T. Cladonia coAixuta (L.) Hoffm. 266. Cladonia CA.<J,tateZla Tuck. 267. Cladonia dzfaoAmit, (L.) Hoffm. 2 6.-;. Cladonia faimbniata (L.) Fr. 26'!. Cladonia gnac^lii (L.) W i l l d . 27ii. CtadonLa sp. Wigg. 271. Cladonia mitii Sandst. 272 . Cfadjiua sp. Wigg. 27 5. Cladonia plcaAota (Florke) Schaer. 27-. Cladonia pijxidata (1..) Hoffm. 27;.. Cladonia nanai de/iina ( L . ) Wigg. 27u. Cladonia ica'bxiuicula (Del. ex Dudy) l.eight 27;. Cladonia iquamoia (Scop.) Hoffm. 27.-1. Lccanena sp. Ach. 2,'i. Nci-Wi-li'iiu /ictYc t iciun Ach. 2 S i ) . J\M/m.'t'{\l sp. Ach. .'Si. IVl'figcAa aphtkoid (1..) Will d . 2S.' . Pel t igCAd iMlu'iia ( L . ) W i l l d . 2H<. Pcl'flilO.l sp. Will d . 2S'. . >" f C . C O C a u l ' u n spp. Hoffm. 2S>. <tc\coc.aul\<i: albicani Th. Fr. 28". Siiyiivciiufcn •subaflu'caiu Lamb. 2S7 . USHC.a sp. P. Br. ex Adans. ' A l l vascular plants follow Taylor, R.L. and B. MacBryde. 1977. Vascular Plants of B r i t i s h Columbia. U.B.C. Press, Vancouver. Mosses follow Lawton. 1971. Moss Flora of the P a c i f i c Northwest Hattorl Botanical Laboratory, Nichinan, Miyazaki, Japan. Lichens follow Otto, G.F., Teuvo A h t i . 1967. Lichens of B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Botany, UBC. APPENDIX 9. F i f t e e n Campsite and Control Plot Maps and Detailed Directions for Locating Them. 163 CAMPSITE 1 A. View f i r s t t r i b u t a r y creek on N side of Stein, walk approximately 300 steps to 4 m high granite outcrop on l e v e l ground, to N side of t r a i l . 1. Control landmark for campsite 1. Highest point of 4 m high rock outcrop. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at NE p l o t corner, under IDf seedling 39 m 80° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under IDf seedling 26.4 m 79° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. SW corner, IDf A 3 tree, 30 m, 3° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. NW corner, IDf A 3 tree, 29 m 9° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 6. Point on t r a i l , adjacent to campsite 1 c o n t r o l landmark (beside forked PP t r e e . Control Plot 1 7. Control landmark for control plot 1, 239 steps west on t r a i l from #6 above (bearing 40° S of W) a 1.5 m high boulder, to N of t r a i l . 8. Primary t i e - i n stake under a f l a t boulder at NW plot corner, 1.5 m from r i v e r bank - walk bearing 40° W of N from control landmark to r i v e r bank. 9. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under PP sapling 35 m 58° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. SE plot corner, 32 m, 64° S of E from secondary t i e - i n stake. 11. SW plot corner, 37 m 49° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. Photo stations on inventory p l o t s . 1 165 CAMPSITE 2 1. Adam's shelter campsite - SW corner of shelter i s control landmark for CS 2. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at SW corner of p l o t . 19.2 m 04° S of W from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at SE corner of p l o t . 20.3 m 76° E of N from control landmark. 4. NE plot corner, 49 m, 25° E of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. NW plot corner, 30 m 9° E of N from 1° t i e - i n stake. 6. Campsite contains 6 leanto s h e l t e r s , one constructed shelter, an open outhouse, 4 f i r e p i t s , an old sweathouse, 2 sawhorses, an o i l b a r r e l stove, and a f l a g pole. Control Plot 2 7. Adams cabin - not marked on map 6, Freeman and Thompson, 1979. SW corner of cabin i s control landmark for Control Plot 2. 8. Primary t i e - i n stake at W corner of p l o t . On N side of veteran IDf tree. Approximately 100 steps from corner of cabin. 9. Secondary t i e - i n stake at S corner of p l o t , 18 m 53° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. N plot corner, 23 m, 39° E of N from 1° t i e - i n stake. 11. E plot corner, 23 m 40° E of N from 2° t i e - i n stake. / \ Photo s t a t i o n s . l : 5 , 0 0 0 167 CAMPSITE 3 1. Control landmark for Campsite 3 - Large rock .7 m across i n f i r e p i t at 1st bend i n Cottonwood Cr. below f a l l s . 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at SE corner, 14.3 m 31° S of E from control landmark. 3. SW corner, 20.0 m 83° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. NE corner, 21 m 9° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. NW corner, 29.6 m 44° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake, or 20 m 0°N from SW corner. CAMPSITE 4 6. Control landmark for Campsite 4 - centre of f i r e p i t approximately 3 m W of floodchannel bank. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner, 13.9 m 2° W of N from control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, 10.5 m 32° ESE of E from control landmark. 9. S plot corner, 20 m 26° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. W plot corner, 20 m 25° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 3-4 11. Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, 39 m 41° W of N from control landmark i n campsite 4 (#6 above). 12. Secondary t i e - i n stake at N corner, 20 m 31° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake (#11). 13. W plot corner, 20 m 39° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 14. S corner, 20 m 41° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. A Photo stations. lf>: 1. 5 . 0 0 0 169 CAMPSITE 5 1. Control landmark for Campsite 5 - A 2 Douglas-fir tree, 1.5 m from River bank. Bearing from tree to outflow of Stryen Creek -71° S of E. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at SE plot corner, under boulder to N of t r a i l , 11 m 76° E of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under Saskatoon bush, 30.8 m, 16° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. NW corner - A3 PP tree, 28.5 m, 14° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. SW corner - A 2 p p tree on rock outcrop, 29 m 09° S of W from 1° t i e - i n stake. ^ Photo s t a t i o n . u Bridge over Stryen Creek. 171 CAMPSITE 6 1. Control landmark for Campsite 6 - A^ PP tree on top of 3 m high rock outcrop to W of large f i r e p i t # 7 m, also 2/ 500 m E of f i r s t creek on N. shore. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at NW corner, under shrub, 8.2 m 88° W of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under A^ Df tree, 28 m 81° E of-JJ from control landmark or, 36.2 m, 85° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. SW corner at A3 PP tree, 15.4 m, 81° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. SE corner at A2 Df (dead), 21.4 m 81° S of E from secondary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 5-6 6. Control landmark for control plot 5-6 - where t r a i l on S. shore of Stein dips down to water's edge (as seen from N. shore) - A rock outcrop protrudes here. Bearing sighted on W. side of bedrock outcrop. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at S plot corner, under dying A2 PP tree -sight bearing 47° S of E on control landmark, at this point on S. River bank. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, under A2 Df tree, with boulder beside 33.6 m, 25° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. W corner, at A2 PP tre e , 28.4, 56° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. N corner, at dying A2 p p tree, leaning, 16 m, 40° W of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. A Photo stations. 72 1--5POO 173 CAMPSITE 7 1. Control landmark for Campsite 7 - f i r s t of two large boulders (1.5 m high) approximately 50 steps from fork i n t r a i l at Devil's s t a i r c a s e , on lower fork. Distances and bearings taken from N. side of boulder. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner on top of River bank to N. of t r a i l , 7 m 7° W of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at E corner, 15.4 m, 83° S of E from control landmark. 4. W corner, 60 m 21° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. S corner, 60 m 22 S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 7 6. Control landmark for control plot 7, i s f i r s t large boulder at opening to boulder slope, on t r a i l , continuing W of CS 7. Bearings and distances measured from N. side. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at W plot corner, 6.8 m, 31° E of N from control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at S plot corner, 14.3 m 66° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. N corner, 18.7 m 77° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. E corner, 18 m 77° E of N from secondary secondary t i e - i n stake. Photo s t a t i o n s . 175 CAMPSITE 8 1. Control landmark for Campsite 8 i s the large f i r e p i t # 5 m NW of teepee structure. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at NW plot corner, under A2 Df tree on River bank, 17.5 m, 49° W of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under A^ Black cottonwood, on r i v e r bank. 4. SE corner, at A2 Df tree, 23 m, 58° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. SW corner at A 3 Df tree, 19 m 71° S of W from 1° t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 8 6. Control landmark for control plot 8 - f i n d 1.2 m high boulder on edge of terrace. Walk on outhouse t r a i l to f i r s t r i s e , then proceed 11 m 67° S of E to boulder. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at SW corner, under Amelanchier shrub, i n middle of small c l e a r i n g , 30 m 39° S of E from control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at SE corner, under k\ Df tree, 44 m 23° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. NE corner, 13 m 36° E of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. NW corner, 13 m 36° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. ^ Photo sta t i o n s . 176 Campsite 9, Control Plot 9 General Description: Cable crossing campsite at junction of t r a i l s to Cline's cabin and cable crossing. See: *Freeman and Thompson, Page 76, Map 5. NTS Sheet 921/5 mercator coordinates 868.713 and 868.712 : A i r Photo II BC 78 109/073. I: To, Ooo 1:5.000 177 CAMPSITE 9 1. Control landmark for Campsite 3, an A3 LPP 4.5 m N on cable crossing t r a i l , from the Cline's cabin junction (on E side of t r a i l ) . 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at NW corner, under A2 Df tree, 11.2 m, 76° W of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake, at NE plot corner under A2 Df tree, 20.5 m 57° S of E from control landmark. 4. SE corner at A^ Df tree, 24 m, 80° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. SW corner at A2 Red Cedar tree, 23 m 69° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 9 6. Control landmark for co n t r o l plot 3 - same as Campsite 3. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at NE corner, beside rotted stump, 41 m, 80° S of W from campsite 9 secondary t i e - i n stake (#3 above). 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NW, under A3 Df tree, 22 m, 59° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. SW corner, 18 m 72° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. SE corner, 20 m 72° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. l\ Photo s t a t i o n s . 179 CAMPSITE 10 1. Control landmark for Campsite 10, is Cirque Lake outflow to North Scudamore Creek. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner, is stream side of f i r s t mount 4 m high to S of start of stream channel. Mount has 5 Krummholtz SAF trees. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at W plot corner, on lake shore. A i m high boulder pile, 35 m, 62° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. S plot corner, on lake shore, under .5 m high SAF trees, 25 m, 61° S of E from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. E plot corner, a jagged boulder pile, 30 m 08° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 10 6. Control landmark for control plot 10 is a pyramidal shaped boulder surrounded by SAF Krummholtz trees. This boulder is the highest point on bearing 32° S of E from CS 10 primary t i e - i n stake at approximate 75 steps distance. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner is on S side of Krummholtz SAF tree clump (6 trees), 45 m, 58° S of W from control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner. A 3 level stone cairn, 31 m 45° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. S plot corner on shoreline 19 m 20° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. W plot corner on shoreline, 17 m 31° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. A Photo stations. J 180 Campsite 11, Control Plot 11 General Description: F i r s t good campsite i n TNorth Stein meadow at t r a n s i t i o n from l e v e l wet meadow to sloping meadow. Stream widens into small pool at this point. See: *Freeman and Thompson, 1979, Page 108, Map 12. : NTS Sheet 92J/8 mercator coordinates 549.679 and 548.682. : A i r Photo - not available in BC 78 series. 1: y o . O Q O 1 5 , 0 0 0 181 CAMPSITE 11 1. Control landmark for Campsite 11, i s f i r s t SAF tree clump beside stream on SE end of f l a t section of meadow (on SE side of stream). 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, on E side of control landmark (SAF tree clump), under boulder. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at S plot corner, i n crack of 2.5 m t a l l granite boulder, on opposite side of creek, 31 m 77° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. N plot corner, 60 m 77° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. W plot corner, 60 m 84° W of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 11 6. Control landmark for co n t r o l plot 11 i s a 4 m t a l l basalt boulder with a cracked f l a t face, approximately 150 steps due N of l e v e l meadow entrance (from pass), where creek l e v e l s o f f and begins meandering East. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, under .5 m t a l l granite boulder, by runoff channel, 92 m 19° S of E from co n t r o l landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at N plo t corner, 20 m, 67° W of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. 9. S corner, 20 m 61° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. W corner, 20 m 60° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. .A Photo sta t i o n s . 182 } 183 CAMPSITE 12 1. Control landmark for Campsite 12 i s a .7 m t a l l f l a t granite boulder (2.5 x 1.6 m dimensions), at l e v e l spot, after l a s t bend i n stream, before i t enters trees. Triangulate on two peaks to N. 1) 5° W of N; 2) 0.4° S of E. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at W plot "corner, by stream bank, 11.2 m, 25° E of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at S corner, 18.2 m, 65° S of W from control landmark. 4. N plot corner, 60 m 37° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. E plot corner, 60 m 48° W of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 12 6. Control landmark - same as Campsite 12. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at S plot corner, under granite boulder, 61 m, 25° E of N from control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner under granite boulder (.5 m high), 22 m, 46° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. N corner, i n willows, 19 m, 41° W of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. W corner, i n willows, 19 m 41° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. & Photo stations. 184 185 CAMPSITE 13 1. Control landmark i s NE end of moss pool on ridge top. 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner, under Krummholtz SAF shrub (tree) beside outcrop with smooth face (facing due West), 15 m, 38° E of N from control landmark. 3. Secondary ti e - i n stake at NW plot corner, under low SAF trees, 50 m, 65° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. SE corner is a rock cairn, on top of bedrock, 29 m, 77° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. 5. SW corner is a 1.5 m high SAF tree, 50 m, 74° S of E from SE corner (#4 above). Control Plot 13 6. Control landmark for control plot 13 is a clump of SAF Krummholtz trees, 140 m due E of Campsite 13 control landmark. 7. Primary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner is under 3 (6 m ta l l ) A2 whitebark pines at W end of a bluff, approximately 80 m due N of W side of control landmark. 8. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NW plot corner is 20 m, due W from primary t i e - i n stake. 9. SW plot corner is 20 m, due S from secondary t i e - i n stake. 10. SE plot corner, i s 20 m, due S from primary t i e - i n stake. Photo stations. 186 Campsite 14, Control Plot 14 General Description: 5000 foot meadow, campsite at S end, on W side of stream running from S to N, at tr a n s i t i o n between steep section running from g l a c i a l bowl and l e v e l meadow. See •Freeman and Thompson, 1979, Page 118, Map 14. NTS sheet 92J/1, mercator coordinates 535.539 and 532.541. Ai r Photo BC 78 128/084. J-E*<\ Lake i 5,000 187 CAMPSITE 14 1. Control landmark for Campsite 14 i s W side of stream, where i t turns from northerly flow to westerly flow (elbow), towards creek coming from W (Figure-of-Eight Lake). 2. Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner i s under Willows on streambank at elbow, as i n '1* above. 3. Secondary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner i s under a dead SAF tree, 25 m, 50° W of N, (down creek) from primary t i e - i n stake. 4. W plot corner, i s a granite boulder, 19.5 m, 80° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake. 5. S plot corner i s 20 m 77° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 14 6. Control landmark f o r con t r o l plot 14, i s a 3 m high mound, on W stream bank, below Figure-of-Eight Lake outflow stream junction. 7. This point i s a second control landmark. 3 m high pointed granite boulder, 55.5 m due W of top centre of mound described i n '6' above. 8. Primary t i e - i n stake at NW plo t corner, under leaning SAF tree, 20.5 m 86° S of W from W corner of second co n t r o l landmark (#7 above). 9. Secondary t i e - i n stake at SW plot corner, on side of moss and heather covered granite boulder (.4 m high), 12.5 m 72° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. NE corner, i s a white rhododendron bush, beside clump of mountain Hemlock trees, 27.5 m, 66° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 11. SE corner i s 27.5 m 66° E of N from secondary t i e - i n stake. A Photo s t a t i o n s . 189 CAMPSITE 15 1. Control landmark for Campsite 15 i s 12 claim stake posts on River bank at outflow, p i l e d together. 2. Campsite f i r e r i n g i s located approximately 40 m 45° S of W from control landmark. 3. Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner i s under forked Df tree, 23 m, 17° S of W from f i r e r i n g (#2 above). 4. Secondary t i e - i n stake i s at N p l o t corner, under 3 trees growing together (2 ES and 1 SAF), 21 m, 20° E of N from f i r e r i n g (#2 above). 5. W corner i s A2 Df tree, 14 m, 45° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. 6. E corner i s A2 SAF tree, 19 m, 60° S of E from secondary t i e - i n stake. Control Plot 14 7. Control landmark for control plot 15 Is a rock outcrop overhanging the f i r s t set of f a l l s below Stein Lake outflow. Outcrop has 3 trees on i t (ES, SAF and Df). 8. Primary t i e - i n stake at NW plot corner i s under Df tree, 15 m, 82° S of E from c o n t r o l landmark. 9. Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE plot corner i s under SAF A2 tree, 28 m, 82° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake. 10. SE corner i s an A2 Df tree, 12.5 m, 82° S of E from secondary t i e - i n stake. 11. SW corner i s 12.5 m 82° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake. Plot Photo s t a t i o n s . 190 APPENDIX 10. Ground cover (% of surface substrate) i n the control and experimental plots Site and control l e v e l * x.y Water Bedrock + boulders Cobbles + stones Decaying wood Organic matter Exposed mineral s o i l Total area X 5.0 00 30 10 01 49 Ul 100 5-6.1 00 00 15 05 70 10 ioo 6.0 00 10 02 01 85 02 100 1.0 00 03 05 02 75 15 • 100 1.1 00 03 15 02 65 15 100 3.0 00 00 20 04 73 03 100 3-4.1 00 00 10 10 80 00 100 4.0 00 00 03 03 85 09 100 7.0 00 20 25 04 47 04 100 7.1 00 20 05 20 53 02 100 2.0 00 00 00 20 50 30 100 2.1 00 00 00 25 65 10 100 8.0 00 00 08 04 78 10 100 8.1 00 00 10 15 70 05 100 9.0 00 00 01 20 49 30 100 9.1 00 00 03 55 32 10 100 15.0 00 00 03 05 89 03 100 15.1 00 02 05 05 87 01 100 11.6 10 00 06 01 83 <1 100 11.1 00 00 01 <1 99 <1 100 12.0 00 00 05 01 94 <1 100 12.1 00 00 05 <1 95 <1 100 14.0 00 00 03 01 94 02 100 14.1 00 00 02 02 96 <1 100 10.0 00 00 02 <1 97 <1 100 10.1 00 00 05 <1 95 00 100 • 13.0 18 07 03 02 62 08 100 13.1 02 02 <1 <1 96 00 100 *For 'x.y' : x » si t e number , y » control l e v e l where 0 = campsite 1 = control plot Note - Campsites 5.0 and 6.0 share a single control plot - 5-6.1 Campsites 3.0 and 4.0 share a single control plot - 3-4.1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095655/manifest

Comment

Related Items