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 U n i v e r s i t y of Brandon, Manitoba, 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of F o r e s t r y )  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1983  (C) Ian D. Sharpe  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f 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  department o r by h i s o r her  granted by  the head o f  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 oate  DE-6  (3/81)  Oct  II.  Columbia  TO  written  ABSTRACT  T h i s study was designed as the b a s e l i n e data c o l l e c t i o n phase of much l o n g e r term r e c r e a t i o n impact B a s i n , B r i t i s h Columbia. at  15 i n f o r m a l campsites  S i t e , s o i l and v e g e t a t i o n data were gathered situated  u s i n g s t a n d a r d B r i t i s h Columbia methods.  assessment study i n the S t e i n R i v e r  throughout  the 1000 km^  watershed  Forest Service e c o l o g i c a l inventory  'Experimental' (campsite) and ' c o n t r o l ' p l o t  inventories  p r o v i d e d the b a s i s f o r v e g e t a t i o n s p e c i e s composition and abundance (percent impacts.  cover and stems per h e c t a r e ) comparisons  t o determine  present  Recommendations f o r f u t u r e r e c r e a t i o n a l development i n the  v a 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 d e r i v e d from impact  assessment f i n d i n g s .  inventories  of the 15 campsites  allowing further i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  Future r e p l i c a t i o n s of e c o l o g i c a l w i l l enhance p l a n n i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s by of impact  prone and r e s i s t a n t  areas.  iii  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  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ix  1.0  INTRODUCTION  1  2.0  ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN WILDERNESS AREAS - A REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES 2.1  2.2  2.3  3.0  7  Impacts on S o i l s  10  2.1.1  V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g Impacts on S o i l s  12  2.1.2  Soil  14  2.1.3  Summary o f S o i l Impact Measurement R e s u l t s ...  Impact Measurement Methods  16  Impacts on V e g e t a t i o n  23  2.2.1  Physiological Considerations  23  2.2.2  V e g e t a t i o n Impact Measurement Methods  24  2.2.3  Summary o f V e g e t a t i o n Impact Measurement Results  29  Impact Assessments and R e c r e a t i o n Management Alternatives  33  STEIN WATERSHED RECREATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT  37  3. 1  Study Area D e s c r i p t i o n  37  3.2  Methods o f Study  44  3.2.1  Summary  44  3.2.2  Study S i t e S e l e c t i o n  44  3.2.3  R e c r e a t i o n Use  45  iv  Page  4.0  3.2.4  S i t e Mapping  46  3.2.5  Inventory  47  3.2.6  Chronology of Study  50  3.2.7  Data A n a l y s i s  52  Procedures  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  T a b u l a r Comparisons of Campsite and C o n t r o l P l o t Vegetation Results  73  4.4  Vegetation Vigor Class Ratings  87  4.5  Firewood Scavenging D i s t a n c e s  90  4.6  S o i l Inventory  92  4.7  Campsite L i m i t a t i o n s Based on S o i l and S i t e V a r i a b l e Measurements  99  4.7.1  Erodibility  99  4.7.2  S o i l drainage  100  4.7.3  P l a n t Growth and S u r v i v a l  100  Results  4.8  Campsite C a p a b i l i t y R a t i n g s  101  4.9  Previous  109  4.10  Watershed P e r s p e c t i v e  Campsite Use  I l l  5.0  CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY  116  6.0  LITERATURE CITED  122  V  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table  Page  1  Ability  2  Impact r a t i n g s c a l e based on e v a l u a t i o n of t r a m p l i n g e f f e c t s on meadows and campsites  27  Inventory chronology t o o b t a i n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l v e g e t a t i o n records a t 15 campsites i n the S t e i n ...  51  S i t e s 1, 5 and 6: records  57  3  4  5  6  of the s o i l  S i t e s 3 and 4: records  to resist  Campsite and c o n t r o l r e l e v e p l o t 59  8  S i t e s 11, 12 and 14: plot records  11  releve 61  S i t e 15:  10  Campsite and c o n t r o l  records  7  9  13  Campsite and c o n t r o l r e l e v e p l o t  S i t e s 2, 7 , 8 and 9: plot  erosion  Campsite 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 i t e s 10 and 13: records  65  Campsite and c o n t r o l r e l e v e 66  Campsite and c o n t r o l r e l e v e p l o t 69  Plant a s s o c i a t i o n s derived p l o t s from Appendix 4  from v e g e t a t i o n  inventory 71  Impact i n d i c a t i n g p l a n t s p e c i e s : Invading, i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g and t o t a l l y removed s p e c i e s as i n d i c a t e d by >50% o f m u l t i p l e o c c u r r e n c e s  74  Impact i n d i c a t i n g p l a n t s p e c i e s : Invading, i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g and t o t a l l y removed s p e c i e s as i n d i c a t e d from s i n g l e o c c u r r e n c e s a t s i t e s r a t e d >1 on W i l l a r d and Marr's (1970) Impact R a t i n g Scale  75  13  Vegetation  summary w i t h Impact i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  80  14  Comparison of s p e c i e s impact r e s i s t a n c e r e s u l t s from S t e i n campsites w i t h r e s u l t s of e i g h t other s t u d i e s ....  86  12  inventory  vi  Table  15  Page  P l o t v i g o r r a t i n g s from s p e c i e s v i g o r c l a s s e s f o r s p r i n g , summer and f a l l  inventories  16  Average f i r e w o o d scavenging  17  S o i l inventory r e s u l t s : material origins  18  Comparison of exposed m i n e r a l s o i l area (% of s u b s t r a t e ) at c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t s w i t h impact r a t i n g s from T a b l e 3  95  Campsite l i m i t a t i o n s based s o i l parameters  97  19  distances  88 91  Great groups and p a r e n t 93  on measurements of s e l e c t e d  vii  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Figure  Page  1  Map  2  Map of the S t e i n Watershed: E c o l o g i c a l access p o i n t s and study s i t e s  3  4  5  of Southwestern c o r n e r of B r i t i s h Columbia  5  subzones, 39  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 s p e c i e s : c o n s i s t e n t o c c u r r e n c e s a t more than one s i t e  77  Comparison of d i f f e r e n c e s i n bare m i n e r a l s o i l between c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t s , and impact r a t i n g s of W i l l a r d and Marr (1970)  78  Campsite l i m i t a t i o n s  checklist  102  viii  LIST  OF  APPENDICES  Page 1.  S o i l sampling methods used by p r e v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t o r s  130  2.  Vegetation inventory  133  3.  4.  methods used by p r e v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t o r s  2.1  S i t e d e s c r i p t i o n parameters  134  2.2  E x p e r i m e n t a l methods  134  2.3  V e g e t a t i o n 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 t e c h n i q u e s  139  from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s  141  Results  derived  3.1  Trampling r e s i s t a n t p l a n t  3.2  Trampling s u s c e p t i b l e  species  plant  identified  species  142  identified  143  Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n s present i n the S t e i n watershed, w i t h campsite i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s based on slope p o s i t i o n  144  5.  Soils occurring  146  6.  S i t e survey forms  147  6.1  S i t e 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  V e g e t a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n form  152  6.4  S i t e d e s c r i p t i o n supplement / / l  153  6.5  S i t e d e s c r i p t i o n supplement #2  154  i n the  S t e i n watershed  7.  References used i n p l a n t  8.  P l a n t s p e c i e s l i s t f o r the Assessment C o l l e c t i o n (UBC  9.  10.  identifications S t e i n V a l l e y R e c r e a t i o n Impact Herbarium)  F i f t e e n campsite and c o n t r o l p l o t maps and d i r e c t i o n s f o r l o c a t i n g them Ground c o v e r (% of s u r f a c e experimental p l o t s  155  156  detailed  s u b s t r a t e ) i n the  161 control  and 190  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish to g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the assistance of Drs. P. Dooling, T. B a l l a r d , M. F e l l e r and P. Murtha, a l l of the UBC Faculty of Forestry, for t h e i r advice i n the formulation of t h i s t h e s i s p r o j e c t . The f i e l d assistance of Miss Heather McCoy, Messrs. J e f f B l a i r e and Fred Thompson was appreciated, as much of the fieldwork was done on extended h i k i n g 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 t e c h n i cian) and Dr. W.B. S c h o f i e l d (Professor of Botany at UBC) f o r t h e i r help i n some moss i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , and to Dr. K. K l i n k a , (UBC Forestry) and J. Nichols (B.C. Forest Products, Ltd.) f o r t h e i r 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 h i s 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  F o r e s t resources  INTRODUCTION  management should be based on adequate knowledge  of l o n g term e c o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of use.  T h i s knowledge i s best  through comparison of b a s e l i n e c o n d i t i o n s to those s p e c i f i e d amounts and types the life  of use.  obtained  occurring a f t e r  R e c r e a t i o n impact assessments are  r e s u l t of a need t o r e g u l a t e damaging changes t o v e g e t a t i o n , w i l d and s o i l s due t o use p r e s s u r e s . Questions r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between use l e v e l s and the  extent  of damages have been the impetus behind  the development of a  growing body o f knowledge, based on f i e l d r e s e a r c h . t o r i e s of v e g e t a t i o n ,  s o i l and w i l d l i f e provide  g e n e r a l i z e d changes i n "land h e a l t h " . vegetation  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  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f these  i n f o r m a t i o n about  Experimental  to v a r y i n g use l e v e l s p r o v i d e s  Periodic inven-  treatment of  the o p p o r t u n i t y  to i d e n t i f y  s p e c i e s and community  r e s u l t s a i d s i n d e c i d i n g which areas  types.  can best  s u s t a i n use. Opportunities  f o r r e c r e a t i o n use may be perpetuated  by p l a n n i n g and  management s t r a t e g i e s aimed at c o n c e n t r a t i n g use at r e s i s t a n t d i s p e r s i n g i t i n s u s c e p t i b l e areas.  Site  'hardening'  conveniences to the user, and i n c r e a s e an area's C o n s t r u c t i o n of s a n i t a r y f a c i l i t i e s s o i l s may i n c r e a s e  the h a r d i n e s s  measures provide  ability  and m a n i p u l a t i o n  s i t e s and  to absorb use.  of v e g e t a t i o n and  of s i t e s i d e n t i f i e d as s u s c e p t i b l e t o  damage. Assessments of changes to s o i l and v e g e t a t i o n due to r e c r e a t i o n have focussed  on w i l d e r n e s s  areas  managed by Park and F o r e s t  Service  agencies. out  The m a j o r i t y of Canadian work i n t h i s f i e l d  i n P r o v i n c i a l and N a t i o n a l Parks ( F r i s s e l and Duncan, 1965  Q u e t i c o , Ont.;  Root and Knapik, 1972  T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973 Yoho, B.C.; 1975  1976  Lesko and Robinson, 1975  and Leeson,  Research e f f o r t s  B a i l l a r g e o n , 1975 1979  Robson, B.C.;  Roemer,  - Jasper, A l t a . ; Void,  - Canadian R o c k i e s ) .  Reviews of many U.S.  Ittner et a l . ,  Accounts of B r i t i s h s t u d i e s may Boorman and F u l l e r ,  -  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and Great B r i t a i n f a r out-  weigh those of Canadian o r i g i n . found i n C o l e , 1977;  B.C.;  - B a n f f , A l t a . ; Hoffman e t a l . ,  Roemer, 1975a - Mt.  A s s i n i b o i n e , B.C;  - Yoho, B.C.  Two  - Great D i v i d e T r a i l ,  -  - B a n f f , A l t a . ; Landals and S c o t t e r , 1973  - Rushing R i v e r , Ont.;  1975b - Mt.  of  has been c a r r i e d  1977;  major problems  1979;  s t u d i e s may  and S t a n l e y et_ a l . , 1979.  be found i n S p e i g h t , 1973;  Crawford, 1977;  be  and B a y f i e l d ,  c o n c e r n i n g the assessment  r e c r e a t i o n i n w i l d e r n e s s have been i d e n t i f i e d  Liddle,  1975;  1979.  of e c o l o g i c a l  impacts  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 that changes  can be determined by comparison w i t h a b a s e l i n e , over  an extended m o n i t o r i n g p e r i o d . both  By e s t a b l i s h i n g  ' e x p e r i m e n t a l ' and i d e n t i c a l  changes  t h i s b a s e l i n e on  'control' s i t e s ,  ecological  due to n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s such as t r e e  d i s e a s e s and c l i m a t i c v a r i a t i o n may impacts.  impacts so  be s e p a r a t e d from r e c r e a t i o n use  Many r e c r e a t i o n impact assessments  have s u f f e r e d from a  l a c k of c o n t r o l s and b a s e l i n e d a t a , r e p r e s e n t i n g c o n d i t i o n s p r i o r to human i n f l u e n c e  (Goldsmith et a l . ,  1970).  3  2.  A c c u r a t e use i n t e n s i t y i n f o r m a t i o n a l l o w s the comparison degrees  of impact  then i n t e l l i g e n t  w i t h known use l e v e l s .  of v a r y i n g  I f t h i s i s accomplished,  d e c i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the p r o v i s i o n of access and  r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s can be made.  Those areas shown t o possess  s o i l s and v e g e t a t i o n s e n s i t i v e t o 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 o r s u b j e c t e d t o lower l e v e l s of use, w h i l e s i t e s more r e s i s t a n t offered  f o r i n t e n s i v e use.  intensity  Many s t u d i e s have l a c k e d r e l i a b l e use  i n f o r m a t i o n , as a r e s u l t  Roemer, 1975a; F r i s s e l ,  to t r a m p l i n g can be  of n o n - r e g i s t r a t i o n (e.g.  1978), v a n d a l i s m a t r e g i s t r a t i o n  stations  (Landals and S c o t t e r , 1973), problems w i t h c a l i b r a t i o n of t r a i l traffic  counters  (Goldsmith e t a l . , 1970; H a r t l e y , 1976) and " a f t e r  the f a c t " approaches The  assessment  (Goldsmith e t a l . , 1970).  present study was designed t o overcome the two problems  d i s c u s s e d above. (Green,  to impact  I t i n v o l v e d u s i n g an o p t i m a l impact  1979) t o a s s e s s c u r r e n t r e c r e a t i o n impacts  campsites, d i s t r i b u t e d  throughout  campsite  t o v e g e t a t i o n a t 15  the S t e i n Watershed.  was i n t e n d e d as a b a s e l i n e f o r an ongoing Paired  assessment d e s i g n  and c o n t r o l p l o t  impact  T h i s assessment  study.  i n v e n t o r i e s p r o v i d e d the i n f o r m a -  t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o compare d i f f e r e n c e s i n v e g e t a t i v e cover and abundances,  i n order to determine  the magnitude of c u r r e n t impacts.  p r o f i l e and s i t e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n v a r i a b l e s moisture in  Soil  (slope, e l e v a t i o n , aspect,  s t a t u s , e t c . ) were a l s o measured and recorded f o r f u r t h e r use  comparing subsequent  replicated  impacts.  V e g e t a t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s were s e a s o n a l l y  ( s p r i n g , summer and f a l l ) t o i d e n t i f y the best times f o r  sampling a t the 15 l o c a t i o n s . determine  R e p l i c a t i o n s a l s o made i t p o s s i b l e to  'within area' v a r i a t i o n  f o r comparison among s i t e s , and  over  time. Dr. P.J. D o o l i n g (Parks and R e c r e a t i o n Resources, has undertaken  a study of r e c r e a t i o n a l use  over a p e r i o d of s e v e r a l y e a r s may use  U.B.C. F o r e s t r y )  i n the S t e i n so t h a t  be r e l a t e d  to and  impacts  compared w i t h known  levels. The  S t e i n Watershed s i t u a t e d i n the Coast Mountains between L y t t o n  and L i l l o o e t Lake, p r e s e n t e d a unique  o p p o r t u n i t y to i n i t i a t e an  assessment study p r i o r to s i g n i f i c a n t  development ( F i g u r e 1).  km^  b a s i n has been s u b j e c t to low l e v e l s of r e c r e a t i o n and  u t i l i z a t i o n up to the p r e s e n t . and  historically,  the a r e a has  c o r r i d o r by l o c a l n a t i v e s . the v a l l e y .  Some s m a l l s c a l e mining  impact  The  1000  industrial  has  occurred,  been used f o r h u n t i n g , and as a t r a v e l  More r e c e n t l y , w i l d e r n e s s campers have used  V e h i c u l a r access i s l i m i t e d to the watershed's  boundaries  at p r e s e n t . I t has been p r o j e c t e d t h a t the S t e i n w i l l become more popular as a r e c r e a t i o n area i n the next few y e a r s .  The prime reasons  for this  l o g g i n g road c o n s t r u c t i o n , thus i n c r e a s i n g a c c e s s , p u b l i c i t y from a w i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l guide Thompson, 1979)  and  group of clubs and  book f o r the watershed  the a c t i v i t i e s of the  'Save The  are  generated  (Freeman and  Stein Coalition'  - a  i n d i v i d u a l s w i s h i n g to preserve the S t e i n as  wilderness. I f accurate use i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o l l e c t e d study over a p e r i o d of years  i n the ongoing  (straddling forest  companion  road development and  the  5  HYPSOMETRIC TINTS TEINTES HYPSOMETRIQUES 13123  Point*!  F i g u r e 1:  Map o f Southwestern  c o m e r of B r i t i s h  Columbia  SCALE 1:1 OOOOOO  6  subsequent i n c r e a s e i n r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e ) , then there w i l l be nities It  to compare d i f f e r e n t  i s hoped t h a t r e s u l t s  use  levels,  and  opportu-  types of uses w i t h  impacts.  from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l have value f o r  r e c r e a t i o n management and p l a n n i n g i n the S t e i n , and w i l l a l s o be a p p l i c a b l e to the more g e n e r a l problem o f m o d e l l i n g m u l t i p l e - u s e on f o r e s t ecosystems. the use of standard used province-wide To date, There has  T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n should be made p o s s i b l e  e c o l o g i c a l i n v e n t o r y and by  the B.C.  and  classification  procedures  F o r e s t S e r v i c e (Walmsley et_ a l _ . , 1980).  been an E c o l o g i c a l Reserve p r o p o s a l ( P o j a r , 1977  - unpublished),  1981), r e s e a r c h Into the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between timber  s t u d i e s ( S t e i n B a s i n Study Committee, 1975 1975), p r e l i m i n a r y timber f o l i o study  interest.  f o r f o r e s t road e n g i n e e r i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n  a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of f o r e s t t r e e s (Bekker,  resource  through  the S t e i n has been t h e s u b j e c t of some s c i e n t i f i c  a T e r r a i n A n a l y s i s Report (Ryder,  effects  1981), two  land  use  and Thompson and Freeman,  i n v e n t o r i e s and h a r v e s t i n g plans and  f o r the v a l l e y ,  quality  to be f i n i s h e d  i n 1983.  a Ongoing  r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e s the work of D o o l i n g on w i l d e r n e s s use and users the c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h i s study on r e c r e a t i o n use i n t e r v a l of y e a r s .  impacts  after  and  an  Dr. R. Freeman i n the Resource Management program a t  Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y has been d e v e l o p i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r b e n e f i t / c o s t a n a l y s e s of r e s o u r c e use a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the  Stein.  7 2.0  ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN WILDERNESS AREAS - A REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES  The tively  majority  of d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n s t i l l  s m a l l f r a c t i o n of the w i l d l a n d base.  s u b j e c t to l a r g e amounts of d i s p e r s e d use,  takes  p l a c e on a  R e l a t i v e l y s m a l l areas thus being  the only  r e c e i v i n g impacts measureable through c u r r e n t methods. w i l d l a n d base i s i n good h e a l t h , and different  from those  concentration site  s p e c i f i c , and  direct  result  r e q u i r e s assessment  site  of  use  The  impacts and  study methods d i s c u s s e d  used s p e c i f i c a l l y  of managing s m a l l  f o r r e c r e a t i o n on a s i t e  by  basis. The  f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e s the range of r e c r e a t i o n  impacts and research, resource detail  As  assessment s t r a t e g i e s used w i t h i l l u s t r a t i o n s  r e l e v a n t to the c u r r e n t study. impact measurements and  i n separate  the focus  of t h i s  monitoring  R e s u l t s can  to d e t e c t  causing  vegetation  are d e s c r i b e d i n some  vegetation resources)  are  study.  l o c a t i o n of the occurrence  tially  ( s o i l and  d e f i n e d by Green (1979) an o p t i m a l  c o n t r o l areas.  from p r i o r  D e t a i l s of s o i l and  f i n d i n g s obtained  s e c t i o n s , as they  p o s s i b l e o n l y i f 1) the study and  techniques  changes i n the landscape as a  here must t h e r e f o r e be i n t e r p r e t e d from the viewpoint units within wilderness,  the  Assessment methods have u s u a l l y been  r e l a t e d to v i s i b l e  of t r a m p l i n g .  are  areas  Most of  used to measure obvious damages at areas  ( S t a n l e y , 1979).  rela-  impact assessment design i s  i s s t a r t e d p r i o r to impacts, of impacts i s known, and  then p r o v i d e  2) the time  3) t h e r e  are  the b a s i s f o r subsequent  f u t u r e impacts of the same type.  I f events poten-  damaging e f f e c t s have a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d , 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 p a t t e r n s  without the knowledge of what the o r i g i n a l ' a f t e r the  f a c t ' case,  c o n d i t i o n s were.  i t i s often d i f f i c u l t  In  alone,  this  to d e f i n e adequate c o n t r o l  areas. Green (1979) a l s o s a i d that i t must be p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n measurements on a l l r e l e v a n t b i o l o g i c a l and ation with  the i n d i v i d u a l samples.  A multistage topographic use  and If  environmental v a r i a b l e s i n a s s o c i -  impact study approach has  been common.  A i r photos  and  maps of v a r y i n g s c a l e s have been used to p i n p o i n t areas of  access. the impact m o n i t o r i n g  process  i s begun p r i o r to establishment  v i s i b l e impacts, i n t e n s i v e study s i t e s t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r a t t r a c t i n g use. established  trails,  can  be chosen on the b a s i s of  These s i t e s may  campfire r i n g o c c u r r e n c e s ,  be a s s o c i a t e d  s c e n i c views, lake  stream s i d e s or areas of high p o t e n t i a l f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s f i s h i n g and  rock  with and  such as  climbing.  A s u b j e c t i v e l y d e l i n e a t e d v a r i e t y of generally defined  of  as to  'gross  ' t y p i c a l ' land units  uniformity' i n vegetation  and  are  topography.  A f t e r these u n i t s have been d e f i n e d , r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s are then sampled and  classified  accordingly.  t i o n f o r analyses  The  s i t e groupings serve  as a  classifica-  of r e s u l t s as w e l l as l a n d management u n i t s (Hoffman  et a l . , 1975). Recreational  impacts on w i l d l i f e have taken the form of harassment  of w i l d animals and  disturbance  or d e s t r u c t i o n of h a b i t a t s .  Ream's (1980) annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y r e c r e a t i o n a l impacts on  on the  As  s u b j e c t , problems  spawning f i s h , w a t e r f o w l , r a p t o r s ,  cited in concerning  ungulates,  9  bears by  and  over  other  200  c a r n i v o r e s , and  researchers.  Her  v a r i o u s i n v e r t e b r a t e s have been s t u d i e d  a n a l y s i s s t a t e d that the most  important  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r w i l d l i f e management were the p r o t e c t i o n of s p e c i e s vulnerable  to harassment at key  denning, e t c . 1.  times,  such as b r e e d i n g ,  nesting,  Management a l t e r n a t i v e s can take three b a s i c forms:  H a b i t a t management ( i . e . m o d i f i c a t i o n s such as  altering  v e g e t a t i o n growth). 2.  V i s i t o r management ( i . e . e d u c a t i o n , use quotas,  behavior  modification). 3.  W i l d l i f e management ( i . e . a l t e r i n g p o p u l a t i o n dynamics).  The  problem s t i l l  i n d i c e s of w i l d l i f e Complications  to be s o l v e d i s that of producing  condition, reflecting  recreational influences.  i n c l u d e n a t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n f l u c t u a t i o n s as a r e s u l t  unmeasured v a r i a b l e s , and factors i n t r i n s i c  changes i n s e n s i t i v i t y  to the p o p u l a t i o n .  importance i s t h a t of determining of animal  reliable  p o p u l a t i o n s and  A broader  to impacts caused problem of  n u t r i t i o n a l and  spatial  the e f f e c t s of human presence on  of by  considerable requirements these  requirements. P e r i o d i c checks of deadwood s u p p l i e s around campsites approaching imposing may  fuelwood s h o r t a g e s .  use  Managers then have the o p t i o n of  quotas or l i m i t i n g access  to a l l o w recovery.  Other o p t i o n s  i n c l u d e e d u c a t i o n a l programs to reduce consumption per c a p i t a , o r  implementation firewood Cole  can warn of  of f i r e use  production,  (1977) and  been c i t e d  zones, depending on wood supply.  supply and use  Davilla  i n Cole and  (1979).  has  Research on  been done by Roemer (1975b),  A d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s of t h i s nature  S c h r e i n e r ' s (1981) r e c r e a t i o n impact  have  research  bibliography. is  E s t i m a t i n g wood scavenging d i s t a n c e s  an easy way t o monitor supply.  different  s i t e use l e v e l s , c r i t e r i a  maximizing firewood  2.1  production  at i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s  When these r e s u l t s are compared f o r optimal  placement of other  with sites  can be made.  Impacts on S o i l s The  degree of r e c r e a t i o n impacts on the s o i l s of a w i l d l a n d  environment depends on f o u r major f a c t o r s .  These a r e 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 .  Trafficability  r e s i s t a n c e of s o i l by t e x t u r e , water. and  t o displacement or compaction.  s t r u c t u r e and t h e s o i l ' s a b i l i t y  i s the  It i s influenced  t o r e t a i n and t r a n s p o r t  I t can be determined through the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of bulk, d e n s i t y  penetrometer measurements.  S o i l depth i n f l u e n c e s the s i z e of the  p o t e n t i a l water r e s e r v o i r a v a i l a b l e t o p l a n t s .  I t i s a l s o an important  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n human waste d i s p o s a l and the movement of a s s o c i a t e d m i c r o b i a l contaminants i n groundwater. determining disposal.  S o i l drainage i s important i n  e r o s i o n r a t e s and a l s o i n f l u e n c e s the consequences of waste Erodibility  i s the q u a l i t y of s o i l which a l l o w s  i t to r e s i s t  or succumb to displacement by wind, water and g r a v i t y ( K l o c k , Trail erosion.  b r a i d i n g r e s u l t s from h i k e r s a v o i d i n g o b s t r u c t i o n s  1979). c r e a t e d by  These o b s t r u c t i o n s may i n c l u d e exposed r o c k s ; washboards;  r o o t s and mud formed by packstock t r a f f i c .  Washboard f o r m a t i o n  occurs  at l e v e l s i t e s prone t o seepage from nearby s l o p e s , and a s s o c i a t e d l u s h ground v e g e t a t i o n occurs  (Roemer, 1975a).  Wind e r o s i o n most commonly  a t bare s i t e s prone to r a p i d d r y i n g  (Wagar, 1964).  with  The  r e s i l i e n c e of wilderness  pressures  p a r t l y depends on the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o i l .  When v e g e t a t i o n teristics,  i s under s t r e s s from changes In these p h y s i c a l c h a r a c -  i t becomes more s u s c e p t i b l e  trampling. and  p l a n t communities under r e c r e a t i o n use  to damage from d i s e a s e s and  M o i s t u r e s t r e s s e s a f f e c t r o o t growth f o l l o w i n g compaction  erosion.  Regeneration of v e g e t a t i o n  a f t e r damages have occurred i s  dependent on bulk d e n s i t y , a v a i l a b l e m o i s t u r e and extent erosion  of s u r f a c e  (Hoffman e t a l . , 1975).  S o i l compaction leads  to l o s s of ground c o v e r , r e d u c t i o n  s t o r y , lack of tree reproduction,  i n over-  root exposure and replacement of  i n d i g e n o u s p l a n t s p e c i e s with h a r d i e r  'adventives'  such as sedges,  rushes and g r a s s e s (Hoffman et^ a l . , 1975). Generally,  there  i s a range i n bulk d e n s i t y , above and below which  a decrease i n p l a n t growth and y i e l d occurs (Greacen and Sands, 1980). Compaction study r e s u l t s reviewed by Greacen and Sands were o f t e n sistent.  Findings  incon-  of i n c r e a s e r s , decreases and no change i n p l a n t  growth w i t h v e h i c u l a r compaction were e q u a l l y common.  Much compaction  damage to f o r e s t s o i l s could be avoided by the e x c l u s i o n of use d u r i n g wet  p e r i o d s , as s o i l moisture i s t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t  mining degree of compaction i n most s o i l s . organic reducing  factor i n deter-  In a d d i t i o n , maintenance of  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 compaction, and i t s e f f e c t s on p l a n t growth (Greacen and Sands,  1980). The  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the above f a c t s f o r r e c r e a t i o n impacts and  t h e i r assessment i s t h a t although compaction o c c u r s w i t h f o o t and vehicle  traffic,  i t i sdifficult  t o determine the degree t o which p l a n t  growth ( u n d e r s t o r y property gross  and  trees) w i l l  measurements, w i t h  be a f f e c t e d , based on simple  the e x c e p t i o n  of being  l e v e l , compaction prone s o i l s , based on s o i l  2.1.1  V a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g impacts on  and  slope, vegetation  recreation patterns  affecting erodibility permeability  than s o i l root and  coarse  l o s s may  content,  snowpack, 'U' vegetation  and  poor d r a i n a g e ,  the  (Table  formation,  1).  trail  heavy t e x t u r e d  shaped topographic  profile,  presence of a t h i c k o r g a n i c  s i z e ' as  determining  strength),  E r o s i o n impacts  b r a i d i n g and Conditions  tills  as determining  In most cases concerning  a coherent s o i l body.  widening, favoring and  shade c o n d i t i o n s provided horizon  (Roemer, 1975a) . (  by Bryan (1977) s t r e s s e d  the amount and  properties frequency of  dominated by d i s c r e t e p a r t i c l e s , but the s o i l p r o p e r t y  of most  Because of t h i s , i t appears that e r o d i -  i n d i c e s u s i n g r e l a t i v e measures of shear s t r e n g t h would be i n r e c r e a t i o n impact  by  h i l l s l o p e development, s t a t e d Bryan,  In these cases,  importance i s shear s t r e n g t h .  most use  other  with high clay  e r o s i o n r e s i s t a n c e , and  s u r f a c e i s most commonly not  bility  volumes  presence of seepage, high or perched water t a b l e , l a t e  influencing i n f i l t r a t i o n runoff.  land-  d i s a g g r e g a t i o n ) , depth to bedrock  fragment content  i n c l u d e mud  a  Soil physical properties  i n c l u d e o r g a n i c matter ( a f f e c t s b i n d i n g  Several erosion indices described 'particle  m a t e r i a l composition,  rock exposure and washboard f o r m a t i o n .  this include: silt  (Roemer, 1975a).  on  texture.  cover, drainage p a t t e r n s , r u n o f f  ( a f f e c t s s a t u r a t i o n and  or hardpan and  able t o i d e n t i f y  soils  E r o s i o n r a t e s are i n f l u e n c e d by parent form type,  soil  studies.  of  by  TABLE 1.  A b i l i t y of the s o i l  to r e s i s t e r o s i o n  Characteristics  Factors affecting soil erodibility  High  erodibility  Low e r o d i b i l i t y  i n f r e q u e n t but i n t e n s e r a i n f a l l  evenly d i s t r i b u t e d non-intense f a l l s on g r a n u l a r w e l l d r a i n e d  S l o p e g r a d i e n t and l e n g t h  s o i l on s t e e p s l o p e s (>25%) e s p e c i a l l y moist a i l t y s o i l s , l o n g unvegetated slopes  level terrain slopes  V e g e t a t i v e cover  s o i l s under s p a r s e  t h i c k groundcover, layer  I n f i l t r a t i o n capacity  low p e r c e n t o f s o i l p a r t i c l e s and waters t a b l e aggregates 2 mm d i a m e t e r  high percent o f aggregates diameter  low o r g a n i c matter  high o r g a n i c matter  Precipitation  pattern  groundcover  >  Dispersion resistance (structural stability)  content  rainsoils  (<15%) s h o r t v e g e t a t e d  and dense r o o t >2 mm  content  Texture-structure  wet g r a n u l a r s o i l s , e s p e c i a l l y o r g a n i c peat o r muck s o i l s , h i g h c l a y c o n t e n t  d r y w e l l s t r u c t u r e d s o i l s (columnar, p r i s m a t i c e t c . ) , h i g h sand c o n t e n t  Organic matter  low c o h e s i v e n e s s w i t h low o r g a n i c matter c o n t e n t  high cohesiveness with high organic matter content  poor  well drained s o i l water  S o i l moisture  content level  Surface cobble content  From Leonard  drainage  low c o b b l e c o n t e n t  and Plumley, 1979.  can absorb more  high cobble content  14 Indigenous p l a n t s p e c i e s been c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  s u r v i v a l on i n t e n s i v e l y used areas  t h i c k LFH  thick overall s o i l profile  and Ah  (depth  i n t r o d u c t i o n s to these high use LFH,  Ah and  form.  overall profile.  horizons  (where p r e s e n t ) and/or  to bedrock).  Adventive  been e x p l a i n e d  Hoffman et a l . (1975) s t a t e d that a d v e n t i v e s  smaller  o v e r a l l biomass, and  of season.  Smaller  plants  r e q u i r e l e s s water and  LFH  and  volumes and  i n terms of growth  t y p i c a l l y have  the d e c r e a s i n g  soil  length  n u t r i e n t support  thus s u r v i v e i n t h i n n e r , d r i e r , compacted s o i l s . horizons,  thin  are capable of growth over a l i m i t e d  can  Ah  species  areas have been c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  T h i s has  has  and  As e r o s i o n removes  depth r e s t r i c t s p o t e n t i a l root  f u r t h e r reduces the chances f o r r e g e n e r a t i o n  of  indigenous  species, A d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the s o i l ' s growth under t r a m p l i n g soils  do not  availability.  pressure  include s o i l  have a high enough water h o l d i n g  ability  to support  texture  (coarse  c a p a c i t y ) and  cause e x c e s s i v e  nutrient  nutrient leaching), vegetation  ( c a u s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n n u t r i e n t c y c l i n g dynamics) and (these  vary  nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y ,  2.1.2  textured  These f a c t o r s are i n t u r n a f f e c t e d by p r e c i p i t a t i o n ( h i g h  p r e c i p i t a t i o n may  materials  plant  i n nutrient concentrations  and  soil  genetic  chemistry  i . e . c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y and  type  allowing  pH).  S o i l impact measurement methods  Appendix 1 c o n t a i n s r e c r e a t i o n impact and variables described  a list  of s o i l  sampling procedures used i n  c a p a b i l i t y assessments.  include s i t e  Procedures used  s e l e c t i o n , d i g g i n g and  s o i l p i t s , measurement of slope g r a d i e n t ,  and  examination of  topography, s t o n i n e s s ,  soil  15  c o n s i s t e n c e , t e x t u r e , s t r u c t u r e , c o l o r , o r g a n i c matter c o n t e n t , t r e e r o o t s p r e s e n t , s o i l parent m a t e r i a l s , g e o l o g i c s u b s t r a t e , s o i l temperature, moisture c o n d i t i o n s and s o i l A wide v a r i e t y primarily  of e r o d i b i l i t y  for agriculture.  pH,  strength.  i n d i c e s have been developed, although  The most w i d e l y used of these i s the  U n i v e r s a l S o i l Loss E q u a t i o n (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1960) has been adapted f o r n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g s by Wischmeier,  which  Johnson  and C r o s s (1971), M i t c h e l l and Dubenzer (1980) and Sayer (1982), among others. The USLE d e r i v e s a s o i l volume l o s s index f o r land areas (weight per  u n i t a r e a ) from the measurement and a n a l y s i s of f a c t o r s of  and r u n o f f e r o d i b i l i t y Wischmeier soil  (derived  from r e g i o n a l r a i n f a l l  and Smith, 1965), s o i l e r o d i b i l i t y  'rainfall  p a t t e r n s by  (from a nomograph u s i n g  t e x t u r e p e r c e n t a g e s , o r g a n i c matter c o n t e n t , s o i l  s t r u c t u r e and  p e r m e a b i l i t y ) , s l o p e l e n g t h and steepness ( d e r i v e d from s t a n d a r d i z e d 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 e r o s i o n c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s such as c o n t o u r i n g and t e r r a c i n g  (Wischmeier,  1977). Other l e s s complex e r o s i o n i n d i c e s a p p l i c a b l e t o r e c r e a t i o n impact assessments 1.  include:  Aggregate for  s t a b i l i t y t e s t s (Bryan, 1977  compared 16 such i n d i c e s  reliability).  2.  USDA (1969) E r o d i b i l i t y  Classification  3.  Shear S t r e n g t h and P e r m e a b i l i t y Index  Guide. (Morgan,  1979).  K e t c h l e d g e and Leonard system, the  (1970) developed a t r a i l  e r o s i o n measurement  which has been w i d e l y used, and adapted by o t h e r s .  I t involved  measurement of c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l areas at i n t e r v a l s a l o n g a g i v e n  trail,  resulting  i n a s e r i e s of measurements which can be m u l t i p l i e d  by  trail  segment l e n g t h s to d e r i v e s o i l volume l o s s i n f o r m a t i o n over time.  Trail  w i d t h can be noted at s p e c i f i e d  intervals  to p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n  as to o v e r a l l widening and b r a i d i n g ( H e l g a t h , 1975).  Information  o b t a i n e d from e i t h e r of the above sampling procedures can be used to determine c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h s p e c i f i c s o i l p r o p e r t i e s such as parent m a t e r i a l s , h o r i z o n depths and  topographic v a r i a b l e s such as s l o p e  (Leonard and Plumley, 1979), as w e l l as r e c r e a t i o n use  2.1.3  1.  Summary of s o i l impact measurement r e s u l t s  Bulk d e n s i t i e s and s t r e n g t h  When s o i l  characteristics  i s compacted, t o t a l p o r o s i t y i s reduced as l a r g e a i r  spaces a r e reduced i n s i z e . c a p a c i t y may  levels.  Because of t h i s , water content and  i n c r e a s e i n coarse t e x t u r e d s o i l s , w h i l e i n f i l t r a t i o n  and h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y decrease.  P l a n t growth may  root p e n e t r a t i o n and  seed g e r m i n a t i o n (Greacen and Sands, 1980).  S o i l carbon d i o x i d e  i n c r e a s e as a r e s u l t of reduced d i f f u s i v i t y ,  ( u n l e s s i t Is a l r e a d y q u i t e l o w ) .  to  reduced levels  thus l o w e r i n g pH,  As Greacen and Sands (1980) s t a t e d ,  bulk d e n s i t y m i r r o r s compaction, but does not a l l o w the assessment soil  rate  be reduced due  lower water supply and a e r a t i o n , r e s t r i c t e d  may  field  s t r e n g t h , which determines compaction r e s i s t a n c e .  The  of  s t r e n g t h of  a s o i l at a g i v e n bulk d e n s i t y Is determined by the geometry and  17  m i n e r a l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n of s o i l g r a i n s . measured u s i n g a penetrometer.  Compressive  s t r e n g t h can be  As i t i s pressed i n t o the s o i l , the  y i e l d s by s h e a r i n g , and i s compressed  soil  to accommodate the volume of the  penetrometer. Leonard and Plumley (1979) found s o i l compaction r a t e s at campsites h i g h e s t i n the f i r s t two years of heavy use.  Bulk d e n s i t i e s on  trails  and campsites Increased 17-58% and 10-30% r e s p e c t i v e l y a t Lake O'Hara (Yoho N a t i o n a l Park) a f t e r two years of heavy use (Landals and 1973).  Scotter,  Legg and Schneider (1977) o b t a i n e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n t h e i r  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of impacts on h e a v i l y trampled sandy loams i n n o r t h e r n forest types.  Bulk d e n s i t y ranges of 1.35  to 1.85  gm/cc ( a i r d r i e d  s o i l ) on h e a v i l y trampled meadow s i t e s a t Rushing R i v e r 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 a l . , 1975).  Hoffman et_ a l .  i n c r e a s e over c o n t r o l s (Hoffman e_t  (1975) s t a t e d that on h e a v i l y used  sites,  average cone penetrometer measurements i n c r e a s e d from 64-80 t o 128-189 CBR  u n i t s , a f t e r heavy t r a m p l i n g . Landals and S c o t t e r (1973) found no d i f f e r e n c e i n compaction  on d i f f e r e n t  t e x t u r e d s o i l s , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of sandy loams,  levels  which  c o n s i s t e n t l y had l e s s than a 30% i n c r e a s e i n bulk d e n s i t y a f t e r use. They a l s o s t a t e d that most of t h e i r e x c l o s u r e experiments produced a decrease i n bulk d e n s i t y of t h e s o i l , b u t 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 of  300 to >3,000  i n the s i z e  range  m were reduced by up to 60%, while pores >3,000 ym  were almost e n t i r e l y e l i m i n a t e d , i n the t h i n compacted formed from i n t e n s i v e t r a m p l i n g .  surface  layer  18  2.  Soli structure  Water-stable of  aggregate  erosive processes.  content  i s important  i n the  Large w a t e r - s t a b l e aggregates  characterization  are t y p i c a l l y  found  i n s o i l s h i g h i n o r g a n i c matter and c l a y , and h a v i n g low b u l k d e n s i t i e s (Leonard and Plumley,  1979).  A l s o , s o i l s w i t h h i g h base m i n e r a l  c o n t a i n w a t e r - s t a b l e aggregates  content  because of c h e m i c a l bonding p r o p e r t i e s  (Morgan, 1979). Bryan  (1977) experimented  w i t h a number of w a t e r - s t a b l e  indices i n laboratory erosion testsfine textured Albertan s o i l s measurement of percentage diameter  frequently,  found  that the e r o d i b i l i t y of  c o u l d be a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d by  weight of w a t e r - s t a b l e aggregates  ( w a t e r - s t a b l e aggregate  a f t e r 20 minutes of wet  He  s i e v i n g at 60 c y c l e s / m i n u t e ) .  f o r m a t i o n and  the s o i l .  promoting  3.  i n d i c e s performed  as w e l l  indices.  p l a n t m o r t a l i t y , because of  n u t r i e n t h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y and  Compaction by t r a m p l i n g d e s t r o y s s o i l  saturated) low  erosion resistance  aggregates,  thus  these c o n d i t i o n s .  Climate  C l i m a t i c f a c t o r s such as temperatures d u r a t i o n , frequency  and  timing a f f e c t  Impacts on s o i l s are most severe a f t e r melt  mm  stated that  on p o o r l y s t r u c t u r e d or u n s t r u c t u r e d ( u s u a l l y  p e r m e a b i l i t y , water and of  >.5  Bryan  as or b e t t e r than more complex m u l t i - v a r i a b l e e r o d i b i l i t y  s o i l s promotes mud  the  weight being measured with a s i e v e  simple w a t e r - s t a b l e aggregate  Trampling  aggregate  (Roemer, 1975a).  Topographic  and  precipitation  r e c r e a t i o n a l use  intensity,  (Helgath, 1975).  p e r i o d s of heavy r a i n s and  f a c t o r s such as aspect and  snow-  elevation  19  i n f l u e n c e m i c r o c l i m a t e by c a u s i n g snowmelt, as w e l l as v a r y i n g drying  the exposure of the s o i l  e f f e c t s of sun and wind ( H e l g a t h ,  4.  Soil  ible.  silt  l a r g e displacement f o r c e . cohesive s t r e n g t h  Clay  transport  because of the need of a detachment because of  tendency t o form aggregates.  that h i g h l y e r o d i b l e  soils  t y p i c a l l y contain  clay  Morgan contents  He chose c l a y content as an i n d i c a t i o n of e r o d i -  because of the tendency f o r i t to combine w i t h o r g a n i c  form water s t a b l e  matter t o  aggregates.  Both s i l t s and c l a y s are s u s c e p t i b l e 'pan'  1975).  particles resist  and g r e a t e r  r a n g i n g from 9 t o 30%. bility  t o the  and f i n e sand content a r e most e a s i l y e r o d -  Coarse sand p a r t i c l e s r e s i s t  (1979) s t a t e d  surface  texture  S o i l s w i t h high  high  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 r u n o f f and  t o trampling  compaction and  f o r m a t i o n (Leonard and Plumley, 1979), and a r e a l s o s u s c e p t i b l e t o  puddling  when wet.  s c u f f i n g and e r o s i o n  Upon d r y i n g ,  surface  l a y e r s are s u s c e p t i b l e t o  ( M a g i l l and Nord, 1965).  Leonard and Plumley (1979) c a t e g o r i z e d  moderately coarse loams as  most s u i t a b l e f o r campsites, and s i l t y c l a y s , c l a y s , sands and o r g a n i c soils  as l e a s t s u i t a b l e .  when wet.  5.  Clay  i s generally  drained  and s t i c k y  Sand i s u n s t a b l e when d r y , due to poor s t r u c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s .  Topography  Topographic v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d include  poorly  slope,  i n s o i l r e l a t e d impact  a s p e c t , e l e v a t i o n , landform shape and type.  assessments Slope  20  v a r i a b l e s are u s u a l l y materials,  assessed i n combination w i t h o t h e r s such as parent  e l e v a t i o n and p r e c i p i t a t i o n (Morgan, 1979).  Hoffman e t a l . (1975) noted parent m a t e r i a l s t i o n a l processes ( t i l l ,  alluvium,  i n terms of d e p o s i -  c o l l u v i u m ) as d i d 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). and  Otchere-Boateng r a t e d  erosion  each parent m a t e r i a l  r i s k i n s u b j e c t i v e l y determined c l a s s e s  extremely h i g h .  They a l s o i n c l u d e d  slope  presence of permafrost i n t h e i r e r o s i o n  Ballard  i n Kluane Park as t o of low, medium, h i g h and  classes,  soil  r a t i n g system.  type and The f o l l o w i n g i s  a summary of t h e i r r e s u l t s :  Low r i s k  -  C o l l u v i u m on low grade s l o p e s . M o r a i n a l t i l l on low grade s l o p e s .  Medium  -  A l l u v i u m (except i n a c t i v e channels).  High and Extremely High -  Hoffman e t a l . (1975) r e p o r t e d mapping u n i t s had e r o s i o n  stream  Steep c o l l u v i u m S u r f i c i a l loess E o l i a n and l a c u s t r i n e  that  two out of t h r e e  biophysical  impacts r e l a t e d to degree of s l o p e .  Aspect and e l e v a t i o n are i n combination, i n d i c a t o r s of m i c r o c l i m a t e ( H e l g a t h , 1975).  These two v a r i a b l e s  are u s u a l l y  incorporated  with  b i o p h y s i c a l mapping u n i t s which r e l y on o t h e r f a c t o r s f o r c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h impacts, such as v e g e t a t i o n  6.  and s o i l types or parent  materials.  Drainage  S o i l drainage i s l a r g e l y a f u n c t i o n A t k i n s o n , 1975).  of l o c a l topography (Smith and  Other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g drainage i n c l u d e p r e c i p i t a -  t i o n p a t t e r n , v e g e t a t i o n cover, s o i l bulk d e n s i t y , h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s e s , o r g a n i c content of m i n e r a l s o i l and (Leonard and  Plumley,  1979).  s u r f a c e coarse fragment  content  Smith and A t k i n s o n (1975) a t t r i b u t e d  drainage to marked t e x t u r a l and  poor  s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s ( i n s u r f a c e and  s u b s u r f a c e h o r i z o n s ) , perched water t a b l e above heavy or i n d u r a t e d h o r i z o n s , and  seepage s i t e s at s l o p e bottoms.  Trampling  causes  impacts  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h poor drainage by r e d u c i n g  the s o i l volume o c c u p i e d by l a r g e pores, which c o n f e r h i g h s a t u r a t e d h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y , and medium pores, which c o n t r i b u t e to unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. fine textured  7.  F u r t h e r , p u d d l i n g occurs i n the case of  soils.  P e r m e a b i l i t y and moisture s t a t u s  Infiltration  c a p a c i t y i s d e f i n e d as the maximum s u s t a i n e d r a t e at  which water can move i n t o the s o i l . soil  profile  occur.  determines  If a r e l a t i v e l y  s u r f a c e , and  lowest  capacity horizon i n a  to a l a r g e extent the types of impacts which impermeable h o r i z o n e x i s t s c l o s e to the  i s o v e r l a i n by a porous  s l o p e s and mud  The  soil  h o r i z o n , then mass movement on  f o r m a t i o n on l e v e l t e r r a i n may  occur.  these h o r i z o n s i s r e v e r s e d , then the s o i l s u r f a c e w i l l due  may  I f the order of be drought  prone  to r a p i d r u n o f f . Some i n v e s 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  w i t h areas of severe impacts  ( L u t z , 1945;  Roemer, 1975a; and Hoffman e_t  a l . , 1975).  (1972) c i t e d  f o u r authors who  Root and Knapik  a l l environment  v a r i a b l e s measured i n impact  moisture and drainage were the most important  felt  investigations,  that of  soil  i n p r e d i c t i n g impact  types  22 and  intensities.  l o s t moisture  Root and Knapik found  most r a p i d l y , and areas  that areas  of bare ground which  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low i n f i l t r a t i o n  r a t e s , p r o v i d e d a more x e r i c v e g e t a t i v e h a b i t a t , which a f f e c t e d s p e c i e s composition  and caused r e g e n e r a t i o n problems.  T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r (1973) recommended t h a t t r a i l s areas  of poor drainage  ( c o o l , moist  l o c a t e d on  v a l l e y bottoms and n o r t h f a c i n g  s l o p e s ) i n Banff N a t i o n a l Park be c l o s e d , and new ones be c o n s t r u c t e d i n areas  of b e t t e r  drainage.  S h o r t e r recovery  times  meadows have been r e p o r t e d  8.  Organic  As  f o r trampled (Strand,  1979).  matter  o r g a n i c matter content  nutrient  dry meadows than f o r wet  increases, a p a r a l l e l increase i n  and water h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y o c c u r s .  increasing i n f i l t r a t i o n  T h i s reduces r u n o f f , by  of water i n t o the s o i l  (Leonard  and Plumley,  1979). It  i s apparent from the c o n c l u s i o n s of L a n d a l s  and S c o t t e r (1973)  t h a t 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 litter  l a y e r s from some or a l l of the m i n e r a l s o i l s u r f a c e .  (1979) s t a t e d t h a t i n g e n e r a l , s o i l s w i t h l e s s than  Morgan  two percent  organic  matter were e r o d i b l e .  9.  Vegetation  V e g e t a t i o n e f f e c t s on s o i l impacts are mainly e r o s i o n (Leonard  those  and Plumley, 1979) and mud f o r m a t i o n  of r e d u c i n g  (Landals and  23  S c o t t e r , 1973).  Soil  s u r f a c e s c u f f i n g which causes d i s a g g r e g a t i o n of  p a r t i c l e s i s l e s s under ground cover than on bare ground. bind  the s o i l , and decomposing p l a n t m a t e r i a l i n c r e a s e s  strength lity  of m i n e r a l  soil.  so t h a t p u d d l i n g  hardy adventive Other v e g e t a t i o n  i s less l i k e l y .  R e c o l o n i z a t i o n of bare ground by formation.  a t t r i b u t e s which i n f l u e n c e impacts i n c l u d e r o o t i n g s o i l permeability,  f o l i a g e c o n f i g u r a t i o n which  a f f e c t s ground s h a d i n g , and n u t r i e n t l e v e l s i n l e a f  2.2  cohesive  Root channels i n the s o i l improve permeabi-  p l a n t s p e c i e s can reduce e r o s i o n and mud  h a b i t s , which a f f e c t  regeneration  Roots help to  l i t t e r , affecting  success.  Impacts on  Vegetation  2.2.1  Physiological considerations  Direct  p h y s i c a l damage to a e r i a l p l a n t p a r t s reduces the amount and  f u n c t i o n i n g of p h o t o s y n t h e t i c hydrate p r o d u c t i o n . drate i s r e f l e c t e d photosynthesis.  tissue.  In s p r i n g , the reduced amount of s t o r e d  i s a smaller, l e s s vigorous  (1976) found t h a t water s t r e s s was o f t e n g r e a t e s t  however.  with  Hartley  i n trampled  vegetation  T h i s r e s u l t was not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n h i s study,  He r a t i o n a l i z e d the i n c o n s i s t e n c y  less competition  plant  p o t e n t i a l ( H a r t l e y , 1976).  Trampling a l s o a f f e c t s uptake and t r a n s p o r t of water.  on compacted s o i l s .  carbohy-  i n reduced shoot growth, p r i o r t o replenishment by  The end r e s u l t  lower r e p r o d u c t i v e  T h i s causes a decrease i n c a r b o -  by s t a t i n g t h a t there may be  f o r 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 h i g h e r water h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y , w i t h decreased  pore s i z e , i n some s o i l s .  Liddle Festuca  (1975) noted  reduced  and e s t a b l i s h m e n t of  r u b r a on compacted s o i l , and suggested  reduce root p e n e t r a t i o n .  drought c o n d i t i o n s .  t h a t t h i s s p e c i e s , once  s u r v i v e d b e t t e r than o t h e r s p e c i e s under  trampling.  appears from t h i s , affect  may  He a l s o c i t e d s e v e r a l o t h e r grass s p e c i e s as  'increasers' after light  availability  that compacted s o i l  However, he a l s o found  e s t a b l i s h e d on compacted s o i l ,  It  germination  that s o i l  compaction and reduced  the s u r v i v a l of d i f f e r e n t  s t r e s s , t o v a r y i n g degrees.  s p e c i e s under  I t i s also evident  t h a t these  water trampling two v a r i a b l e s  (water a v a i l a b i l i t y and degree of compaction) a c t s e p a r a t e l y , and i n combination.  The r e l a t i v e  degree of e f f e c t  however, i s s t i l l  open to  question. Many attempts have been made t o c l a s s i f y the b a s i s of t r a m p l i n g  resistance.  taxonomic, m o r p h o l o g i c a l ,  and c a t e g o r i z e p l a n t s on  These attempts have f o l l o w e d  various  and ' r e p r o d u c t i v e s t r a t e g y ' g u i d e l i n e s , t o  i d e n t i f y c l a s s e s o f p l a n t s p e c i e s w i t h s i m i l a r responses t o t r a m p l i n g pressure 1975;  (Wagar, 1964; W i l l a r d and Marr, 1971; Palmer, 1979; L i d d l e ,  Young, 1976; C o l e , 1977; S c h r e i n e r , 1979; S p e i g h t ,  Bayfield,  1978; and  1979).  2.2.2  V e g e t a t i o n impact measurement methods  R e c r e a t i o n impact assessments can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o three according 1.  to S c h r e i n e r Observations  groups,  (1979). of v e g e t a t i o n change over  time  (descriptive).  25  2.  Simulated  t r a m p l i n g experiments u s i n g mechanical  devices  (experimental). 3.  Trampling bance  experiments u s i n g known or c o n t r o l l e d human d i s t u r -  (experimental).  Studies using  'observation' r e l y  on measurement of v e g e t a t i o n  changes from both n a t u r a l causes and  recreation.  from these  by u s i n g p a i r e d 'experimental'  and  t r a m p l i n g ' experiments r e l y on  the  two  sources  are separated  'control' vegetation inventory Both ' t r a m p l i n g " and  The  relative  effects  plots.  'simulated  measurement of v e g e t a t i o n changes from known l e v e l s of s t r e s s . s t r e s s l e v e l s may s e r v i n g as a  vary  from  'none' t o  'severe', w i t h the  These  'none' c a t e g o r y  'control'.  V e g e t a t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s are used t o determine damages i n n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g p l a n t communities.  D i f f e r e n t procedures  can r e s u l t  v a r i a b l e amounts of measurement p r e c i s i o n ( f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e depending on methods, sampling  i n t e n s i t i e s and  The  sampling  techniques  purposes)  frequencies.  Appendix 2 i s a summary of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , meters and  in  s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n para-  used i n some r e c r e a t i o n impact  assessments.  d e r i v a t i o n of s u i t a b l e i n d i c e s to p r e d i c t v e g e t a t i o n r e s i s t a n c e  to t r a m p l i n g and  recovery  can be achieved  primary p r o d u c t i v i t y and biomass p o p u l a t i o n dynamics t i m i n g of growth and development plant physiology  from a number of approaches:  community s t r u c t u r e reproductive strategies p l a n t s p e c i e s morphology (Liddle,  1975)  Frissel must be stated  (1978) f e l t  consistent that  1.  w i t h an o p e r a t i o n a l  t h r e e such  Relative  that measurement u n i t s used f o r comparisons, d e f i n i t i o n of f r a g i l i t y .  He  'unit t y p e s ' were commonly used:  h e i g h t s of v e g e t a t i o n  between trampled and  control  plots. 2.  P e r c e n t cover  differences.  3.  Oven d r i e d 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 i n c l u d e presence and  absence' and  V e g e t a t i o n data may These forms may  stem counts. be  c o l l e c t e d and  be q u a n t i t a t i v e  s c a l e s , i n c l u d i n g cover and  analyzed i n s e v e r a l  abundance, s p e c i e s  important p o i n t  o b t a i n e d at low  to c o n s i d e r  ratio  presence/absence  and  A l l have advan-  d i s a d v a n t a g e s , although as Green (1979) s t a t e d ,  meaningful information  forms.  (nominal, o r d i n a l , i n t e r v a l and  r a n k i n g ) or q u a l i t a t i v e ( v i g o r r a t i n g s , e t c . ) measures. tages and  'species  ecologically  'cost or e f f o r t ' i s the most  when choosing a v a r i a b l e measurement  strategy. Recreation r a t i n g scales W i l l a r d and  Marr (1970) s t u d i e d  them on a 0-5  scale  topographic v a r i a b l e s  l e v e l s of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y and (Table  1.  subjectively  rated  These r a t i n g s were  to determine r e l a t i v e  c a p a b i l i t y f o r other s i t e s of known  2).  Roemer (1975b) e s t a b l i s h e d damages and  e x i s t i n g impacts and  a c c o r d i n g to damage s e v e r i t y .  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s o i l and  character  are used to s i m p l i f y m o n i t o r i n g p r o c e s s e s .  carrying  capacity  on  three c r i t e r i a campsites and  Permanence of observed damage.  f o r ranking trails.  physical  These were:  TABLE 2.  Impact r a t i n g s c a l e based on e v a l u a t i o n of trampling effects on meadows and campsites  Visitor Impact Scale  Degree of Disturbance  0  No disturbance - p l a n t cover 100X.  1  Used, but no apparent changes to v e g e t a t i o n or s o i l .  2  Obvious e f f e c t , 85 - 90% of n a t u r a l groundcover present, as determined from comparisons w i t h adjacent undisturbed plots.  3  P l a n t s 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 e r o d i n g . 25 - 85% of n a t u r a l ground cover present.  U  R a d i c a l a l t e r a t i o n , "A" h o r i z o n exposed on most of the area, and e r o d i n g . 5 - 25% of n a t u r a l ground cover present.  5  Ecosystem destroyed. " B " and " C " h o r i z o n s exposed by e r o s i o n . 0 - 5% of n a t u r a l ground cover present.  From W i l l a r d and Marr (1970).  2.  S o i l damage depth.  3.  Degree o f o b s t r u c t i o n t o t r a v e l caused by observed damage.  Parent m a t e r i a l s and s o i l s were then ranked a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r capacity f o r t r a i l  and camping use i n Mt. A s s i n i b o i n e Park, based on  a c t u a l impacts a t d i f f e r e n t s i t e s .  C a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s ranged from v e r y  low, on p o o r l y d r a i n e d t i l l s w i t h g l e y e d s o i l s  to very h i g h on w e l l  d r a i n e d t i l l s w i t h podzols and degraded d y s t r i c B r u n i s o l s . r e s u l t was s i x c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y c l a s s e s  The f i n a l  i n c l u d i n g 53 combinations of  v e g e t a t i o n , s o i l and parent m a t e r i a l s . T a b l e s s p e c i f y i n g 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, t e x t u r e , s u r f a c e c o a r s e fragments,  stoniness,  f l o o d hazard and slope are w i d e l y used f o r Parks Canada impact a s s e s s ments (Coen et a l . ,  1977, f o r example).  Other impact r a t i n g s c a l e s have been developed and used as f o l l o w s :  1.  Trail  impact r a t i n g s c a l e - T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973, Lake L o u i s e  2.  Campsite  capability  s c a l e - Lesko and Robinson, 1975,  Egypt Lake 3.  Index of v e g e t a t i o n 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 i n d e x - H a r t l e y , 1976, G l a c i e r Park, Mo.  5.  R e l a t i v e cover index - B a y f i e l d , 1979, S c o t l a n d  6.  S p e c i e s , p l o t community, h a b i t a t and t r a i l del Moral, 1979, S i e r r a s , C a l .  resistance indices -  Impact i n d i c e s based on simple v a r i a b l e combinations and manipulat i o n s such as those used by W i l l a r d and Marr  (1970) appear  to be the  best approach f o r r e c r e a t i o n assessments, s i n c e r e s u l t s can be e a s i l y  29  and  cheaply  they  o b t a i n e d , and  are of most s i g n i f i c a n c e  (the r e s u l t s ) represent  2.2.3  gross p h y s i c a l changes.  Summary of v e g e t a t i o n impact measurement  A l i s t of p l a n t s p e c i e s and trampling  to the u s e r , s i n c e  impacts i s c o n t a i n e d  t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d t o l e r a n c e s to  i n Appendix 3.  R e s u l t s from e i g h t  d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out i n mountainous areas America were combined to p r o v i d e 'susceptible'.  The  results  trampling  i n d i c e s of  of western North 'resistant'  r a t i n g s shown were d e r i v e d by the present  and  author  from s u b j e c t i v e assessments of n a r r a t i v e comments c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n each of  the s t u d i e s reviewed, and  present  i n c l u d e d o n l y those  s p e c i e s found  i n the  study.  Generally, a r e l a t i v e l y with i n i t i a l  r e c r e a t i o n use.  constant  p a t t e r n of s i t e  changes  occurs  Herbaceous v e g e t a t i o n i s trampled,  the degree of i n j u r y dependent on v a r i a t i o n s i n p l a n t moisture initial  v i g o r and  size.  Some t r e e removal f o r firewood  rocks are moved f o r f i r e p l a c e horse  use,  manure and Frissel  a d d i t i o n a l g r a z i n g and  l i g h t use,  s o i l impacts occur.  b a r i n g of r o o t s o c c u r s . durable forage  types.  Tree  and  are s u b j e c t  t r a m p l i n g e f f e c t s are e v i d e n t ,  that t h i s i n i t i a l l y low  are most n o t i c e a b l e around access  content,  occurs,  I f campsites  e x o t i c seeds d e p o s i t e d along t r a i l s  (1978) s a i d  continued  construction.  with  trails,  Ground cover  and  to  with  around camping  impact i s r e v e r s i b l e .  areas. With  Compaction and e r o s i o n e f f e c t s fire  r i n g s and  s p e c i e s composition  r e p r o d u c t i o n i s reduced, and  p l a n t s p e c i e s become more abundant.  i n c r e a s e s w i t h l i t t l e more damage o c c u r r i n g .  t r e e s where s h i f t s to more  with g r a z i n g ,  non-  These e f f e c t s p e r s i s t as One  use  n o t i c e a b l e f e a t u r e of  30  older  campsites i s u s u a l l y t h e i r s i z e with expansion o c c u r r i n g  camping p a r t i e s choose and In a l p i n e a r e a s , damage.  I f use  light  be  Use  f r e e z e up  tent s i t e s  random use  occurs d u r i n g  damage may during  c l e a r new  periods  of meadows may  the h e i g h t  immediately erased  by the  (Frissel,  as  1978).  cause  little  of the growing season, r e s i l i e n c y of the  o f t e n leaves  any  tundra p l a n t s .  no v i s i b l e i m p r e s s i o n  (Willard  and Marr, 1970). W i l t i n g and  matting of ground v e g e t a t i o n  a f t e r two  weeks,  e l i m i n a t i o n of blooming a f t e r e i g h t weeks of heavy use was a l p i n e area  cover was  reduced to 87%,  a e r i a l p o r t i o n s were badly plants' increased area, use  and  on wet  damaged or dead.  meadows.  l i c h e n s were t o t a l l y  to a e r i a l p l a n t p a r t s .  eliminated.  Two  amount of use  species  and  ( C o l e , 1982).  use  33 days of use.  Generally,  communities can however, be  damages  were s u b j e c t  at newly e s t a b l i s h e d Few  changes i n the after this  t h i s preponderance of damage  r e s u l t s i n a l a c k of c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h  P r i o r to any  surface  gravel.  amount of bare ground o c c u r r e d  ( i n midsummer).  occurring with i n i t i a l levels  first  time,  'cushion  increased  Areas of newly denuded v e g e t a t i o n  campsites i n the  12  a d d i t i o n a l seasons of  Young (1976) noted that most damage occurred  number of p l a n t  At t h i s  of the o r i g i n a l  of the o r i g i n a l amount, and  to wind d e f l a t i o n , l e a v i n g sand and  After  Eroded areas of  over a range of from 20 to 75%  reduced cover to 33%  Illinois  found i n an  i n the Colorado Rockies ( W i l l a r d and M a r r , 1970).  weeks, p l a n t  and  denudation, l i g h t l y d i s t u r b e d  recognized  by  number of common s p e c i e s , w h i l e u n d i s t u r b e d  the dominance of a  use plant  small  s t a b l e communities possess  31  more s p e c i e s which more e q u a l l y shared  the space a v a i l a b l e ( F r i s s e l ,  1979). Graminoid type  s p e c i e s are h i g h l y r e s i s t a n t  to  good p r o t e c t i o n of f l o w e r s and meristems, and  It  has  to t r a m p l i n g flexibility  a l s o been shown that rhizomatous s p e c i e s have high  damage  due  i n stems.  trampling  r e s i s t a n c e s ( C o l e , 1978). Trail  study  meters a d j a c e n t l o c a t i o n and of  r e s u l t s show that most impacts occur to t r a i l s .  amount of use.  T h i s zone of d i s t u r b a n c e On dry meadow paths,  p l a n t s can be r e t a r d e d w i t h i n approximately  ( H a r t l e y , 1976).  Roemer (1975b) f e l t  i n the f i r s t i s dependent  reproductive  two  trail  heightened  susceptibility  to damage e x i s t e d i n the s p r i n g , when moisture  were h i g h , and  carbohydrates  were being m o b i l i z e d and  on  potential  meters of the  t h a t a p e r i o d of  few  levels  transported f o r  growth. Damages a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l l e d t r a m p l i n g be c h a r a c t e r i z e d thus:  f i v e tramples  temporary v i s i b l e e f f e c t s . field  per day  f o r a few  Hundreds of t r a m p l i n g s  levels  may  days causes only  can d e s t r o y a  fell-  or s n o w f i e l d ecosystem i n about two weeks, and a t u r f g r a s s eco-  system i n e i g h t weeks ( W i l l a r d and Marr, 1971). Small p l a n t s i z e , f l a t t i v e p a r t s and maintaining  growth form, s m a l l l e a v e s , f l e x i b l e  e a r l y germination  and  f l o w e r i n g are a l l important  high trampling r e s i s t a n c e .  s p e c i e s which tend to invade B r i t t l e p l a n t s are both  bare areas  vegetain  These a t t r i b u t e s , are common to subsequent to t r a m p l i n g damage.  s u s c e p t i b l e to breakage and  slow to  regenerate,  thus a l l o w i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n v a d i n g s p e c i e s ( C o l e , 1977).  Often,  32  cover and annual biomass p r o d u c t i o n noted upon c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n  changes occur  before  e f f e c t s are  ( H a r t l e y , 1976).  S e v e r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s are of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n e x p l a i n i n g v e g e t a t i o n impact v a r i a t i o n s . elevation.  Others of l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n c l u d e :  i n c h depth) and percent pH ( a t s h a l l o w d e p t h ) , light  These i n c l u d e percent  of stones  c l a y ( a t 1-4  g r e a t e r than 2 mm i n diameter.  bottom.  (cool) slopes i s u s u a l l y higher  t r e n d i s accentuated  percent  s i t e p o s i t i o n , season l o n g percent  and d i s t a n c e from drainage  facing  s l o p e , aspect and  Soil  of d i r e c t  sun-  S u r v i v a l of v e g e t a t i o n on NE  than on SW f a c i n g s l o p e s .  by s l o p e steepness.  This  E l e v a t i o n c o n t r o l s average  temperature f l u c t u a t i o n s ( i n p a r t ) , and t h e r e f o r e h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s p e c i e s are o f t e n more s u s c e p t i b l e t o t r a m p l i n g decreased  growing season and h i g h e r  s p e l l s during  i n s t a n c e s of s t r e s s due to c o l d  the growing season ( C i e s l i n s k i  Exclosure  damage, because of a  s t u d i e s of damaged areas  and Wagar, 1970).  demonstrated that i n g e n e r a l ,  over a s e v e r a l y e a r p e r i o d , i n c r e a s e s i n number of s p e c i e s , v i t a l i t y and reproduction fellfield  can occur.  W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) demonstrated t h a t a  ecosystem c o u l d r e c o v e r almost completely  seasons, i f s u b j e c t t o only one year's hand, i f s u b j e c t e d  reported  f o r comparable r e c o v e r y .  s i t e rejuvenations  ceased i n r e c r e a t i o n areas  f i v e years  after  trail  of the U.S. P a c i f i c Northwest.  T u r f mat ecosystems are g e n e r a l l y r e s i s t a n t ever,  Weaver e_t_ a l .  of 100, 65 and 55% f o r g r a s s l a n d ,  a l p i n e meadow and f o r e s t shrub u n d e r s t o r y , trampling  But, on the other  to more than one season of use, then the f e l l f i e l d  would r e q u i r e many more years 1979)  heavy use.  i n two growing  to d i s t u r b a n c e .  once t h i s mat i s punctured, e r o s i o n removes s o i l ,  and l e a v e s  How-  33 coarse g r a v e l behind.  After this,  secondary s u c c e s s i o n back to the t u r f  ecosystem would be very slow ( W i l l a r d and Marr, 1970).  Lichens  have slow r e c o v e r y p e r i o d s due to slow e s t a b l i s h m e n t and growth  also rates,  on bare s u b s t r a t e s .  2.3  Impact Assessments and R e c r e a t i o n Management  Alternatives  A f t e r impacts ( a c t u a l o r p o t e n t i a l ) have been determined, the r e c r e a t i o n manager can choose t o l i m i t use or t o i n i t i a t e procedures t o reduce damage i n f r a g i l e a r e a s .  Attempts to r e v e g e t a t e trampled ground  have met w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of success depending on choice of s p e c i e s ( S c h r e i n e r , 1978; H a r t l e y 1977), f e r t i l i z e r and w a t e r i n g treatments (Hoffman e t a l . ,  1975), s o i l t i l l a g e  (Palmer, 1979) and e x c l o s u r e times  ( W i l l a r d and Marr, 1971, T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , S i t e hardening d i r e c t l y  changes use c a p a c i t y , by m o d i f y i n g u s e r  b e h a v i o r , or the s i t e s ' s u s c e p t i b i l i t y altered  1973).  to impacts.  Behavior can be  through e d u c a t i o n a l or i n t e r p r e t i v e programs.  Recreational  users can be i n s t r u c t e d on s a f e waste and sewage d i s p o s a l ,  firewood  c o l l e c t i o n and use and e t h i c s c o n c e r n i n g p l a n t p i c k i n g and campsite rotation. barriers  Use can be c o n f i n e d t o s p e c i f i e d (trail  impact r e s i s t a n t areas w i t h  borders e t c . ) , and c o n s t r u c t i o n of f a c i l i t i e s  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 , Impact  s u s c e p t i b i l i t y may be changed  compacted and g r a v e l all  such as  1978; Palmer,  by the a d d i t i o n of l e s s  1979).  easily  s u b s t r a t e m a t e r i a l s such as t r e e bark mulch, rock s t e p p i n g , (Roemer, 1975a).  Waterbars, boardwalks, b r i d g e s and c u l v e r t s  h e l p t o reduce impacts and o b s t r u c t i o n s to t r a v e l .  t  Overstory  t h i n n i n g h e l p s to dry out areas s u s c e p t i b l e to mud and  formation  (Leonard  Plumley, 1979). Packstock  use r e g u l a t i o n may  a r e a s , d u r i n g wet  p e r i o d s and at overgrazed  i n c l u d e banning u n t e t h e r e d animal numbers and  a l l e v i a t e severe  impacts  sites.  in fragile  P o s s i b l e measures  grazing, r e q u i r i n g feed baskets, l i m i t s  r e s t r i c t i o n s on l o c a t i o n s of use  on  (Roemer, 1975a;  Palmer, 1979). Areas are o f t e n p r o t e c t e d from overuse P u b l i c i t y may attractions  i n a p a s s i v e manner.  not be encouraged to s h i e l d an area's  from over-use  S t a n l e y e t a l . , 1979).  ( T r o t t i e r and  impact  S c o t t e r , 1973;  sensitive  Frissel,  B u f f e r zones can be e s t a b l i s h e d and  1978;  r e g u l a t e d to  ensure t h a t commercial encroachment does not d i s t u r b the w i l d e r n e s s c h a r a c t e r ( e s t h e t i c or e c o l o g i c a l ) of the areas Guidebooks o f t e n i n c r e a s e use of areas cause overcrowded c o n d i t i o n s and  heightened  of  to such an extent as to impacts  t h i s o c c u r s , use r e g u l a t i o n which r e q u i r e s . l i t t l e and  equipment, i s o f t e n the best way Palmer (1979) l i s t e d  courses  (Ferber," 1978).  i n the way  of a v o i d i n g severe  If  of manpower  impacts.  a number of f a c t o r s which a f f e c t management  d e c i s i o n s to l i m i t use of a g i v e n a r e a . summary of c r i t e r i a to be  concern.  They are p r o v i d e d here  as a  c o n s i d e r e d i n d e c i d i n g which of the v a r i o u s  of a c t i o n to f o l l o w .  1.  season of  2.  use  13.  area  soil  14.  s i z e and  3.  slope  15.  number of  4.  erodibility  16.  amount of c r o s s - c o u n t r y  5.  biotic  17.  use  6.  fragility  18.  user  susceptibility of i n d i v i d u a l  species  available number of  campsites  trails  conflicts behavior  use  35  7.  duration  8.  types of  9.  activity  of  use  disturbances types  10.  party  11.  d i r e c t i o n s of t r a v e l  12.  r e c o v e r a b i l i t y of and communities  If  sizes  19.  regulation  enforcement  20.  facility  provision  21.  activity  supervision  22.  use  23.  access  scheduling locations  species  impact assessments are i n i t i a t e d e a r l y i n the r e c r e a t i o n  h i s t o r y of an a r e a , c a r r y out  vegetation  on a p e r i o d i c b a s i s  use  m o n i t o r i n g programs which are easy to can  be  devised  at l i t t l e  cost.  If,  however, impacts are measured at an advanced stage without p r e v i o u s data, l e s s 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  use  procedures w i l l r e s u l t .  Recommendations must then be d i r e c t e d towards r e p a i r of e x i s t i n g damages instead  of enhancing o p p o r t u n i t i e s  f o r accommodating h i g h e r use  levels  w i t h minimum damaging impacts. G o l d s m i t h et a l . (1970) gave a c r i t i q u e of the problems development of v i s i t o r  impact r e s e a r c h  i n parks.  e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t r o l s , time l a g s between use time i n t e r v a l s r e q u i r e d  for succession  and  They mentioned l a c k of damage, and  to o c c u r .  When d i s c u s s i n g  doing impact assessments, they cautioned time, so that d e c i s i o n s sufficient  differences  p o l i c y changes.  do not  between f i n d i n g s and  within  the  feasibility  c o n s t r a i n t s of p o l i t i c a l  use  of  there must be enough l e a d t h a t there must  expectations  to j u s t i f y  Even i f r e s u l t s suggest that a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s be  long  o b j e c t i v e s , and  the  precede r e s u l t s , and  p o l i c i e s are n e c e s s a r y , n o t h i n g w i l l fall  that  the  Recommendations were  to choose the proper s p a t i a l s c a l e to meet d e s i r e d of extended m o n i t o r i n g p e r i o d s .  confronting  done u n l e s s  be any  or  the a l t e r n a t i v e s  feasibility.  In  conclusion,  36  they  stated,  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s must be r e a l i s t i c a l l y  generalizeable There is  still  tainty it,  the  that  situations.  the  The v a r i a t i o n  implications  and  field of  for  of  recreation  methods of  management,  impact  measurement  as  Foin  assessment  and  et^ a_l.  uncer-  (1977)  saw  of  this  fact.  It  i s ray v i e w t h a t  descriptive  Impact  methods a r e  most  likely  to  produce useable  results  to  simplicity  level  to other  no q u e s t i o n  indicators  assessment  manager,  extend  maturing.  about  were  their  is  to  implementable,  whose  and e a s e o f  actions  w e l l below  that  are  use.  Also  limited  which  they  will  politically  best  serve  due the  and o p e r a t i o n a l l y  c o u l d be a d v o c a t e d  by  the  to  a  imaginative  scientist. The p r e c e d i n g recreation  impact  study methods  and  A multistage field  was  Subjects index,  vegetation to  types,  was  species  the to  present  state  formulating  of  the  current  included  the  reconnaissance  A standardized ecological  specific  locations  use  of  within  a simple  the  of  soil  and  textures,  plant  species  estimate  of  percent  bare  severity  of  current  impacts  physical  and g r o s s  u s e d as  different  inventory  properties  sites.  impact  index,  was  horizon  control  and a b u n d a n c e s . an  and  attention  such as in  area.  availability  potential  Special  differences  compositions  g r o u n d was at  cover.  and  wilderness  firewood  c o m p a c t i o n and mud f o r m a t i o n  determination  plot  a guide  c o m p o s i t i o n and p e r c e n t  thicknesses  experimental  define  a i r p h o t o s , maps,  chosen.  small,  erodibility,  field  to  a n d as  approach u s i n g  concern  soil  served  design.  used at  of  has  assessments,  sampling t r i p s  format  paid  review  and  An to  rank  the  37  3.  3.1  STEIN WATERSHED RECREATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Study Area D e s c r i p t i o n The  1000  km^  i n the L i l l o o e t has  S t e i n b a s i n l i e s between L i l l o o e t Lake and  District  been h e r a l d e d  of the Kamloops F o r e s t Region ( F i g u r e 1).  Much of the western s u b a l p i n e still  part  There are plans however to l o g much of the middle  t h i r d s of the v a l l e y bottom, and  have been (and  It  as the l a s t major unlogged v a l l e y i n the southern  of B r i t i s h Columbia. two  Lytton,  are) s u b j e c t  s e v e r a l of i t s t r i b u t a r i e s .  and  a l p i n e areas  of the S t e i n b a s i n  to mining e x p l o r a t i o n .  A c t i v e 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  principally  to the d i f f i c u l t i e s of access  Freeman and  Thompson's (1979) w i l d e r n e s s  has  i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c awareness and  and  low  due  i t s relative obscurity.  t r a v e l guide*  r e c r e a t i o n a l use  to the S t e i n  of the v a l l e y i s  increasing. One  four-wheel-drive  penetrates  mining road  ( i n the Cottonwood Creek area)  the S t e i n watershed f o r a d i s t a n c e of 11 km.  t h i s , access  must be gained  e n t e r the v a l l e y  Other than  on f o o t , horseback or by a i r .  from v i r t u a l l y any  p o i n t on the S t e i n ' s  Hikers 'height  may of  T h i s guide c o n t a i n s comprehensive summaries of the v a l l e y ' s h i s t o r y ( i n c l u d i n g the present n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n c o n t r o v e r s y ) , geology, weather, v e g e t a t i o n , f i s h and w i l d l i f e as w e l l as c u r r e n t access p o i n t s and d e s c r i p t i o n s of over 40 w i l d e r n e s s t r i p s ranging from a few hours to s e v e r a l days.  38  l a n d ' boundaries.  R e l a t i v e l y easy access  however, may be gained  L i z z i e Creek and Van H o r l i c k Creek l o g g i n g roads,  from  the Blowdown Pass  l o g g i n g and mining road and two l o c a t i o n s a s h o r t d i s t a n c e u p r i v e r from the c o n f l u e n c e from these  of the F r a s e r and S t e i n ( F i g u r e 2).  p o i n t s g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w water courses  Routes branching o f f  or adjacent  E x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l campsites may be found a t l i t e r a l l y l e v e l streamside  ridges.  hundreds of  locations.  If logging plans  are c a r r i e d o u t , a s i n g l e h a u l i n g road w i l l be  extended i n t o the h e a r t of the v a l l e y .  T h i s w i l l a l l o w motorized  access  t o most of the S t e i n ' s t r i b u t a r i e s and to l o c a t i o n s c l o s e to the upper l a k e s and l a r g e areas The  o f s u b a l p i n e and a l p i n e meadows.  S t e i n contains  two c l i m a t i c r e g i o n s .  These a r e the 'Subcon-  t i n e n t a l ' i n the western t h i r d , and 'Dry' i n the e a s t e r n s e c t i o n . i n these  there e x i s t  With-  f o u r b i o g e o c l i m a t i c zones ( K r a j i n a , 1969):  Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass (PPBG), I n t e r i o r D o u g l a s - F i r  ( I D F ) , Engelmann  Spruce-Subalpine F i r (ESSF) and A l p i n e Tundra (AT), moving from e a s t ( d r y ) t o west ( S u b c o n t e n t i a l = wet) and low (warm) to h i g h elevations  (cool)  (Figure 2).  Subzones and z o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s have been d e f i n e d f o r the Dry climatic region. still  incomplete  s t a t e of present the S t e i n .  Such i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the S u b c o n t i n e n t a l ( M i t c h e l l e t a l . , 1981).  Region i s  F i g u r e 2 a l s o r e p r e s e n t s the  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 a t the subzone l e v e l f o r  Appendix 4 i l l u s t r a t e s f u r t h e r 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 d e f i n e d by M i t c h e l l e t a l . (1981). a t i o n s were named a c c o r d i n g  t o the above sources,  Associ-  u s i n g a standard  10.0 10.1  3.0 3 A \ A " A  4.0  11.1. 11.0  2J0  2.1 or .i  8J0  5.0 6y0 •  8.1 7.1 7.0  12.1 12.0  10 1 . 1  A  15.0  A  15.1  format recommended by Dr. K. K l i n k a (1982, P e r s o n a l The  S t e i n River contains  Communication^).  seven major s p e c i e s of f i s h .  pink, coho and Chinook salmon, d o l l y Varden char,  These are  steelhead  and  rainbow  t r o u t and Rocky mountain w h i t e f i s h (Freeman and Thompson, 1979). study  by the B.C.  Environment) has  Department of F i s h and W i l d l i f e  documented spawning beds f o r the anadromous  s p e c i e s over much of the S t e i n ' s i n a resource  ( M i n i s t r y of  folio  G r i z z l y and  f o r the  length.  A  1980  the  fish  Results w i l l . b e incorporated  basin.  b l a c k bears range over much of the watershed.  It  has  been suggested by Freeman and Thompson (1979) that the S t e i n i s s u b j e c t to  immigrations  adjacent  of these  two  s p e c i e s , as l o g g i n g and mining d i s t u r b  valleys.  To date, c a s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s indicated  the presence of mule deer, moose, mountain goat, mountain  sheep, wolf, raccoon,  by h i k e r s i n the watershed have a l s o  e l k , coyote,  cougar, s m a l l mammals such as  marten, weasel, beaver, p i k a , marmot, porcupine,  s p e c i e s of r a t s , shrews, mice and  bats.  sighted  grouse, ptarmigan and  No  wolverine,  i n c l u d i n g blue and  attempt at a systematic  spruce  wildlife  Over 30 b i r d  i n v e n t o r y has  and  numerous  s p e c i e s have been golden  eagle.  y e t been made i n the  S t e i n (Freeman and Thompson, 1979).  Dr. K. K l i n k a , 1982 p e r s o n a l communication, A s s o c i a t e F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  Professor,  41  The  S t e i n R i v e r B a s i n geology  has  been s t u d i e d and  Glenn Woodsworth i n Freeman and Thompson (1979). brief  The  r e p o r t e d by  following i s a  summary. The  o l d e s t rock f o r m a t i o n s i n the V a l l e y are metamorphosed  ments and  b a s a l t v o l c a n i c s which were p a r t of a 200 m i l l i o n year o l d  ocean f l o o r . Biotite,  Mixed w i t h these are l a r g e s l i c e s of extruded  hornblende  which has  sedi-  and  c h l o r i t e , u n d e r l y most of the b a s i n , some of  been metamorphosed i n t o g n e i s s and s c h i s t .  the b a s i n was  serpentinite.  The  lower 3 km  under s a l t water, f o r s e v e r a l m i l l i o n years and  of  s u b j e c t to  sedimentation. The F r a s e r R i v e r marks the l o c a t i o n of a f a u l t ,  along which a  n o r t h e r l y movement of the rocks i n the S t e i n B a s i n o c c u r r e d hundred k i l o m e t e r s ) . stopped.  As of 50 m i l l i o n y e a r s ago  Renewed v o l c a n i c a c t i v i t y and  m i l l i o n years ago. occurred.  During  t h i s movement  had  g r a n i t i c i n t r u s i o n occurred  the c o o l i n g phase, f r a c t u r i n g and  Most of the creeks and  (several  t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y s present  16  faulting today,  f o l l o w these f e a t u r e s . Present  topography  has  been l a r g e l y determined  movement working i n combination processes  c o n t i n u e , w i t h new  Mining  rock avalanches  forces.  Today, e r o s i o n  on steep s l o p e s y e a r l y .  p o t e n t i a l i n the S t e i n i s r e s t r i c t e d  quartz-associated or near  with u p l i f t i n g  by water and i c e  to v e i n d e p o s i t s of  s u l p h i d e m i n e r a l s , as there are no known orebodies i n  the S t e i n , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of some low grade porphyry  of S t e i n Lake, and  v e s u v i a n i t e on Antimony mountain.  south  Ryder (1981) has mapped bedrock  geology, landforms  and  surficial  m a t e r i a l s and d e s c r i b e d c u r r e n t slope processes i n her T e r r a i n t i o n s and  Interpretation f o r Forest Engineering report.  M i t c h e l l e t a l . (1981) i d e n t i f i e d ecosystem  the S t e i n .  Appendix 5 l i s t s  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was  those s o i l  subgroups known t o occur i n  d e r i v e d from u n p u b l i s h e d BCFS Kamloops  e c o l o g i c a l inventory data ( M i t c h e l l ,  to  the s o i l s e x i s t i n g i n most of the  a s s o c i a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g i n the Western p a r t of the Kamloops  F o r e s t Region.  (1981).  Condi-  1980)  as w e l l as M i t c h e l l e t a l .  These s o i l s i n c l u d e Regosols, L u v i s o l s and B r u n i s o l s on  xeric  submesic s i t e s , Humic G l e y s o l s and Organic s o i l s on s u b h y g r i c to  h y d r i c s i t e s and B r u n i s o l s or Humo-Ferric Podzols on mesic  sites.  Podzols are found o n l y i n the w e t t e r S u b c o n t i n e n t a l C l i m a t i c Most of the landforms the S t e i n are of f l u v i a l  of i n t e r e s t  Region.  i n a r e c r e a t i o n impact  study of  o r i g i n , as those areas s u b j e c t t o use  i n v a r i a b l y at streamsides.  Much of the S t e i n v a l l e y bottom was  are shaped  by f l o o d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c u r r e n t p o s t g l a c i a l p e r i o d (10,000 years ago).  Landforms c o n s i s t of g l a c i a l and  been eroded floodplains.  by f l o w i n g water, and The  g r a v e l t o sand and fans and  terraces.  r e d e p o s i t e d as t e r r a c e s , fans  till  and  t e x t u r e of these d e p o s i t s v a r i e s from coarse bouldery silt.  G r a v e l i s more common i n the lower S t e i n  Sand and s i l t  p l a i n s i n hanging  Former ponded areas  (lacustrine)  t r i b u t a r y v a l l e y s are a l s o important  r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s , because they are l e v e l . composed of sand and s i l t ,  on  occur on low g r a d i e n t areas of the  upper S t e i n and a d j a c e n t t r i b u t a r i e s . and  c o l l u v i a l d e p o s i t s which have  w h i l e the t i l l  m a t r i x w i t h up to 30% coarse fragments  and  as  L a c u s t r i n e d e p o s i t s are  c o n s i s t s of a s i l t y - s a n d large boulders.  In many  43  i n s t a n c e s ponding blocking  i n hanging v a l l e y s r e s u l t e d  the passage  of r u n o f f and sediment.  i n f i l l i n g with sand and s i l t , (Ryder,  U l t i m a t e l y t h i s has l e d t o  leaving poorly drained l e v e l valley  floors  1981).  The S t e i n watershed gradients.  i s s u b j e c t t o dramatic r a i n f a l l and temperature  M o i s t u r e l a d e n c o a s t a l a i r i s d r i v e n by p r e v a i l i n g w e s t e r l y  winds over the Coast Mountains, r a i n o r snow. Plateau.  initially  where i t l o s e s much of i t s moisture as  R e l a t i v e l y dry a i r then descends  While descending,  moisture l o s s .  zone.  from c o l l u v i a l m a t e r i a l s  onto t h e I n t e r i o r  t h e a i r masses a r e warmed, without  further  An excess of e v a p o r a t i o n over p r e c i p i t a t i o n coupled w i t h  low p r e c i p i t a t i o n , c r e a t e s a s e m i - a r i d c l i m a t e i n the PPBG  K r a j i n a (1969) l i s t e d  PPBG zones. and western  c l i m a t i c data f o r the AT, ESSF, IDF and  The above o r d e r f o l l o w s g r a d i e n t s of h i g h t o low e l e v a t i o n to e a s t e r n l o c a t i o n s i n the S t e i n .  F e a t u r e s shown to  i n c r e a s e along these c o n c u r r e n t g r a d i e n t s i n c l u d e mean and maximum temperatures  and f r o s t  f r e e days.  F e a t u r e s that decrease Include  minimum temperatures, and annual r a i n and s n o w f a l l .  A l l four  f o l l o w the same s e a s o n a l 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 : summer.  zones  wet w i n t e r , dry  C l i m a t i c i n f o r m a t i o n may be d e r i v e d from permanent weather  s t a t i o n s I n the v i c i n i t y of the S t e i n .  These a r e :  Lytton:  50' 14" N, 121' 34" W l a t i t u d e , 177 m  Lillooet:  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 c o n s t r u c t i o n .  44  3.2  Methods of Study 3.2.1  Summary  F i f t e e n areas i n the S t e i n watershed were s u b j e c t i v e l y determined as being of high  present o r p o t e n t i a l r e c r e a t i o n use.  t o r i e s of p a i r e d  ' e x p e r i m e n t a l ' (campsites) and ' c o n t r o l ' p l o t s  followed.  Initial  spring f i e l d  t r i p s included  Ground  permanent p l o t e s t a b l i s h -  ment and d e s c r i p t i o n s of s o i l p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s , p l a n t p e r c e n t cover, and s i t e v a r i a b l e s  such as slope  e c o l o g i c a l moisture regime and l o c a l topography. measures of s o i l  inven-  s p e c i e s and  p o s i t i o n and g r a d i e n t , In a d d i t i o n ,  relative  compaction and e r o d i b i l i t y were determined u s i n g  penetrometer and i n f i l t r a t i o n  rate t e s t s .  a soil  Additional inventories i n  summer and f a l l were c a r r i e d out a t 14 of the s i t e s t o determine optimum inventory and  times based on phenology ( f o r r e l i a b l e p l a n t  "within area"  v a r i a t i o n s i n plant  identifications),  cover e s t i m a t e s .  Evidence of impacts such as bare ground, t r e e c u t t i n g and presence of garbage were noted.  Biogeoclimatic  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u n i t s were  i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g M i t c h e l l e t a l . (1981).  Plant  species  were then  compared i n t a b u l a r form t o determine present l e v e l s of impacts t o vegetation.  A l l data c o l l e c t e d were then s t o r e d  comparisons w i t h f u t u r e  3.2.2  and  inventories.  Study s i t e s e l e c t i o n  Recreation interviews  on computer tape f o r  a t t r a c t i o n areas were s u b j e c t i v e l y determined  w i t h the authors of E x p l o r i n g  Thompson, 1979).  through  the S t e i n R i v e r V a l l e y  They were i n t e r v i e w e d  separately,  (Freeman  and asked t o  choose 10 a r e a s of high present and/or f u t u r e use and r e c r e a t i o n a l value  45  ( s c e n i c , f i s h i n g , mountaineering e t c . ) were chosen t o r e p r e s e n t Basin, current  associated  Figure  Zone l e v e l  2 contains  a list  of campsites chosen,  their  plot),  The  ( p a s t and/or f u t u r e ) w h i l e the c o n t r o l p l o t  to no human d i s t u r b a n c e  ments were s u b j e c t i v e l y judged a t each  Recreation  of any k i n d .  These r e q u i r e -  site.  use  s i t e use d e t e r m i n a t i o n s were made s u b j e c t i v e l y i n c o n s u l t a t i o n  w i t h R. Freeman and D. Thompson  (1980, P e r s o n a l  v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n on s i t e  r i n g s , evidence of t r e e c u t t i n g ,  presence of garbage). 'some' and 'much' use. initiated  soil,  t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t was to be used f o r  r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes only was to be s u b j e c t  there  i d e n t i c a l i n topography, c l i m a t e ,  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s such as p l a n t d i s e a s e s .  o n l y d i f f e r e n c e being  Past  ( K r a j i n a , 1969), and a range of  so that f o r each campsite ( e x p e r i m e n t a l  existed a 'control' plot nearly  3.2.3  15 campsites  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 d e s c r i p t i o n s .  P l o t s were p a i r e d  vegetation  list,  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 S t e i n  at the B i o g e o c l i m a t i c impacts.  From t h i s  S i t e s were simply  traffic  r a t e d as 'no p r e v i o u s use',  As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , Dr. P.J. D o o l i n g  a study, so that  t i o n s and t r a i l  (fire  Communication^), and  comparisons based on a c c e s s p o i n t  has  registra-  counts may be made over a p e r i o d of y e a r s .  'R. Freeman and D. Thompson, 1980 p e r s o n a l communication. Authors of E x p l o r i n g the S t e i n R i v e r V a l l e y , 1979. Douglas and M a c l n t y r e , V i c t o r i a , B.C.  This  46  w i l l be done i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h f u r t h e r e c o l o g i c a l i n v e n t o r i e s of permanently l o c a t e d study  3.2.4  sites,  from t h i s  investigation.  S i t e mapping  Campsites were approximately 1.  Hiking t r a i l  2.  1:50,000 s c a l e NTS location  3.  located using:  d e s c r i p t i o n s i n Freeman and Thompson (1979) map  sheet Mercator c o o r d i n a t e s  to w i t h i n +100  1:28,000 s c a l e B.C.  government b l a c k and white a i r photos  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 c o o r d i n a t e s were l i s t e d  and e n l a r g e d The  and  "control" inventory plot  100  m).  sheet numbers and  f o r each s i t e chosen, along w i t h  1:5,000 s c a l e maps showing exact  9.  (estimated  m).  ( l o c a t i o n s p i n h o l e d to w i t h i n approximately  grid  the  mercator 1:50,000  s i t e l o c a t i o n s i n Appendix  1:5,000 s c a l e maps were supplemented by d e t a i l e d  "experimental"  l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g  format: Campsite Number: 1.  C o n t r o l landmark: A permanent t o p o g r a p h i c to  f e a t u r e adjacent  base f u r t h e r l o c a t i o n procedures  to the s i t e on which  w i t h compass b e a r i n g s  and  tape measured d i s t a n c e s . 2.  Primary  tie-in  stake:  A 25 cm  rolled  s t e e l rod embedded i n the s u b s t r a t e a t the  desired plot  c o r n e r o u t s i d e the p e r i m e t e r  of an  existing  first  47  campsite, or at the l o c a t i o n chosen as the s t a r t c o n t r o l p l o t boundary was  d e s c r i b e d as  landmark' 3.  line.  of the  first  Each primary t i e - i n stake p o s i t i o n  'X* meters i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the  'control  (as i n '1' above).  Secondary t i e - i n  stake:  As i n '2' above, w i t h the stake p o s i t i o n ( p l o t c o r n e r ) d e s c r i b e d as 'X' meters i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the 'primary tie-in 4. & 5.  s t a k e ' o r ' c o n t r o l landmark',  Remaining  two r e c t a n g u l a r p l o t  As i n '2' and 'X' meters  depending on convenience.  corners:  '3' above, w i t h the c o r n e r l o c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d as  i n 'Y' d i r e c t i o n from the 'primary t i e - i n ' o r  'secondary t i e - i n ' s t a k e , depending on the s i d e Plot  defined.  s i z e s 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.  F u t u r e campsite expansion was  c o n s i d e r e d , and  w i t h i n i n v e n t o r y p l o t s and boundaries were chosen so that locally  occurring plant  s p e c i e s were sampled.  from 270 t o 1860 m^- depending on the above 3.2.5  Actual plot  included the range of sizes  ranged  criteria.  Inventory procedures  S o i l , v e g e t a t i o n and s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n v a r i a b l e s measured were chosen from among those c i t e d and marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*) i n Appendices 1 and 2.  Procedures used f o r t h e i r measurement  D e s c r i b i n g Ecosystems i n the F i e l d D e s c r i b i n g S o i l s i n the F i e l d  (Walmsley et_ a l . ,  (Dumanski,  1978).  1980)  followed and  A copy of the f i v e page  s i t e survey form used has been i n c l u d e d i n Appendix  5.  48  S o i l i n v e n t o r y p i t s were dug adjacent terize  s o i l horizon types,  to each campsite,  to c h a r a c -  t h i c k n e s s e s , t e x t u r e s , s t o n i n e s s , presence of  r o o t s and m o t t l e s , depth of r o o t i n g and depth t o s e a s o n a l water t a b l e . C o n t r o l p l o t s were l o c a t e d w i t h i n s e v e r a l hundred meters on s i m i l a r soils.  S i m i l a r i t i e s were determined by d i g g i n g s h a l l o w p i t s (25 cm  deep) a t c o n t r o l p l o t s to match s u r f a c e h o r i z o n s w i t h those at  the campsite.  Humus forms were i n f e r r e d  p o s i t i o n of LFH and A h o r i z o n s .  from the presence and com-  A l l s o i l p i t s were photographed f o r  f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e , and as an a i d to d e t e r m i n i n g Plant  s p e c i e s found  cover  soil  subgroups.  on i n v e n t o r y p l o t s were c o l l e c t e d f o r i d e n t i f i -  c a t i o n u s i n g manuals and procedures percent  from the p i t  listed  i n Appendix 7.  Estimates of  of each s p e c i e s o c c u r r i n g i n one or more of the 1 0 f o r e s t ( V e t e r a n , A^, A 2 , A 3 , and s e e d l i n g t r e e s ,  canopy l a y e r s present t a l l and low shrubs,  g r a s s e s , herbs, mosses and l i c h e n s ) were  recorded.  Stem counts were a l s o made f o r each t r e e s p e c i e s and canopy l a y e r , d u r i n g one of the i n v e n t o r i e s . subjectively  s e l e c t e d from each canopy l a y e r f o r h e i g h t measurement  a c l i n o m e t e r and tape Species  al.  with  measure.  v i g o r r a t i n g s were made a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e :  0  =  dead ( o r senescent  1  =  poor v i g o r  2  =  moderate  3  =  good  4  =  reproducing  Forty-seven  A t r e e of average height was  i n the case o f g r a s s e s )  ( i n f l o w e r or f r u i t i n g ) .  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_  (1980) (numbers 13, 15, 28, 29, 44, 45 and 46 were not used) were  49  a s s e s s e d and  recorded f o r each campsite  f o r use i n f u t u r e  comparative  studies. D e v i a t i o n s i n these parameters A 1978)  at p a i r e d c o n t r o l p l o t s were noted.  'proving r i n g ' cone penetrometer was  used  to a s s e s s s o i l  (U.S. Army Corps of E n g i n e e r s ,  shear r e s i s t a n c e i n the 0-25  range at campsites and c o n t r o l p l o t s .  Penetrometer  cm  depth  readings ( C a l i f o r n i a  B e a r i n g R a t i o u n i t s ) were d e r i v e d f o r each p l o t , by a v e r a g i n g s e t s of p e n e t r a t i o n t e s t s at s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s over the a r e a of each  plot.  I n f i l t r a t i o n r a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s were made on campsite p l o t s . method used was  m o d i f i e d from that d e s c r i b e d by H e l g a t h (1975).  'spade w i d t h ' 25 cm deep p i t was pit  was  then r e f i l l e d  f u r t h e r p e r i o d of two a r u l e r was  excavated and  f i l l e d w i t h water.  twice more over the space of an hour. hours, the p i t was  i n s e r t e d i n t o the p i t , and  again r e f i l l e d .  the i n f i l t r a t i o n  10  The  A The  After a  At t h i s  time,  r a t e measured.  Values d e r i v e d were e x p r e s s e d as cm/hour. In  a d d i t i o n to the parameters  the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s was  also  l i s t e d above, i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g  collected:  evidence of e r o s i o n  trail  difficulty  presence of seepage water  d i s t a n c e to water  l a n d s l i d e hazard  local recreational  access type ( e x - t r a i l or o v e r l a n d )  evidence of human waste  evidence of t r e e damage  constructed f a c i l i t i e s  stage of p l a n t development  evidence of w i l d l i f e  attractions  D e t a i l s of procedures f o l l o w e d and u n i t s used have been p r o v i d e d i n Appendix  6.  Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y was assessed by d e t e r m i n i n g average scavenging  d i s t a n c e s f o r one n i g h t ' s supply of f i r e w o o d (two p e o p l e ) .  In a d d i -  t i o n to t h i s , notes were made on the k i n d and d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o t e n t i a l f i r e w o o d w i t h i n 200 m of each campsite. Photo s t a t i o n s were chosen f o r each p l o t . of  They were l o c a t e d on one  the p l o t boundaries at the h i g h e s t l e v e l of ground, o r on top of a  boulder or stump, to o b t a i n a maximum v i s i b l e p l o t a r e a i n photographs. From t h r e e to f i v e photographs were taken i n panoramic sequence, t o record current vegetation conditions. cameras,  Two Pentax K - s e r i e s 35 mm  one equipped w i t h normal c o l o r , ( F u j i c h r o m e ) t h e o t h e r w i t h  false color infrared  film  (Kodak  IE 135 Ektachrome) were used.  camera was equipped w i t h a 50 mm l e n s . was a l s o equipped w i t h a Wratten  Each  The camera w i t h i n f r a r e d filter.  Slide  photos were used f o r r e f e r e n c e s when checking the s u b j e c t i v e l y  deter-  mined  12 c o l o r compensating  film  'percent cover by s p e c i e s ' and 'species v i g o r ' r a t i n g s , and may be  used i n f u t u r e t o i l l u s t r a t e v i s u a l  3.2.6  Chronology of study  An i n i t i a l of  plot  changes.  site  inventories.  r e c o n n a i s s a n c e i n June  H i k i n g t r i p s t o groups of campsite p l o t s were  scheduled throughout the summer f i e l d  season.  3 t o 10 days, depending on t h e a c c e s s t r a i l s inventoried.  T r i p d u r a t i o n s were from used and number of s i t e s  S i n c e the S t e i n c o n t a i n s such wide c l i m a t i c d i v e r s i t y , a  s t r a t e g y was e s t a b l i s h e d t o sample to  1980 preceded the f i r s t s e t  each s i t e i n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l  account f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n p l a n t growth and development  Two summer f i e l d  (Table 3 ) .  seasons were r e q u i r e d t o complete the s e a s o n a l  51  TABLE 3.  I n v e n t o r y C h r o n o l o g y to o b t a i n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l v e g e t a t i o n r e c o r d s a t 15 c a m p s i t e s i n t h e S t e i n  Subzones and a c c e s s p o i n t s from F i g u r e 3  Site numbers  PPBG-d (access  5,6  IDFC IDFd IDFe (access  A)  7, 8 > 9,2,3,4 )  ATb ESSFpf (access ESSFpf (access  ATb (access  1 2 3 4 5  Season  occurring  June '80 Sept.'80 May »81  summer fall spring  J u l y *80 Sept '80 May-June '81  summer fall spring  •80  fall spring summer  B) 15  ESSFf (access  Months inventoried  Sept.  E)  (1) (2) 13 14  E) 11. 12 D)  10 C)  J u l y '81 August '80 e a r l y August '81 l a t e August '81 mid August '81  mid-Aug. * 80 e a r l y Sept.'81 (3)  summer fall spring  Aug. '80 J u l y '81 (4)  summer spring fall  e a r l y Aug. '80 J u l y '81 (5)  summer spring fall  A b o r t e d due t o bad weather  r e p l i c a t e s of the 15 p l o t p a i r s . seasonal inventory  As noted i n Table  i n v e n t o r i e s were not completed.  Future  3, f i v e of the  s e t s of s e a s o n a l  r e p l i c a t e s c o u l d e a s i l y be c a r r i e d out i n a s i n g l e  season, owing t o the f a c t  plot  field  t h a t only v e g e t a t i o n and some s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n  parameters would need t o be measured.  3.2.7.  Data a n a l y s i s  Information  d e r i v e d from p l o t  ways, to ensure easy 1.  re-use:  A l l understory appropriate  i n v e n t o r i e s was a r c h i v e d i n t h r e e  p l a n t s p e c i e s encountered were i d e n t i f i e d  references  using  (Appendix 7 ) , and s t o r e d i n t h e UBC  Botany Herbarium (Appendix 8 ) .  A l l samples and p e r t i n e n t  l o c a t i o n data have been made a v a i l a b l e f o r f u t u r e use. 2.  S i t e l o c a t i o n maps and d e t a i l e d boundary d e s c r i p t i o n s have been i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e p o r t (Appendix 9).  3.  A l l s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s and v e g e t a t i o n and s o i l were coded i n f r e e format and e n t e r e d UBC computing  inventory  data  on computer tape u s i n g  facilities.  In a d d i t i o n t o data a r c h i v i n g as a b a s e l i n e f o r f u t u r e use i n a long term impact study, 1.  Tabular  some analyses  were c a r r i e d o u t :  comparisons of s p e c i e s composition  between c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l c u r r e n t impacts t o v e g e t a t i o n .  and percent  p l o t r e c o r d s were made t o assess By n o t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n these two p a r a -  meters, s e v e r a l s p e c i e s and p l o t a t t r i b u t e s were i n f e r r e d : (a)  species  cover  removed e n t i r e l y  by t r a m p l i n g  53  (b)  decreasing  s p e c i e s - those which reduce i n cover  with  trampling (c)  s p e c i e s showing no change as a r e s u l t  of  trampling  (d)  i n c r e a s i n g s p e c i e s - those which t h r i v e w i t h  (e)  adventive  s p e c i e s - those which e s t a b l i s h and  trampling grow at  trampled  sites. All  s i t e s were ranked a c c o r d i n g to the occurrences  categories. impact  of the above s p e c i e s  T o t a l o v e r a l l impacts to v e g e t a t i o n were i n f e r r e d u s i n g  r a t i n g s c a l e of W i l l a r d and Marr  (1970).  Major stand i n f l u e n c e s such as p e r i o d i c f i r e s and of seepage water or t r e e d i s e a s e , e l e v a t i o n and related  to s p e c i e s composition  s u c c e s s i o n a l changes can and  and  2.  rating  do occur  at the range of s i t e s  such as t r e e  d u r i n g each s e a s o n a l i n v e n t o r y .  f o r each s p e c i e s at a  Comparisons of s p e c i e s v i g o r  t o t a l s were made to determine which seasons were best f o r  per p l o t  T a b l e s were generated  '4',  expressed  each p l o t , was  of occurrence  From t h i s , an aggregate value  of each  for classes  '3'  as a percentage of the t o t a l number of s p e c i e s f o r  determined.  experimental)  vegeta-  showing t o t a l number of s p e c i e s  f o r each season, as w e l l as the frequency  subjective vigor class.  and  human d i s t u r b a n c e s  surveyed.  presence of l i t t e r were t a b l e d f o r f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e .  tion inventories.  and  microtopography, were  V i g o r r a t i n g s were s u b j e c t i v e l y estimated  given plot  f l o o d i n g , presence  abundance to demonstrate t h a t n a t u r a l  In a d d i t i o n to t h i s , g r o s s v i s i b l e c u t t i n g and  the  Mean percent  values  for plot pairs (control  were then compared f o r each season to determine which  seasons would p r o v i d e  the best time f o r i n v e n t o r y , based on the ease of  54  species i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .  Species with v i g o r c l a s s e s 3 and 4 ( p . 48) were  e a s i e s t t o i d e n t i f y on s i t e , and from p r e s s e d and d r i e d 3.  Firewood  scavenging  specimens.  d i s t a n c e s n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n one n i g h t ' s  supply of firewood f o r two people were ranked recommendations concerning campfire use.  f o r each s i t e ,  to make  Only d e a d f a l l and dead  s t a n d i n g wood was c o n s i d e r e d . 4.  S o i l Great Groups were i d e n t i f i e d  i n f o r m a t i o n and data s u p p l i e d by W.R.  f o r each s i t e u s i n g s o i l p i t  Mitchell  (1980) and J . S . N i c h o l s  (1982, P e r s o n a l Communication^). 5.  Comparisons of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o m p o s i t i o n of ground cover  (exposed  m i n e r a l s o i l , s t o n e s , decaying wood, o r g a n i c matter and  s t a n d i n g water) a t c o n t r o l and experimental s e v e r i t y of present impacts  at the 15 s i t e s .  p l o t s were made t o rank the The impact  from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970) ( T a b l e 2) was a l s o 6. (field  rating  scale  used.  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 a c c o r d i n g to t e x t u r e determined) and percent cover o f coarse fragments-  These  limita-  t i o n s were d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n to c u r r e n t and f u t u r e impacts. L i m i t a t i o n s f o r camping use based  on measurements of i n f i l t r a t i o n  r a t e s , d r a i n a g e and s o i l depths ( e f f e c t i v e r o o t i n g depth, depth  t o water  t a b l e and LFH and Ah h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s e s ) were i d e n t i f i e d with the a i d of  the l i t e r a t u r e  review.  J.S. N i c h o l s , 1982 p e r s o n a l communication, S o i l S c i e n t i s t , B.C. Forest Products.  55  7.  Each of the  capability (1978).  r a t i n g based on  l i m i t a t i o n s posed by  overview of p o t e n t i a l  i n v e n t o r y format used  This  s h o u l d be  done f o l l o w i n g  by Walker  these f a c t o r s  was  impacts.  ( i . e . percent cover values and  w i l l a l l o w computer a n a l y s e s to d i s c o v e r use.  g i v e n an o v e r a l l campsite  21 environmental f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d  A checklist describing  used, to produce an The  15 study s i t e s was  variations  additional  r e l a t e d to  stems/ha) recreation  inventories.^  F u t u r e i n v e n t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n can a l s o be i n p u t i n t o a s t a t i s t i c a l computer package (SPSS: Nie et_ a l . , 1975) f o r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVAR). T h i s procedure would use the f a c t o r s of s i t e number and c o n t r o l l e v e l (1 = campsite, 2 = c o n t r o l p l o t ) w i t h p l a n t s p e c i e s abundances ( p e r c e n t cover or stems/ha) t o perform an areas-by-times f a c t o r i a l " c o n t r o l f - t e s t " . T h i s would r e q u i r e an a r c ( i n v e r s e ) s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of percent cover values p r i o r to i n p u t i n t o 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 i n 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 l a r g e 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 ) .  56  4.0  4.1  Plant  RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION  Identifications  I d e n t i f i e d samples have been p l a c e d i n the UBC where they w i l l be v e r i f i e d , computer database.  Several  s t o r e d and  Botany Herbarium,  a r c h i v e d i n the herbarium  l i c h e n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s were a l s o made o n l y  to genus l e v e l , as f u r t h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e d chemical  4.2  Vegetation  Inventories  Campsite and 4 through 9.  testing.  c o n t r o l plot  i n v e n t o r y r e s u l t s are c o n t a i n e d  They have been grouped a c c o r d i n g  t i o n s i m i l a r i t i e s and  t h e i r proximity  i n Tables  to p l a n t s p e c i e s  to each o t h e r .  composi-  These groupings  were s u b j e c t i v e l y compared w i t h z o n a l ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n s p e c i e s lists  from M i t c h e l l et_ a l . (1981), and  names based on these  lists  have been a s s i g n e d a s s o c i a t i o n  (Appendix 4 ) .  Nomenclature f o l l o w e d  a d v i c e of K l i n k a (1982, P e r s o n a l Communication) (Table 10). f i c a t i o n was  d e r i v e d from an e n t i r e l y s u b j e c t i v e  In the case of the Chimaphila PC  (umbellata)  (Pinus c o n t o r t a var l a t i f o l i a ) - PM  The  s u b s t i t u t e d f o r Calamagrostis  latter. all  - Paxistima myrsinites  -  (Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i var  rubescens, due  I t Is q u i t e p o s s i b l e that Calamagrostis  Chimaphila  to a s c a r c i t y of was  present  of the s i t e s i n t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n , s i n c e s e v e r a l grass  found i n poor c o n d i t i o n f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (senescent) and never keyed out due  classi-  viewpoint-  g l a u c a ) 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 ) , was  the  to a l a c k of r e p r o d u c t i v e p a r t s -  the  on some or  s p e c i e s were indeed were  57  TABLE 4.  Species  TRFF.S  List  S i t e s 1, 5 and 6:  C a m p s i t e and c o n t r o l  releve' p l o t  Plot  Canopy layer  5.0  5-6.1  records  Numbers 6.0  1.0  1.1  1  PiniU  pondfio&a.  Pieudot&uga  minzJ-Uti  B&tula papyU&tiui AceA glabum var AtnuA  incana  Thuja  pticata  AmztanclUlA  uva-uiii.  s p p . [icpcni  PaxAJ>tJjna Rota  and  myruirUXu  mitkana  ShzphzAdia  canadzntiA  Vacc4.ni.am  s p p . {caupiXoiW  Czancthut  tangivinzub  PKUadzLphuA Plunui  letoliU.  s p p . [viAginiarvx  Czanothixt  &  vziatimu  CoiyluA  aveJUana  HclocU&cui  (UACOIOK  LoniceM Ribzt Salix  daugtcuiU  attu^olia  A/ictoitaphytoi Hahotvia  var g&uica  utahzn&li  CM cum sp.  SymphoUcaJipoi  atbai  6 6 aquiiotium) 6 6 6 6 & ovati&otium} 6 6 6 emaiginata) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6  AchWLza. mitlz^olMm AttzA FfiagaAAM  cltiotatiu viAginiana  var  Alabii ImmoniA. Pzmtzmon &Mi.ticciiLi SpiAza sp. ApocUnum lligeAon  var  2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 4 4 5 4  gZauca. tcoutzJu.  1 5 5 5  .2 .2 .3 .3  6 19 10 2  .2 .4 .3 .3  1  diiH-Mun  lewfiunt AglctZJU-t  var  muLt-i^idum  .2 .1 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2  1  .3  2  .2  15 4 2 4 56 2  .3 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3  1  .3  1 1 1 9 1 2 13 19  14,2,5.3,2,2 4,4,5.3,3,3 1,+,+.3,2.2 +,+,+.3,2,2  3,+,+.2,2,2 2,2,2.3,3,3 3,3,3.3,3,3 +,+,+.3,2,2 +,+,3.3,3,3 l,+,-.2,3,+,+,-.3,3,+,+,+.4,2,2 +,1,1-3,4,3  2,+,+.2,3,2  2,2,2 •2,2,2 3,3,4 .2,2,4 2,+.+ .3,2,2 3,+,+.3,2,2 1, + ,-•2,3,3,3,3 .3,3,2 1,-.— .4,-,1,1,1 •4,2,2 4,1,1 .3,3,3  atmbaAba ctjLLndru.ca  Phacztia Sztaginztta  LinzatUi uxUCacc.i  Soiec.o sp. LnXogcnum  4,5,9.2,2,2 10,10,10.4,4,3 +,+,+.3,4,3 2,2,2.4,4,3  .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  1,4,-.2,3,3 1,1,1.4,3,3  +,+,+.3,3,3  +,-,-.3,-,-  +,+,+.3,3,2 +,+,-.3,3,+,-,-.3,-,+,-,-.3,-,+,+,-.3,2,-  +,+,+.3,3,3 +,+,-.4,3,+,-,-.3,-,+,-,-.3,-,6,6,5.4,3,3 -,+,-.-,3,-  -,+•+•-,3,3 +,+,+.3,3,3  -.+ ,-  + , + ,+ •3,4,3 1,+ ,+ •3,2,2 + , + ,+ •4,3,2  +,+,-.3,3,-,+,-.-,3,-,5,-.-,2,-  1,1,1.4,4,2 1,+.+.4,3.2 +,+,+.4,3,2 1,1,+.4,4,2  1,-,- •4,-,-  + .-,-• 3 , - , + , + ,+ •2,2,2 -,-,+ •-,-,3 + ,+ ,+.3,2,2  1,2,+.3,3,3 -,+,-.-,3,-  -,+ ,- • - , 2 , + ,+ ,+•4,3,3 -,+,-.-,3,-  +,+,+•3,4,2 +,2,2.3, 3,2 +,+,+.4, 4,2 -,+,+.-, 3,2 -,+,-.-, 4,1,1,2.3, 3,3 2,+,+.3, 3,2  +,-,+.3,2,2 +,-,-.3,-,-  +.-,-•3, +,-,-•2,  + ,+,+ .3,3,3 -,+,+.-,4,4  sp.  Hiziac-ium  2,+,+.3,3,2  icoatvU  Vicia  3 1 2 8 2 9 8 49 1 3  +,+,+.3,3,2  sp.  Cupii HzuchzAa  .3 .1 .1 .4 .0 .1 .2 .3  .1  andActazml^oLUm sp.  2 5 1 1 2 13 1 9  1,1,1.3,  amzAicana  Oithet-in sp. 0>UhucaApu& sp. Putygorum sp.  aczto&zlla  Ruj*e* fzltima  sp.  f.RASSFS,  RUSHES,  Pva  sp.  ,!.+ .-.1.3  Pea  fazndCcAiana  Stipa  sp.  Agtlupitncn  ,+,+.-3,3 ipicatum  Cinna  -,+ + ,-  3,-,3 3. 4. -  3.-.-.4,-,+,+,+.3,4,1 3,-,-.4,-.-  • 3.2 -.5.5.-.1,1  (atX^ofja  +,+,-.3,3,-  sp.  Dan t ho ilia festuca  SFDCF.S  Atznnntha  PhalanJi  Slomui  +,-,-.3,-, +.-,-•3,-,  paAvHtoiA  Wcodlia  sp.  canr.de.niii  ,3,-  58 TABLE A (cont'd)  Species  List  Plot  Canopy layer  5.0  5-6.1  Numbers 6.0  1.0  1.1  MOSSES CeAatodon puApuAza Poly&u.chm commune HomalothzcMm plnYuutx^ixLijum Polytxichum piti^Vum  +,+,-.3,3,+,+,-.3,3,-  +,+,-.3,3,+ ,+,+.3,3,3  +,+,+.3,3,3  +,-,-.3,-,+,+,-.3,3,+,+,-.3,3,-  +.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  LICHENS Ai.ict.ofua sp. Cladonia ma.te.octja.tha Cladonia ptennota Cladonia sp. 1 Cladonia sp. 3 Ne.plifi.oma he.lvcticum PefZiaVia. canina CeXtoAitL sp. 3 Cladonia sp.4 Cladonia. cuAtatztla Cladonia sp. 5 Cladonia sp. 8 lucanona sp. PanmeXXa. sp.  Tree records a r e l i s t e d  10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10  i n canopy l a y e r s  1 = veteran  -2 = Dominant (A^)  Tree, record  format follows "a.b"  where  +,+,-.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  (1-5).  3 = Subdominant ( A ) 2  a = number of stems/plot ( 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 t i n g (0-4) 0 = dead fruit).  Shrub, Herb,. Grass, Moss and Lichen  +,+,-.3,3,+,+,-.3,3,-  4 = Suppressed (A )  1• = poor  2 = fair  5 = Seedlings  3 = good  4 = reproducing  (cones,  (canopy l a y e r s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format f o l l o w s :  "a,b,c.d,e,f" where  'a,b and c " =  % cover i n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l  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 i n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l r e s p e c t i v e l y .  inventories respectively.  if  a,b,c,d,e" o r " f "  =  "x" then species was not encountered or i d e n t i f i e d during  if  a.b.c.d.e" o r " f "  =  "-" then an inventory was not done f o r that season.  if  a,b"  =  "+" then species was recorded, but i n quantity of l e s s than one percent.  or "c"  that  inventory,  flowers  59  TABLE 5 .  Species  TREES  Sites  3 and  List  4:  Campsite  and  control  releve  Plot  Canopy layer  .0  plot  records  Numbers 4 0  3-4 .1  1  Pseudotsuga  menzi.e^i.i  gtauca  var  2  3  2  4  3  3  2  2  13  3  5 2  61 1  3  31  4  1  3  4 5 4  1 3  4  PinuA  pondeAosa  PopuCus  batsami  Thuja  3  ie.ta  txlcitocoApa  var  pi!icata  5  11  1  2  3  3  11  3 3  3  1  1  1  1  3  3  1  1  0  38  3  2  1  26  1  3  3  1  3  1  3  3  3  + •+ • - 1 . 1 . 10,3,- 4,3,-  1.1.3,3,-  2  1 ,+ •- 4 . 3 , 5,5,- 3,3,-  1,1,- 4 , 3 , + ,+ , - 3 , 3 , -  4,4,-  4,2,-  + , + ,- 3,3,-  2,1," 2,3,+ , + ,+ 3 , 3 , -  5 SHRUBS" Aine t'anc Ii i e. 1 aint flu (' < j  AxctcitaphtjC.es  6  uvj-un.it.  6  Ceanotliui vciutinui SaCix bebbiana Sho.pluiA.dia canadensis Ma/uniia s p p . I l c p c i i i and Pnunus ejna.xgi.nata Pxunus viAgin-iana  6  6  aoui^otium)  6 6 6  21 .+ . " 2 60,40,- . 3 , 3 , -  6  2-  3,3,-  1 .+ , - 3 , 3 , + ,+ , - 2 , 2 , + , + ,+ 2 , 2 , 2  + ,x,x 4,x,x  1 , x , x 3,x,x  + ,+ , - 3 , 3 , 1 , x , - 3,x,-  + , + ,- 3,4,+ ,+ ,- 3,4,-  HERBS  Clumtjphita. Apocynujrt OAXhetia  lAxaeAon pAagaAia  sp. viAgitvoxna  SpiAea AAabiA AsteA  7  tmbe.Ujxta  7  andAosaemifcoLuun secunda var  7  gtauca  beAuti&otia temmonii ciZiotatui  Smilacina Jajiaxacum GRASSES,  sp.  amptexicaulis  1 , X , X 4,x,-  7  + , x , x 3, x , x  7 7 7  + • + ,- 4 , 3 , -  7  7  1 ,x,- 3,x,+ .X.- 4,x,-  + ,+,- 3,4,-  7  + ,x,x 3,x,3,2,+  3,3,2  x,x, 2 X. + . - x , 4 , + ,+,- 4,x,x,x,+  + ,x,x 4 ,x,x  SEDGES AND RUSHES  B-Xomus s p p . Sitanion htjstxix OAtjzopsis exigua Stipa sp. MOSSKS  5. + , - 3 , 4 , + , + ,- 3,3,-  8 8  x,+ ,- x , 4 , -  8 8  x, + ,- x , 4 , -  + ,x,- 4,x,-  + ,x,x 3,x,x  + ,x,- 4,x,-  + , X , X 4 ,x,x  + , X ,x 3 , x, x  AND LIVERWORTS  HomaZot/iecXum p-innati^idiam VicAAHum  &cvp<xiium  Vicuxtuim  |5u^cc-se*Li  Viciium  pottjittiun  PtaQ-Lothccium BKachtjthtcium V\e.)Mnoc£adu$  undalatum cUbicattt ana na tut  Minimi ipttiul'i'imn lUii'ium  t'/ili.Wii rjjMniMJ  9  x,+  9 9  + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , + ,3 - . 1 , 3 , + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , + ,+ - . 3 , 3 , -  9 9  9  9 9 9  3,x  -•3,x,-  + X -.3,x,+ + -.3,3,-  X + -,x,3,+ + -.3,3,-  + + -.3,4,+ X -.3,x,-  + + -.3,3,+ X -.3,x,-  5 8 -.3,3,-  + X -.3,x,-  X 3 -. x, J , 4 X x .4 ,x ,x  x ,'>,). x, 1,1 1 , x , - . 'I, x .  TABLE 5 (cont'd)  Species list  Canopy layer  Atcctolia CAinatiA QeXrwAA.a sp. 2 Cladoivux chlonophaexL Cladonia g^acitii Cladonia mitij> Heplviuma heivet.icum Cladonia .-uuigifaeAina Cladotua squamosa Pe.iCi.geAa aplitlwsa  10 10 1 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10  Pettige.\a Ciiiu'na  Stcieocaulon spp.  P l o t  3.0  +,, + ,-.3,3,-  ,_, . + ,-.x,3,+,x,-.3,x,+ , ,x,- •3,x,+ ,,+,- •3,3,+, ,+,- •3,3,+, ,+,- •3,3,-  +,  e™ 3-4.1 N u m b  + , + ,-•  4.0  3,3,  , + ,-•3.3, + , + ,-•3,3, +, ,+ ,-•3,3, x,, + ,-• x,3, + ,x, , -• 3,x, + , + ,-•3,3,  -.3,3, +, + ,-.3,3,  •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 "  if if if  "a,b" and "c" = X cover in spring, summer and fall inventories respec t ively. "d,e" and "f" « subjective vigor rating in spring, summer and fall respectively. "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 done for that season. "a.b" or "c" - "+ then species was recorded, but in quantity of less than one percent. M  61  rt i n  n  N  M  rt  K n  N n  m  rt <T X O rt  rt  + <*>  X  N  «  N  1 ^  N  +  rt  rt  <N  rt  n  tM m  s  +  X  +  +  +" <r* +*  O  -  n  *  -mm  - - X X u-> O * -  -+  -  X  - »«  . "1 . .  rt  m  CN  + +  * * *o  O  x  r*i m r-» ^+ f-i m  - —  +  rt  CM C M  •4  n rt +  11 ' +* +[ +* +  +  M +  +* +" X* CN  (N CM (M  rt  N  N  O  «tfrtrto rt + + *o J - . -o *  I  +  fM "O  i  rt  W  rt  rt  CJ  - . °1 "1 "1 +  N  in o -  -  rt rt rt rt rt rt rtrtrt  l~1  <—)  (s7 rt  rt CNrtrtrt  CM  + + in o — *  *  * CM  -  CM rt rt rt rt rt  rtrtrtrto  rt rt rt rt rt rt  rt rt rt O rt rt * • * CN • • ii* + CN - + +  CM  * » »o  - " 0  CN  0 * 0  rt  CN  r> sj N  m  n  -  N  o  +  - -  4  +  +  rt rtrt rt rt %a rt rtrtrt rtrtrt x <r <j CM  CM  (N  CN  00^ +  +  —  *o + in  rt  rt  rt  rt  in  +  n <N  O  x — —• X  —  r-i  i  00  —•  — —  x  CN  rt  rt rt rtrtrtrtrtrt  CM  —< i n  x  +  (N  <r —  X  X rt rt  X +  rt rt  O  CN  rt  (—"i rt ^7 r*"> c**>  »tn * o  .  CN  »  • * m rt —  co m m  X rt rt CN  X  rt  X rt  X* +^ + +"CN  +"  X* X* +* 'CNrt<tm~5tnrt%j  mi  rt <r  m rt  -<j  3  1! 23  I 5  3  s  -3^  62  xx x x* x* x" XXX  +v +* X* X x m x x" m Xm 4-' + X* +* x" +*  1  +  +V +~ mm m mm mi mm y, i +.+. 4-^ 4-V 4-* 4-"+* x" mm i mm i mm i (  +A  mmm  1 +" +" +" +  +  +  mm mm mm  Xm X X mxmm mxm x X 4^ X X +* x* in + • " + X m" x"  J" +  +V mm m x <r m m m mm m m +*+* X^ X 4; +  Xm xm mm X 4-^ x* +* +" +*  A I +  +  4-V +*' +*+ m x mm mm +* X^ +"m*  Xmmmm mxm xm m x mm x mm mm X \ +. +, +X + - *i + * " +" +" x" +" 4-* +  +  mm x Xmm X m* x" \ + * x* +" 4-" X + x*  4-^ +* +* C M X m x mm m m • Xm x m + X* + r +*m* -f +" x m x"  ff>* * m m <  I  0> W U\ l7i IJ\ o\ (U l  OA O l 0~i i  o o o o o < > C5  C7> C,i c>' O O O O O  63  cvj x CN Kcvirg X co CN x co ^ X cn X X* X* X* X*  .!. 41 * +'  +  +  +'  CN CM CM X n fl N n -*r co x co + ' +' CO X  +_  + +" - T +"  +  +" +" x" +*  CN  cn co  x  +  X_ — +^ x" +* +^ x" X x" x" x" +" X  in o u • CJ 0\  Xi  a  CN X co -cr* x* CO co -3+ CN X +" «T X* +" m* S CO  X  cn  XX  XX  X en en en  cn x x" X n -T en X + X X  X X  X* cn cn X X +* ~T X  x" - T ~T +"  x*-T +"  CN  X  I*  CM en en cn  en x"  +_  X X*  cn  X x"  x"  +* x"  +"  CN CM  X  X X  cn CN x" cn m m  1 \ *i +*+* X +  CN  X X  cn  +* +*  cn x x" X x cn  X  X  X  X  +*  +"  X X  m <r  tn  +* o  X X +"  cn cn  +  - o + en  X O*  x *r  r  + x x* x" X* X* x" +" l"  CN X en cn oi vr X* X*cn + X -* +*CN  +*  + ui  x x" +  ++  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 - Veteran 2 - D o a l n a n t (A ) 3 • S u b d o m l n a n t (A ) T r e e r e c o r d f o r m a t f o l l o w s " a .b" w h e r e " 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- d e a d 1 t  S h r u b , H e r b , C r a a s , Moss "a.b.e.d.e.f" where "a.b" and " c " "d,e" and " f I f "•>•>,c,d,e" o r " f " "a,b,c,d,«" o r " f " "a.b" o r " c "  and L i c h e n • • • •  2  4 - S u p p r e s s e d (A3)  poor  2 • fair  ( c a n o p y l a y e r s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) r e c o r d  5 -  3 - good  Seedling*  4 - reproducing  (conea, flowera,  format f o l l o w s :  X c o v e r I n s p r i n g , summer a n d 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 . s u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a t i n g s I n s p r i n g , summer and f a l l r e s p e c t i v e l y . " x " t h e n s p e c i e s was n o t e n c o u n t e r e d o r I d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g t h a t Inventory. "-" t h e n ah I n v e n t o r y was n o t done f o r t h a t s e a s o n . "+" t h e n s p e c i e s waa r e c o r d e d , b u t I n q u a n t i t y o f l e a a t h a n one p e r c e n t .  fruit)  TABLE 7. Sice IS:  Campsite and c o n t r o l releve plot  Specie. L U t  TREES  Canopy layer  P l o C  records  N u  "  b e r  15.0  15.1  1  Abie* Ouioauipa,  Pitudotiuga  Picea Pinu*  aenZ4.ea.ci var  tuglOujuvu. *onLLcola  glauca  2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 4 5 2 *  Thuja pCLcoAa Ace* giabAum var  douglai-ii  Tiuga met^eruidna  5 5  8 3 2 3 16 7 5 3 8  .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3  6 8 10 35 15 3  .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2  +  5  .3  1 4  .3 .3 .3 .3 .3  10 2 5  3  +  .2  +  1 +  .3 .3  + +  5  •  3  []  .3  •  3  SHRUBS  2  atniioLin.  Ame/anc/iie*  Lbinata  bcUMLcs  Sotbuj 4i£cheiui£ Vacciniui* mewo/uxnaceum thododwdAon  acbi^fo/UiW  Kubta perintut,  6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6  -, + .- -,3 - -.1 •- -.4 - -,+, - -.3 - -.+ • - -.3 - -.40.. .-.2 -  - -.5.-,-,4 - -.35.-,-,2  HERBS ChunaphU-a xmbeJLLaXa. GoodytAA obZongi.iotia  QntJieJUa. a ecu ruin  -.1.-  7 7 7  - -,+ .- -,3  9 9 9 9 9 9  -.10.- .-.3 -,+ .- -,3 -,+ .- -,3 -, -, + . - -,3 -, -.10.- .-.3  -.3  -.3.- -,3  -.2.-,-,3 —  . -.••-•-.3  MOSSES AND LIVERWORTS V-icAomun ^aaoeaeni HylocotoLum ApLtodtnb Lophozjjx sp.  Polyt>Uchum cosmune  thyCixUadeZphuA  PtiXiavuL  Cladonia  LOILLU,  apktkoia.  dejoAsiia  10 10  -.7--.-.4  -, -.'•-.-.3 -, -.3.-,-,3 -, -.+•-.-.3  -,  -.3 — i -.3.-,-,3  -, + .-, -.3 -, + .-, -.3  Tree records are l i s t e d In canopy l a y e r s (1-5). I - Veteran 2 - Do*miruint (A.) 3 - Subdo»icuint (AjJ - SuppruHHud (A.^J '> - Sii-d 1 I H K Trec record format f o l l o w s "a.b" where a - percent ground cover/plot (note that s i t e IS was not Inventoried using stem/ p l o t counts) b - s u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a t i n g (0-4) 0 » dead 1 - poor .2 - f a i r 3 - good •* * reproducing ( f l o w e r s , cones, f r u i t ) . Shrub, Herb, Grass, Hoaa and Lichen (canopy l a y e r s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format f o l o v a : "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" * s u b j e c t i v e vigor r a t i n g In s p r i n g , 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 " » "-" t i n n .tn Inventory w.is not .l.>ni- l o r 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  cn cn cn cn <f I vt n m X X <r m o m en 101*1* i" i* X - o *- » - •cn cn CN  • CM  co  —< CN  co  +  •  • +  . °1 - - +  +  +  •  X  •  +  i i r i" r i* mm -cf m <r cn m m cn m m m <r en x -« m»<r mm i l -a- I <r m m * X >m I I -II - • m <r ^l 1/1 i i + + m <r -i + r-j + + o - - o m + in m x uiIm I 1 I l I1 x m x x m <r x x • • »n vr m *m.x <r <r* *X- -X- -a-•> <r<r-<rx <r *vf<•r<r« *m x c n -a* x i i i* i* r i • rI I I I II 1 I + + x X + + X X+ ui +m x" +* +" *++ +* X X ui +"X+* «* X* +" II I I l x m X^^<j-mxmmcN<rmmmtN<t - x -a- m » en en x -cr x x <r m <r *. '. *. '. '. C •* •* •* " * •* '• •* >"i* X irt i . „ \ *i ^ \ ~ i 1 1 *i 1 1 1 * + + + * + x* * + *+ * m * « ~1 * *1 \ °i * + ^ * * * * -* -" +" " x" * +* x* +* +* +" I I I I I 1 I I II I I I I I I I I II m m <r x <r <r »-sr -* <r en <r en x <<r-<m <r -j- m x - <r -<r x <rm <r m sr* - x r- •+'- o*+-> «« +« •f +_ +^ • +I*+ * - » - . - * i . . CN X  ~4  -  -  X  -  +  X  -  +  X  CN  -«  CM  -  -  -  X  X  C N X •> -  X  X  *  X  <t +  CN  CN  1  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  •*  4  -J  X <t  +  +* +* +*  . * " t .«*1 + +  +  i i* r r i* r  cn <r -cr cn x en <r m m m + ui + "+ +" x+*  +  +  +  +  +  +  * \ \ \ *i " +  X  i i i t" r r  x x<* x x -<r <j- <f v r ~ j X N <r ~j n <r  - X cn x - en CN" m * +* II I I I I  X  X  m  CN  +  +  X  " +" +"  <r ui m m t/i  • r*» r-* r^- ^« r^. r*. r-«. p  j 5tiO O O cj Oc " d-tf ti ti «  «  a  a  67  m en X X X en  en cn M en en 1 +• o-en en  K  K  <f * ^ r i* To r r +^ < Mm++ " CN + + K i i r i" i* r t* r en en cn cn cn <r X l cn m l I t i* t* +. »* + * +^ co +* X* X X  CM  K X X*  t  M x"  X cn X •d- X < T en CN  •<f• O OinI• K m K* —  +  +" +" K K  CN +  -  M  x  CM  + K^  +  o  CM  IN  X  CM  +* +" x"  cn X »en-•cncn*cn . <r-^ *m* • l I • t- •l * I t . U-l . + . . + * + \o - ^X •u-Ut"• + l o+- Xx  CM  X - - X CN -*X «c X *• O 1n » -  + rn + cn m cn« cn• r• -> > »m* cn* cn* l c-n .. o• • . „ + r» X I I I I* * * m m cn x  x  +  +  x  +  x x  CM • » - • * t~i t~\ m en  .  x  1+.*1 —" +* X* K+ +  +  II 1 I I I  cn cn cn cn cn ++X x  +* 4-"  ooaofloaoaooooocooDooaocofloao  o o »-i  Cr^ Cr^ CT» CT CT> Cf^ N  TABLE S icent'd)  c S  , p  "  1  "  ,, "  r  U  Canopy layer  P l o t  11.0  II.I  12.0  Numbers 12.1  U.O  U.I  -.10,10.-.3.3  -.x.+.-,x.3 -,x,+.-,x,3  MOSSES. LIVERWORTS (cont'd) -,+,x.-,3,x  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  -.+.X.-.3.X -,X,10.-,X,3  -,x,+.-,x,3  -.+.+.-.3.3  -,x,5.-,x,3  -.x.+.-,x,3 -,+.x.-,3,x -.X.+.-.X.3  -.10,10.-.3,3  -.+.x.-,3,x  icliracum  UnOm ipinutosum Pohtia sp. Pohtia mutant PohtiA wallnbtnqii PotyVUchm comunl Polytrichia* tlxangulaA.t HhacomiX/Uum canucen* Rhacomitxiun suditicum Rhytidiadtlphu* tc-Xtui  RhytidiadtZphuA  -,+,x.-,3,x  -,x,+.-.x,3 -,x,5.-.x,3 -,+,x.-.3,x -,x.+.-,x,3 -.M.5.-.K.3  -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,10.-,x,3 -,+,x.-,3,x  -,x,+.-,x,3 -.X.1.-.X.3  tqua/wiui  ,+.x.-,3,x  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  -.+.+.-.3,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.+,x.-,3.x  -,+,+.-.3.3  -.+.•.-.3,3 -.•.+•-.3.3 -,+.x.-,3.x  -.•.•.-,3.3 -.1.1-.3.3 -,«,+.-,x,3 -.".•.-,».3 -.•.•.-,3.3 -.•.«•-.3,x  -.+.«.-.3,* -,+,x.-.3,x  -.•.X.-.3.K  -,+.x.-.3,x -.+.X.-.3.K  4 - Suppressed ( A 3 ) 5 • Seedlings '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 ( a l l Inventories) b - subjective vigor rating (0-4 0 - dead 1 " poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 • reproducing (cones, flowers. fruit) . 2  Shrub, 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 f a l l 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 ^one for that season. "a,b" ur "c" • "+" then species was recorded, but in quantity of less than one percent.  CO  TABLE 9.  Sites 10 and 13: Campsite and Control Releve Plot Records  Canopy layer  Species l i s t  Plot 10.0  Numbers  10.1  13.0  13.1  TREES  1  Abie*  loiiocaApa.  Pinui  albiamtii  Picea  Ttuga  2 3 4 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 4 5  engztmannii  maxteju  uxna  Caiiiupz  mzAtzniiana  Phi/tfoduce  empetMjoimcA  Loa.iiztcuA.ia  pAocumbeiii  Phyttodocz  gtanduti{,£»w  Vaccitiium  dzticioium  Vaccitiium  membAanaczum  EmpztAutn  nigAum  JuiiipzAwi  communii  subsp.  RhododzndAon  albi&loAum  Vaccinium  ovali£olium  Salix sp.  alpitvic.  6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6  10 3  .2 .2  -.36,10.-3,4 -,50,9.-.3,4 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,x,+.-,x,4 -,+,+.-,3,4  6 8  .3 .3  1  .3  1  .3  -,75,40.-,4,4 -.10,7.-,4,4 -,+•+•-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,4 -,+,+.-,3,3  -.2,2.-,4,3  26 35 60 5 1  .2 .2 .2 .1 .3  2 1  .3 .2  5 3  .2 .3  -,35,35.-,2,3 -.30,20.-,3,3 -.15,4.-.4,4 -.5,4.-.3,4 -.2,15.- ,3,4 -,+,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,3,x -,6,2.-.4,3  2  .3  2 2 2  .3 .3 .3  2 2  .2 .2  17,10.-,3,3 - 17,20.-.3,3 - 6,+.-,3,3 10,10.-,4,4  -  -,3,15.-.3,4  HERBS kAnica spp. EAigeAon  peAzgAinut  HieAacium  ttoutvii  LuzXkza  pzcXinaXa  VzAaXAum  viAide.  VzAonica Pulsatilla CatXha  var  tic.liichotX.zii  woAmikjotdii oceXdznXalii tzpta&zpala  IzptaAAhziyx  vat  pyAoti  otium  Rammcului spp. Saxi^Aaga  -,x,+.-,x,3 -.+.+•-,4,2 -,+,+.-,4,3 -.10,5.-,4,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -.+.x.-,4,x -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.10,20.0,4,4 -,+,x.-,4,x  bAonchialii  SaxifaAaga  lyaJUii  Saxi^Aaga  occidzntalii  Sznzcio  tAiangulaAii  Vat.eAia.na  tiXchzn&ii sp.  AnlznnaAia AAZitOAia  capittoAii sp.  CaAtitlzja Delphinium  ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,+,+.-,4,3 ,x,+.-,x,4  -,+•+•-•3,3 -.+.+•-.4,x  ,+,x.-,3,x  gtaucum sp.  EAigzAon EAiogonum  sp.  Haptopappui lijalLLi Lycopodium Viota  bi^toAa  -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -.+,+•-,4,3 -,20,10.0,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-,4,3 -,+,+.0,4,3 - . ! . + •-.3,3 -,+,+.-,4,3 -,+,+•-.4,3  ,+,x.-,4,x ,+,x.-,4,x  -,x,+.-,x,4 -.1,1.-.3,4 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,15,5.-.4,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -,x,+.-,x,3  +,x.-,3,l - +.X.-.4.1 - +,x.-,3,x +,x.-,3,x  -,+,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,4,x -,+,x.-,3,x  -- +,x.-,4,x +,x.-,4,x - +,x.-,3,x  -,+,x.-,4,x -,x,+.-,x,3  iitchenit  aaunca  -  ,+,x.-,4,x  GRASSES, SEDGES, RUSHES C o a c x spp. KoZAt itl  tflornu.* AgAuitii  CaAex  spp.  ii|>p>  -,x,+.-,x,4 -,+,x.-,3,x  sp. mauwchazta  X X x X  + . - x,4 +.- x,3 +•- ,x,3 + . - x,3  JuncuA spp. Luzuta hitchcockii COAZX AupZ&tAii Vahlodia alAopuApuAza EAiophoAum sp. Phatajiii sp. Stipa sp.  + + . - 3,3  -,+,+.-,3,3  X + . - x,3  +,+•-.4,3 - ,x,+.-,x,3 - ,x,+.-,x,3 ,x,+.-,x,3 ,x,+.-,x,4 - +,+•-,2,3 +,+.-.3,3 - x,+.-,x,4 x,+.-,x,4  -  - 1,x.-,3 ,x  - , X +.-,x,3 - ,x + • " , * , • - , K +.-,«,) - , X +.-.X.4 -,+ +.-,2,3  70  TABLE 9  Canopy layer  Speclei U s e  (cont'd)  10.0  10.1  Plot  Nuabars 13.0  13.1  MUSSES AND LIVERWORTS AutacomiUw palatini VicAanum paltLditttum Icphozia spp. PottjlAichum pitiivum  RluictmucfLuiW  faacicutaAt  \UAsupilla sp. Plutanotut iontana Pohtia sp. PolytAAxJmix nxanguloAS. Sphagnum s p . 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  9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9  -.•,+.-.3,3 -.•.•.-.3,3  10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10  -.+.+•-,3,3 -.+,•.-.3,3  -,•,•.-,3,3 -,•,+.-,3,3 -.3,1.-.3.3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.•,x.-,3,x  -.2,+.-,3,3 -,+,x.-.3,x -.2.3.-.3,3 -.x,2.-,x,3 -,+.x.-,3,x  -,x,3.-,x,3 -,x,5.-,x,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -.2,2.-.3,3 - . 2 , 2 . - ,3,3 -,x,2.-,x,3 -.2,15.-.3,3 -,2,x.-,3,x  -,•,+.-,3,3  -.3,5.-,3,4 -.1.1.-.3.4 -.1,1.-,3,4 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,3,x -,x,l.-,x,4 -,+,x.-,3,x -,l.+.-,3,3 -,+.•.-,3,3 -,x,+.-,x,3  -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,3 -,x,+.-,x,3  -,+.x.-,3,x  LICHENS CtadoiUa chtoKophata SttAtocauton iu.batbA.caat SteAcocauton atbicant AllCtOAAa bicolol CeXAOfUa itlandica Baomyctt s p . 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  -,l.x.-,3,x -,+,+.-,3,3  -,+,+.-,3,3 -,+,+.-.3,3 -.5,5.-.3,3 -,+,x.-,3,x -,+,x.-,5,x  -,+,x.-,3,x  -,+,x.-,3,x  -.+.+•-,3,3 -,+,+.-,3,3 -.+.+•-,3,3 -.5,5.-.3,3  -,1.x.-,3,x -,x,+.-,x,3  -,+,x.-,3,x  -,+,x.-,3,x  -,+,x.-,3,x -,x,+.-,x,3  Tree records are l i s t e d l a canopy l a y e r s (1-5) 1 - Veteran  2 - Dominant (A,)  Tree record format f o l l o w s : where  3 - Subdominant  (Aj)  « - Suppressed ( A j )  5 -  seedlings  "a .b"  a - number of scema/ploc ( 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) dead fruit)  1 - poor  2 - fair  3 • good  4 • reproducing (cones,  Shrub, Herb, Graaa, Hoaa and Lichen (canopy l a y e r s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) record format f o l l o w s : "a.b.c.d.e.f" where " a . b and c " • and f " • i f " a . b . c . d . e " or " f " " a , b , c , d , e " or " f " " a . b " or " c " -  X cover In s p r i n g , summer and f a l l Inventories r e s p e c t i v e l y . s u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a t i n g 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 , " x " then speclea wes not encountered or i d e n t i f i e d during that Inventory. " - " then an Inventory waa not dona f o r chat season. " • " then species waa recorded, but i n q u a n t i t y of l e s s than one percent.  flowers.  71  TABLE 10.  P l a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s d e r i v e d from v e g e t a t i o n (from Appendix 9)  S i t e Numbers  1, 5,  3,  6  4  B i o g e o c l i m a t i c Subzone^  inventory  plots  Ecosystem A s s o c i a t i o n ^  PPBG-d, IDFC  Arctostaphylos  transition  Spiraea  IDFC  Arctostaphylos  (uva-ursi)  -  ( b e t u l i f o l i a ) - PM  (uva-ursi)  and  7, 8, 9  IDFd  11,  12,  14  PM  Chimaphila ( u m b e l l a t a ) Paxistima  15  ( m y r s i n i t e s ) - PC  and  13  Vaccinium (membranaceum) - AL and  ESSFpf  Phyllodoce  (empetriformis)  ATb  Biogeoclimatic  PE  PE  Lycopodium (alpinum) - L u e t k e a (pectinata) - Phyllodoce  1  PM^  ESSFf  Cassiope (mertensiana) — AL and  10,  3  -  s p i r a e a b e t u l i f o l i a - PP and  2,  PP  Subzones were taken from M i t c h e l l et al»  (spp.)  (1981).  ^Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n s were e x t r a c t e d from M i t c h e l l e t a l . (1981); K l i n k a (1982, p e r s o n a l communication) and M i t c h e l l (1980, u n p u b l i s h e d ) . 3  Species  abbreviations:  PM PP PC AL PE  = = = = =  Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i var g l a u c a Pinus ponderosa Pinus c o n t o r t a var l a t i f o l i a Abies l a s i o c a r p a P i c e a engelmannii  ^ T h i s ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n name i s t e n t a t i v e pending f u r t h e r 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  a s s o c i a t i o n i n the Atb subzone ( s i t e s 10 and  13) was  sp.  named d e s p i t e the r  l a c k o f Lycopodium alpinum. though, t h i s campsite  According to Hitchcock e t ^ a l .  (1959),  s p e c i e s h y b r i d i z e s with L. s l t c h e n s e , which was  p r e s e n t at  13.  S i t e numbers 5 and 6 (Table 4) have been designated as o c c u r r i n g i n a t r a n s i t i o n between two  b i o g e o c l i m a t i c subzones:  PPBG-d and  IDFC  (Appendix  4).  V e g e t a t i o n composition on these s i t e s most c l o s e l y  resembles  the A r c t o s t a p h y l o s ( u v a - u r s i ) - S p i r e a ( b e t u l i f o l i a ) - PM  and  PP z o n a l ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n (Table 10) as d e f i n e d by M i t c h e l l et^ a l . (1981). The  r e l e v e t a b l e s (4 through 9) l i s t  stems/plot  f o r each of f i v e canopy l a y e r s ^ ) .  r e c r e a t i o n impacts stems/hectare. herbs  t r e e s p e c i e s abundances i n of  to t r e e s were made by c o n v e r t i n g stems/plot  Species occurrences  to  i n canopy l a y e r s 6 to 10 (shrubs  - g r a s s e s , rushes, sedges - mosses and  been l i s t e d  Determinations  -  l i v e r w o r t s - l i c h e n s ) have  a c c o r d i n g to estimated percent cover, with o c c u r r e n c e s of  l e s s than one  percent d e s i g n a t e d as "+".  The above t a b l e s i n c l u d e  i n f o r m a t i o n on s p e c i e s abundances and v i g o r r a t i n g s f o r s p r i n g , summer and  fall  inventories-  'With the e x c e p t i o n of s i t e number 15 (Table 7 ) . T h i s s i t e was i n v e n t o r i e d u s i n g " s p e c i e s percent cover" d u r i n g the s i n g l e survey completed. Bad weather p r e c l u d e d a d d i t i o n a l surveys to determine t r e e stems/plot.  73  4.3  Tabular The  Comparisons of Campsite and C o n t r o l P l o t V e g e t a t i o n  v e g e t a t i o n data  from T a b l e s 4 through 9 were analysed  determine i n v a d i n g , i n c r e a s i n g ( i n abundance), d e c r e a s i n g and removed s p e c i e s , r e s u l t i n g Two  to totally  from r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a m p l i n g .  a n a l y s e s were made.  The  first  i d e n t i f i e d only those  which showed a c o n s i s t e n t change of at l e a s t one was  Results  percent.  species  Consistency  judged by the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1.  change o c c u r r e d mental p l o t  at more than one  s i t e as determined by e x p e r i -  s p e c i e s abundance minus c o n t r o l p l o t  species  abundance. 2.  more than 50 p e r c e n t p a t t e r n , e.g.  of occurrences  f o l l o w e d the  designated  i n v a d i n g , i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g or  totally  removed s p e c i e s . If t h e r e was  any  reason  to suspect  t h a t the c o n s i s t e n t change was  n a t u r a l f a c t o r s such as m i c r o t o p o g r a p h i c made.  Table  11 l i s t s  d i f f e r e n c e s , then a note  invading, 7 i n c r e a s i n g , 5 decreasing,  those  They are l i s t e d and  second a n a l y s i s was  and  16 t o t a l l y  removed s p e c i e s .  d e s c r i b e d i n Table  s i m i l a r to the f i r s t ,  some impacts ( r a t e d as ">1" Table  except  t h a t only experienced  on W i l l a r d and Marr's (1970) Impact  12 l i s t s  these  were l i s t e d , with the f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n :  species.  site  11.  s p e c i e s which o c c u r r e d at a s i n g l e s i t e known to have  S c a l e ) were used.  was  41  Of t h e s e , e i g h t s p e c i e s d e s i g n a t i o n s are q u e s t i o n a b l e , based on  The  to  the s p e c i e s which showed a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n .  S i x t y - t h r e e s p e c i e s were l i s t e d , w i t h the f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n :  differences.  due  In a l l , 47  Rating  species  18 i n v a d i n g , 8 i n c r e a s i n g , 5  TABLE 11. Impact indicating plant species: invading, i n c r e a s i n g , decreasing and t o t a l l y removed species as indicated by > 50% of m u l t i p l e occurrences.  INVADING SPECIES  REMOVED SPECIES  Trees:  Popului balsami&eAa. var tAichocaApa (3/3)  Shrubs:  CeanothuA'Sanguineus (4/4) Phyllodoce. glanduli(,oAa (2/3) Rhododendron a.lbi^toAum (2/3)  1  R.i6&s spp. (3/3) RubuA levLCodeAmiA (2/2)  AntennaAia spp. (2/2) AAab-u lemmbnii (5/7) AAenaAia capitlaAis (2/2) AsteA conspicuus (2/2) AsteA ciliotatus (4/5) CAepii atAa.baA.ba (3/3) Epitobum glarduloium (2/3) EAigeAon sp. (4/6)  Grasses: Rushes and Sedges  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) AgAopyAon ipicatum var ipj.cat.um (3/3)Poa itena.nX.ha (3/4) BAomuS sp. (4/6) Cinna lati&olca (2/3) Sita.nA.on hystAix (2/3) Festuca. sp. (2/2) S-tipa spp. (4/6)  Mosses: and Liverworts  CallieAgon stAamineum (2/2) CeAatodon puApuAeus (2/2) VicAanum mu.eiilmbec.kU. (2/2) VAepanocladus uncinatus (2/2)  Mttium 4pina£o,5um (2/2) RhacomiXAium canescens (2/3) RhytidJjxdelphus loAeui (2/2)  Lichens:  Ce^totta s p . l (2/3) CetAOAia s p . (2/2)  Ctadonia $imbAiata (2/2) PeltigeAa canina (2/3)  1  5  3  INCREASING SPECIES Tree seedlings: A£na4 -otcana subsp. ienu-ci$oita (3/3) Shrubs:  AmelanchieA atni^olia. (6/9) Phyllodoce empetAi&oAmis (4/5)  Herbs  Ca£#ia leptoiepala Var bi^loAa (3/3)  Grasses Rushes and Sedges  (CoeA^uj. sp. (3/5)  Pinu6 pondeAOia (3/5)  7  5  Trees:  AceA glabAum var dcugla-iii (3/4)  Shrubs:  CoAtjltii avellana (2/2) Philadelphus leuisii (2/3)  nc£o(icdcuJ discoloA Si£ix spp. (2/2)  Herbs:  MyoiO-tia Sylvatica LiXhophAagma paAvifiloAum  Smi£izce»ia Aacemosa (2/2) var amplexicaulii (2/3) i'ectisia sp. (2/2)  Mosses: & Liverworts .  Au£accmnium andAogynum (2/2) BAachythecium albicans (3/3)  PicAiinum polyietum (3/3)  Lichens:  Cladonia Aangi^eAina. (3/4)  L-{adonia Squamosa (2/2) PeltigeAa aphthoia (4/5)  Trees:  Pinus contOAta tatidotia (5/7) Pinus albicaulii  S  Herbs:  EAiogonum s p .  Lichens:  PettigeAa cotlena (2/2)  5  (2/2)  (2/3)  (2/2)  i n category ( I . e . Invading  2.  AAenaAia. capiltaAii has apparently invaded s i t e s 10 and 12. S i t e 12 has experienced no use. Hitchcock et_ a_l^ (1964) stated that t h i s species p r e f e r s w e l l drained h a b i t a t s . This best t y p i f i e s c o n t r o l p l o t s at s i t e s 10 and 12.  3.  PediculaAii gAoenlandica grows i n a s s o c i a t i o n with creeks ( H i t c h cock £it a_l., 1964). This i s the case at c o n t r o l p l o t s 11 and 12. Therefore, the species i s not an invader.  4.  CallieAgon StAomineum grows i n areas of l a t e 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 c o n t r o l 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 , w e l l drained mounds.  8.  Pinm albicaulii was found only on c o n t r o l plot 14, and occurred i n greater abundance on c o n t r o l p l o t s 10 and 13. 'This tree i s prized for firewood i n Krummholtz areas, which may account f o r 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 s i t e s 5 and 6. Since these two campsites had only one c o n t r o l p l o t , on which the above species occurred, there may be some " s i t e f a c t o r " which accounts f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n .  VeAonica woAmskjoldii (2/3)  Pseudotsuga menziesii var g£auca (18/32)  Piiiui a£b-tcau£u (2/3) 9  "3/3" r e f e r s Co number of occurrences s p e c i e s ) / t o t a l number of occurrences.  DECREASING SPECIES Tree seedlings:  y  75  TABLE 12.  Impact i n d i c a t i n g p l a n t s p e c i e s : i n v a d i n g , i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g and t o t a l l y removed p l a n t s p e c i e s , as i n d i c a t e d from s i n g l e o c c u r r e n c e s a t s i t e s r a t e d >1 on W i l l a r d and M a r r ' s (1970) Impact R a t i n g S c a l e  INVADING SPECIES Shrubs  Clematis  aj.fu.na.  Herbs  Aconitum cotumbianum AAaZia nadicauZis A/uUca spp. DispoAum hooktAA. Pznstzmon ^Awticotus var scDuZexi  Rumex acetocetta Saxi^Aaga occidzntaZis SibbaZdla pAocumbzns TiaAzZta uniiotZaXa TAogopogon dubiuA  Grasses  AgAOptjAon ipicdXum AgAostii zxaAata  Vanthonia sp. OAyzopsib exigua Poa pAaXznsis  Mosses  DicAanwn iaaAA.com Hytozomiam splzndens PohZia natani  Pszudolzskzzla RhytXaUadztpkus  Lichens  Baomiycea AU^US  Ctadonia capiXata Ctadonia CAXstatelSjx Ctadonia pyxidata SttAtocuZon sp.  CziAOAia CttAoAia.  EmpitAum nigium  sp. 4 islandica  sp. tAiquztAis  INCREASING SPECIES Shrubs  Betula  Sedges  CoAZX HlpCitAXi AACtua  gta.ndaio.ia  JunipzAus Sambucus  &alcata  L ic hens  Ctadonia  Tree seedlings  Picea aigei/iu/uvw.  Mosses and liverworts  Hylocomium  Lichens  AZzcXonia  cumnanis czAulza  OicAamm sp. Pohtia ap.  sp. 7  DECREASING SPECIES  UaASupztla  splzndens  Cladonia  bicotoA  sp. sp.  TOTALLY REMOVED SPECIES Trees  Populus  tAzmuloidzs  Shrubs  VibaAnwn opuZus s u b s p .  Herbs  AcXza AabAa  Mosses  VicAanum sp.  Lichens  Ctadonia  sp.  tAiZobium  Ptilium  sp.  subsp.  alpina  76  decreasing  and  6 t o t a l l y removed s p e c i e s .  i n c l u d e d s i n g l e occurrences p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s .  Since the second a n a l y s i s  o n l y , l e s s confidence  can be used i n i n t e r -  I t i s u s e f u l however, i n i d e n t i f y i n g s p e c i e s  to be  f u r t h e r monitored over the long term. Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s c o n t r o l and  of s p e c i e s composition  campsite p l o t s were ranked a c c o r d i n g  d i f f e r e n c e s between  to magnitude.  This  was  done so t h a t the 15 s i t e s c o u l d be compared i n terms of t h e i r r e t e n t i o n of o r i g i n a l s p e c i e s  composition-  F i g u r e 3 shows these percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s  i n five categories:  1.  c o n s i s t e n t l y invading  species  2.  c o n s i s t e n t l y i n c r e a s i n g species  3.  c o n s i s t e n t l y decreasing  4.  c o n s i s t e n t l y removed s p e c i e s (found  5.  a d d i t i o n a l species i n the above four c a t e g o r i e s , but o n l y once.  species on c o n t r o l p l o t s  Campsite numbers can be r e f e r r e d to F i g u r e 2 to i d e n t i f y locations.  I t should  prominent category had  only) occurring  subzones  and  be noted that i n v a d i n g s p e c i e s formed the most  of impact r e l a t e d change.  S i t e s 2, 5, 6, 7 and  over 10% of the t o t a l number of s p e c i e s o c c u r r i n g o n l y on  plots.  The  next l a r g e s t group was  at s i t e  #4)  with  i n c r e a s e r s and  "totally  decreasers  8 all  campsite  removed s p e c i e s " ,  (highest  being approximately  equal  overall. F i g u r e 4 compares the d i f f e r e n c e s i n bare m i n e r a l experimental  and  c o n t r o l p l o t s w i t h impact r a t i n g s of W i l l a r d and Marr  (1970).  The histogram  based on  these  ratings). Figure  2.  s o i l between  two  f u r t h e r ranks the s i t e s from low  c r i t e r i a (bare mineral  Locations  and  to high  s o i l d i f f e r e n c e s and  subzones f o r each campsite can be  impacts impact  found i n  17  100. 908070« 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 o r p e r s i s t i n g on c a m p s i t e s  1 • invaders 2 " increasers S p e c i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y abundant o r p r e s e n t o n l y plots: 3 " decreasers 4 • t o t a l l y removed j 1  1  species  }« 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 o c c u r r e n c e s o f i n v a d i n g , i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g and t o t a l l y removed s p e c i e s  N • T o t a l number o f s p e c i e s  Figure  3.  on c o n t r o l  per p l o t .  P e r c e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f impact i n d i c a t i n g s p e c i e s : o c c u r r e n c e s a t more than one s i t e  consistent  78  1  0  0  i , ^  « i n bare m i n e r a l s o i l (Z area of substrate) between experimental and c o n t r o l p l o t s .  D  i  f  f  e  r  e  n  25 20 15 10 5 0 S i t e If  11  12  0  10  14  15  13  1.  3 i  Impact Rating from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970)  4  54  Figure 4.  Comparison of d i f f e r e n c e s in bare m i n e r a l s o i l between c o n t r o l and experimental p l o t s and impact r a t i n g s from W i l l a r d and Marr (1970)  79  The  rank order of s i t e s  i n F i g u r e s 3 and 4 were compared t o d e t e r -  mine i f s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n changes were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the gross visible and  changes i n h e r e n t i n the bare m i n e r a l s o i l d i f f e r e n c e  impact  ratings.  though s i t e s scale  13 and  From t h i s comparison,  than 10 p e r c e n t , F i g u r e 3). sites  13 and  The  15 have some v i s i b l e  their original  i t should be noted  15 were r a t e d as "2" on the 1-5  ( i n F i g u r e 4 ) , they possessed  estimates  few impact  impact  that even  rating  indicating species (less  i n f e r e n c e from t h i s i s t h a t  although  impacts, they have r e t a i n e d most of  s p e c i e s compositions  and abundances.  Table 13 i s a summary of v e g e t a t i o n p l o t i n v e n t o r y r e s u l t s f o r each canopy l a y e r  (1-10, w i t h t r e e canopies  heavy o u t l i n e s around experimental p l o t on a broad  1-4  combined).  values with  them s i g n i f y l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n t r o l  values.  These are i n d i c a t i v e of r e c r e a t i o n  s i n c e o b s e r v a t i o n s suggest r e c r e a t i o n a l use or damage.  had  and  impacts,  s c a l e , s i n c e canopy cover v a l u e s would be expected  e q u a l f o r c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t s i f no impacts  of those  Cover  to be  o c c u r r e d , and  t h a t c o n t r o l p l o t s have r e c e i v e d no The  following i s a plot-by-plot  description  impacts:  Campsite #5  Grasses: Campsite 5 c o n t a i n e d two adventive g r a s s s p e c i e s (Agropyron spicatum and C a l a m a g r o s t i s s p . ) , and an e x t r a abundance of Poa stenantha which may be a r e s u l t of t r a m p l i n g .  Campsite #1  Tree s e e d l i n g s , shrubs, herbs, mosses ( e t c . ) and l i c h e n s : 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., F e s t u c a sp. and P h a l a r i s sp. have invaded t h i s campsite as evidenced by t h e i r absence on the c o n t r o l p l o t .  TABLE 13. Vegetation Inventory summary with impact Interpretations  Site number anc c o n t r o l leve 1  Canopy layer (data per p l o t )  I  CO' •  campsite  . 1 - c o n t r o l 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  15/6  18/13  17/10  20/6  26/5  58/5*  U/7  11/7  28/10  16/6  53/10  27/12  13/8  Herbs (7) (X cover/* of species)  11/12  ll/K)  11/18  23/6  14/22  9/9  Grasses, Rushes, Sedges (8) (Z cover/tf of species)  6/4  2/2  3/6  bosses, Liverworts (9) (X cover/)? of species)  2/1  1/1  Lichens (10) (Z cover/M of species)  2/4  2/4  species)  I S i g n i f i e s vegetation i n campsite *  S i g n i f i e s the presence  12/10  5/4  5/7  4/7  11/16  1/2  8/14  11/6  6/3  1/1  1/2  2/4  5/7  0/0  7/4  0/0  |32/3  2/3  5/1  13/1  8/6*  15/6  4/7*  7/5  2/3  6/6  1/1  7/5  6/9  3/6  4/7  8/6  4/7  1/2*  7/4  1/1  0/0  1/1  3/5  5/K  7/10  4/7  plot has been damaged or a l t e r e d .  of Increasing or Invading species.  ' S i t e 15 tree records -are not stem counts.  37/11  Data are presented  as estimated Z cover.  1/2)  TABLE 13. Vesicae ion ; nventory nummary wi th impact i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s (cont'd)  Canopy  S i t e number and c o n t r o l l e v e l  layer  9.0  9.1  15.0  T r e e s (1-4) (stems/ha)  1137  904  88Z  T r e e s e e d l i n g s (5) (stems/ha)  1795*  1381  8  S h r u b s (6) (Z c o v e r / * o f s p e c i e s )  19/6  21/6  46/8  Herbs ( 7 ) (Z c o v e r / * o f s p e c i e s )  9/5  8/3  5/3  G r a s s e s , Rushes, Sedges (8) (Z c o v e r / * o f s p e c i e s )  0/0  0/0  M o s s e s , L i v e r w o r t s (9) (I c o v e r / # o f s p e c i e s )  9/9  L i c h e n s (10) (Z c o v e r / * o f s p e c i e s )  9/8  (data per p l o t )  |  :3. 1 1!. 1  ('. 0' - c a m p s i t e  (1.1  12.0  12.1  0  0  .1 - c o n t r o l p l o t ) 14. 1  10.0  10.1  13.0  163*  209  88  140  922*  200  18o]  73  100  14.0  »:»  151*  0  33  430*  25  226*  0  1023*  558  I 88  13/7*  2/3  6/3*  1/1  108/10  105/9  55/9  80/6  76/10*  40/4  3/3  34/16  38/27  30/36  37/32  58/19  50/12  21/21  21/13  15/13*  2/2  0/0  0/0  2/4*  37/7  42/7  39/8  13/11  9/8  1/2  3/6  6/10*  3/5  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  1/2  1/2  0/0  1/1  0/0  3/6  4/8  3/6  4/5  1  1  42/5  1/1  3/5  I S i g n i f i e s vegetation In campsite plot has been damaged or a l t e r e d . *  13.1  S i g n i f i e s the presence of increasing or invading species.  ^Site 15 tree records were not stem counts.  Uata are presented as estimated X cover.  9/8  8/7  82  Campsite #7  Trees and t r e e s e e d l i n g s : T h i s campsite was axe, thus r e d u c i n g o v e r s t o r y s p e c i e s cover.  cleared  by  Shrubs, h e r b s , g r a s s e s , mosses and l i c h e n s : Most of these u n d e r s t o r y s p e c i e s have f l o u r i s h e d under the r e c e n t l y opened canopy.  Campsite #2  Trees, t r e e s e e d l i n g s , shrubs, herbs and l i c h e n s : A l l have been reduced i n percent cover and abundance as a r e s u l t of t r a m p l i n g and c l e a r i n g . Grasses and mosses: have invaded the campsite, s i n c e i t was c l e a r e d , and the l a y e r of Douglas maple (Acer d o u g l a s i i ) l e a f l i t t e r was removed from the f o r e s t floor.  Campsite #8  Trees: were c l e a r e d from the c e n t e r of t h i s campsite f o r the e r e c t i o n of a Teepee frame. In a d d i t i o n , the camps i t e i s l o c a t e d on an e l e v a t e d g r a v e l bar which i s too w e l l d r a i n e d f o r dense t r e e growth. G r a s s e s : Because t h i s s i t e i s w e l l drained and because i t has s u f f e r e d some compaction from t r a m p l i n g , i t contained a g r e a t e r abundance of r e l a t i v e l y more drought r e s i s t a n t g r a s s e s (Bromus sp. and S t i p a s p . ) .  Campsite #9  Lichens: A number of t r e e s were f e l l e d and l e f t on the ground at campsite #9. T h i s o v e r s t o r y t h i n n i n g has promoted d r i e r c o n d i t i o n s conducive to l i c h e n growth.  Campsite #15  Tree s e e d l i n g s : campsite.  Campsite #10  Tree s e e d l i n g s : Have most l i k e l y been reduced by wood scavenging on t h i s campsite.  Not outlined.  Have been reduced by  trampling  on  this  a l l l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s between p l o t p a i r canopy cover values In some cases,  mounds are r e s p o n s i b l e  site  f a c t o r s such as drainage and  f o r the observed d i f f e r e n c e s .  These  are  presence of instances  83  are  explained  i n the f o l l o w i n g s i t e - b y - s i t e summary o f v e g e t a t i o n  inconsistencies:  Campsite #5  Trees: The campsite t r e e canopy contained fewer l a r g e r t r e e s (A^ and A 2 ) , but as a consequence had a much l a r g e r number of smaller t r e e s ( A 3 ) .  Campsite #6  Trees: The campsite contained more A]^ and A£ t r e e s and thus had fewer openings f o r the growth of A 3 t r e e s . Tree s e e d l i n g s : A l a r g e number of D o u g l a s - f i r s e e d l i n g s were c l u s t e r e d under a s t r e s s e d A 2 t r e e which had a heavy cone crop.  Campsite #3  Tree s e e d l i n g s :  Same as Campsite #6.  Mosses: Moss s u r v i v a l i n t h i s hot dry a r e a (Lower S t e i n ) r e q u i r e s shading. Since the campsite had l e s s of i t than the c o n t r o l p l o t , moss cover was a l s o lower. Shrubs: The campsite's shrub cover was a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e times that of the c o n t r o l p l o t as a r e s u l t o f t h e presence of a more open o v e r s t o r y .  Campsite #4  Mosses:  Same as campsite #3.  Campsite #8  Tree s e e d l i n g s : of the o v e r s t o r y  Campsite #9  Tree s e e d l i n g s : Tree c u t t i n g and d i s e a s e (Pine bark b e e t l e ) has reduced the dominance of the o v e r s t o r y and i n c r e a s e d t r e e s e e d l i n g growth.  Campsite #11  Trees: The campsite contained a l a r g e mound (not found on the c o n t r o l p l o t ) which was drained w e l l enough f o r the s u r v i v a l of t r e e s . Tree s e e d l i n g s :  Tree c u t t i n g has reduced the dominance and i n c r e a s e d t r e e s e e d l i n g growth.  Same as above.  Shrubs: Same as above. A l s o , the campsite's s t r e a m s i d e 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 s p e c i e s .  84  G r a s s e s , rushes and sedges: C o n t r o l p l o t 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' h a b i t a t , which i s not as p r e v a l e n t at Campsite 11. Mosses and l i v e r w o r t s :  Same as above.  Campsite #12  Tree s e e d l i n g s  and shrubs:  Same as campsite 11.  Campsite #14  Trees:  Campsite #10  Mosses and l i v e r w o r t s : C o n t r o l p l o t 10 i n c l u d e d a s m a l l ephemeral pond which supported f i v e a d d i t i o n a l moss and l i v e r w o r t s p e c i e s (over the campsite). T h i s accounts f o r the seven percentage p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e .  Campsite #13  Trees: A rocky outcrop s h i e l d s a l a r g e number of Krummholtz t r e e s (Abies l a s i o c a r p a ) from bad weather a t campsite 13, thus i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r s u r v i v a l .  Same as campsite 11.  Shrubs, herbs, g r a s s e s , rushes, sedges: T h i s campsite i s s i t u a t e d on a r i d g e top, p r o t e c t e d from severe weather by i t s concave shape. The c o n t r o l p l o t i s on a n o r t h e a s t e r l y exposure which has made i t l e s s conducive t o the growth of s e v e r a l s p e c i e s o c c u r r i n g a t the adjacent campsite.  A number of 'trampling species,  r e s i s t a n t ' and "trampling  susceptible" plant  (32 and 23 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) were chosen from e i g h t other  of r e c r e a t i o n impacts i n areas s i m i l a r i n v e g e t a t i o n Stein basin  f o r comparison w i t h the s p e c i e s  listed  studies  composition t o t h e  i n T a b l e s 11 and 12.  Each s p e c i e s was found a t one or more campsites i n the S t e i n (Appendix 3).  Since  the above s p e c i e s were picked  representing  only  a p o r t i o n of the f u l l  from a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e , complement of s p e c i e s  identified  85  at S t e i n campsites,  comparisons of o v e r a l l numbers of each  would not  facilitate  trampling  resistance indices.  category  the development of campsite ( v e g e t a t i o n  a s c e r t a i n whether any  What i s important  however, i s to  of the s p e c i e s i d e n t i f i e d by  impact prone or r e s i s t a n t  community)  other authors  as  showed a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n i n the S t e i n .  Of the 61 s p e c i e s  listed  i n Appendix 3, only 17 showed s i m i l a r  responses to t r a m p l i n g  (Table  14).  trampling  resistant  s t u d i e s reviewed.  i n this  Twelve s p e c i e s were found to be  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as w e l l as the  F i v e were c o n s i s t e n t l y s u s c e p t i b l e to t r a m p l i n g .  a d d i t i o n a l s i x s p e c i e s were i d e n t i f i e d as t r a m p l i n g and  i n c r e a s e r s ) i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s reviewed. remaining  previous  No  38 s p e c i e s l i s t e d  resistant  s u s c e p t i b l e i n the  An  (invaders previous  c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s were i d e n t i f i e d  f o r the  i n Appendix 3.  These r e s u l t s c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d i n two  Firstly,  i t is  p o s s i b l e t h a t s i n c e most of the campsites s t u d i e d have to t h i s  point  s u f f e r e d only minor impacts, trampling. cited  (38)  The  other explanation  showed no  between c o n t r o l and trampling  o n l y a few  s p e c i e s (17) have responded to  i s that s i n c e most of the 61  experimental  p l o t cover  percentages i t may  r e s i s t a n c e i s determined to a l a r g e extent  a s m a l l extent  species  c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n , or c o n t r a d i c t o r y p a t t e r n s  f a c t o r s such as m o i s t u r e regime and  t r u t h may  ways.  from s i t e - t o - s i t e .  by  site  be  (5), that  specific  n u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y , which vary Which e x p l a n a t i o n  to  i s c l o s e s t to the  be a s c e r t a i n e d once the r e s u l t s from a l o n g term i n v e s t i g a t i o n  of the S t e i n have been  analyzed.  crj  l-t  OACJI  vO r-s ct)  — > >—v  *  ni it  0">rtCTicic^cj>rjirjNrt  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  o  cd CO cd cd in in in m r-~ crv Q\ cr.  ""  1-1 OJ cu cu a a B B 0 OJ OJ OJ (1) o CO 0 o O rx< Pi M  u  U vO r-. cd r-v cr>  £ ON M9  •a >>  UUJJUrJ'^UU ii) (i) oi c d c d r d c d t i s c d r d  cd cd cd cd i-i 4-1 4-» 4-1 in c n " o " • 0) U) in in *H r l r l •  vO CO N  a- X i X> X X) 01 r l - r l T ! - r l 4J 4-* 4J 4J  o. a a  E  a  3 OJ OJ OJ OJ 3% (J (J O O ^ 10 I A 10 IA CO 3 3 3 3  rH * J rH l-i ca r l CO H 3 X u  CN m m r-. ^  H X> •rl 4-t  > < OJ B <D o  «:  "™' ij OJ B OJ o oi  OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ  H X >H 4-»  i-l X> r l 4J  oj OJ oj o u o io io (A 3 3 3 to ui in  oj u to 3 in  a  i-i OJ B a) o oi  H Xt ^ *-t  r l H XI X TI r l 4-1 4-J  a a a a  a  aj OJ u o n 3 3 io tn  IA  CA  <i vo I D a )  i  TJ  U IUO (Tj r H  OJ  4J4J4-J4->W«£t-l«J  cd rd <d m m in r-  a> o\  co r  - j on I N • -I  tn tn ui  <D  O  H  f t o - CN  oi m  OJOJ0JOJ0JOJOJOJOJ' 4->4-l4-J4J4-l4->4^4-l4-> tn cn tn to in tn  O rt  <y\  vf CI  01  L i U U M V i U I - i M M l - i t - i a ) OJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJcd T j T j T J T J T J ' O T J T J T J T l T I 0) cQcdctlcocOcdcdcdcdcoctl)-! > > > > > > > > > > > o C C C C C C C C P C C d  > o  a> > > > o o o  u  s .  "3  "  ~~ C  *1  g o  OJ OJ OJ OJ 4J 4J 4J 4-1 rl rl r l rl • 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  OJ OJ TJ  U  t>J c j c j J 3  * - <J rt  » » •  n cn M OJ 4-1 CO CO Ul OJ - H QJ OJ OJ 4-1 03 4J * J 4J  o o  -a -a  oo a : o u a .  87  Tabular analyses which campsites  of v e g e t a t i o n data p r o v i d e d  information  have s u s t a i n e d the g r e a t e s t impacts.  are yet a v a i l a b l e to compare w i t h these impacts,  concerning  Since no use  one  can only  data  conjecture  as to which p l a n t communities are most s u s c e p t i b l e to t r a m p l i n g damage.  4.4  Vegetation Vigor Class Species  Ratings  v i g o r r a t i n g s of '3' and  number of s p e c i e s at each p l o t c o n t r o l and  experimental  (Table  '4' were summarized f o r the 15).  The  mean percent  total  values f o r  p l o t p a i r s were then compared between seasons  t o determine when the best p l a n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s from  collected  specimens c o u l d be made. As  shown i n T a b l e  s p r i n g and and  15, most s i t e s  summer, with l i t t l e  c o u l d be i n v e n t o r i e d i n both  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the percentages  of  'good'  'reproducing' v i g o r c l a s s e d s p e c i e s . I f 80 percent  the c u t - o f f value  of the t o t a l number of s p e c i e s i s a r b i t r a r i l y used f o r the occurrence  of  '3' and  '4' c l a s s e d s p e c i e s ,  then i t i s apparent that i n v e n t o r i e s at s i t e s 5 and should  be done i n the s p r i n g o n l y .  6 (PPBGf  subzone)  Because i n v e n t o r i e s were not  completed  f o r a l l season and  necessary  to determine whether some of the h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s i t e s  be i n v e n t o r i e d i n s p r i n g and The  p l o t combinations,  In the case of s i t e  should  15 r e p r e s e n t  those  s i t e s which  may  of e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e s p e c i e s i n a g i v e n season. 13, which has  the h i g h e s t e l e v a t i o n of the 15  a s p r i n g i n v e n t o r y would most l i k e l y f i a b l e herb s p e c i e s .  some c o n j e c t u r e i s  summer.  d o t t e d heavy l i n e s i n T a b l e  have h i g h percentages  as  result  i n a s m a l l number of  sites, identi-  TABLE 15.  Plot  vigor  ratlnga  from s p e c i e s  1  vigor classes  for s p r i n g , summer and r j l l  S i t e number and c o n t r o l Season  Parameter  5  .0 Number of SPRING  species  X of species rated ' 3 " and ' 4 '  Number of  SUMMER  species  X of species  and ' 4 '  rated  species  X o f species FALL  '3'  and  '4'  rated  Mean X f o r e x p e r i mental and cont r o l plots  ' v i g o r c l a s s codes : S i t e numbers: 1-15 I  I  0 - dead  3 • good  40  36  77  33  36  85  78  81  7  .0  41  39  88  95  .0  33  21  82 100  81  80  8  .1  .1  91  11  .1  .0  39  29  97  97  10  .1  .0  38  31  35  97  97  97  92  12  .1  .0  35  94 100  97  1  level  .0  3 . 1  .0  30  30  29  34  90  90  90  85  .0  33  32  75  91  97  2  .1  .1  83  90  4  9  .1  .0  33  34  27  31  82  88  95  90  85  88  .1  .0  13  .1  .0  14  .1  32  42  32  42  21  43  36  31  33  44  42  30  33  33  30  39  26  27  27  24  27  33  31  47  28  42  34  75  81  69  81  95  85  88  88  97  97  91  87  93  85  72  96  79  88  88  88  88  88  97  81  87  86  95  94  78  75  90  97  88  89  89  84  84  20  22  19  23  39  16  34  37  26  25  27  27  60  77  58  77  62  80  65  84  65  56  66  77  69  68  1 - poor  71  75  61  2 - moderate  4 - reproducing - f l o w e r i n g or  Control l e v e l s :  .0 - experimental plot  Refers to Inventories during periods of more than 80X of  88  88  - -  72  89  -  .0  15  .1  i  93  32  Mean X f o r e x p e r i mental and contt r o l plots  Number of  .0  .0  Mean X f o r e x p e r i mental and cont r o l plots  6  .1  .1  Inventories  87  95  i  29  30  S3  28  52  39  31  30  93  77  89  89  98  92  94  90  85  89  95  92  fruiting .1 • c o n t r o l  species  plot  rated as ' 3 ' or  Refers to Inventories projected to be during periods of more than 801 of species  '4' rated  '3' or  '4' CO CO  89  Some s i t e s may inventory. sites  13,  be  subject  This occurred 14 and  to s n o w f a l l s , making them i m p o s s i b l e  at s i t e  10 i n e a r l y J u l y of 1980  15 i n August of 1980  Based on Table  15,  the f i n a l  and  e a r l y J u l y of  and  to  1981  and  1981.  recommendation as to when to  inventory  are: 1.  Carry  out at l e a s t two  2.  Concentrate  i n v e n t o r i e s at each  on s p r i n g and  site.  summer seasons, l e a v i n g the  e l e v a t i o n s i t e s to the l a s t , d u r i n g each i n v e n t o r y  highest  cycle.  w i l l ensure that s p e c i e s f l o w e r i n g i n both s p r i n g and will  be  species  c o l l e c t e d and record.  changes over a number of  the o p p o r t u n i t y  to monitor s p e c i e s  from 3 to 0 on campsites, A l s o i n the e a r l y stages  cone p r o d u c t i o n may  occur  i n c r e a s e i n the number of The  h i g h l i g h t e d by  i d e n t i f i e d with  to t h r e e  be o b t a i n e d  remaining  at  ratings  '3' on c o n t r o l  of p h y s i o l o g i c a l s t r e s s , an i n c r e a s e i n  v e g e t a t i o n i n v e n t o r y per  monitoring  the f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n t p l a n t s p e c i e s may  subalpine  'waves', and  meadows (ATb  inventory.  f o r g r a s s and  be  flower.  and ESSFpf subzones) bloom  t h e r e f o r e a complete s p e c i e s l i s t  from more than one  t h a t blooming p e r i o d s  an  '4' r a t i n g s .  c e r t a i n t y o n l y d u r i n g the p e r i o d s i n which they  Most of the a l p i n e and i n up  and  by  ( i n c o n i f e r s t a n d s ) , and would show up as  need f o r more than one  p e r i o d was  vigor  years.  For example, a d e c l i n e i n t r e e v i g o r would be evidenced  plots.  summer  i d e n t i f i e d , thus p r o v i d i n g a complete  Vigor r a t i n g s w i l l provide  dropping  This  Similarly,  may  t h i s study  only showed  herb s p e c i e s i n the lower S t e i n  (PPBGf, IDFd, IDF subzones) tended  to be at d i f f e r e n t  i n s t a n c e s g r a s s s p e c i e s had shed t h e i r seeds (making  times-  In most  identifications  d i f f i c u l t ) p r i o r to the appearance of the many f l o w e r i n g herb s p e c i e s In both  survey y e a r s , most grass species were senescent  by mid-June,  w i t h herbs r e a c h i n g f u l l bloom a week or two l a t e r A b a r k b e e t l e 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, P e r s o n a l Communication^) has a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s of a s i n g l e low l e v e l a e r i a l reconnaissance S t e i n t h a t a l a r g e percentage  of lodgepole  of t h e Lower  pine and Engelmann  spruce  stands have been s t r i c k e n . It  i s apparent  from s u b j e c t i v e ground o b s e r v a t i o n s  that  this  outbreak  may be a f f e c t i n g the lodgepole pines a t s i t e s  Evidence  of pine t r e e c u t t i n g has been noted a t s i t e s 7, 8, 9 and 2.  4.5  Firewood Scavenging  Distances  Firewood scavenging  d i s t a n c e s were assessed  minimum r a d i u s necessary two  people.  Sites  '7' and '9'.  according  to the  to o b t a i n one n i g h t ' s supply of f i r e w o o d f o r  Most campsites  had ample firewood c l o s e a t hand ( T a b l e 16).  11 and 12 i n the ESSFpf subzone r e q u i r e d a 100 m r a d i u s s e a r c h and  campsite  10 i n the ATb subzone r e q u i r e d a 350 m s e a r c h .  I f D a v i l l a ' s (1979) d e t e r m i n a t i o n that an average camper i s w i l l i n g t o s e a r c h a r a d i u s of 70 m i s used as a firewood shortage t h r e s h o l d , then the above t h r e e s i t e s a r e candidates  f o r a ban on c a m p f i r e s .  Dr. P. Murtha, 1981 p e r s o n a l communication, P r o f e s s o r , F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  91  TABLE 16.  Average firewood  Campsite #  1, 2, 3, 4, 6,  scavenging  distances  Radius f o r 1 n i g h t ' s (m)  7, 8,  9  10  13,  15  20  5,  14  30  11,  12  100  10  350  firewood  92  Other had  high e l e v a t i o n campsites  low scavenging  deadwood.  (13 - ATb  subzone and  d i s t a n c e s f o r a very l i m i t e d  14 - ESSFpf)  supply of Krummholtz  T h i s dead wood would d e p l e t e r a p i d l y with  use.  Campsites i n the dry, open-grown PPBGd subzone (5 and f u t u r e concern, due  to the p o s s i b i l i t y of heavy use, and  deadwood p r o d u c t i o n . with deadwood and  4 .6  6) may  be  of  limited  A l l other s i t e s appear to be adequately endowed  a c a p a c i t y t o produce i t .  S o i l Inventory R e s u l t s S o i l Great Group names and parent m a t e r i a l o r i g i n s f o r each camp-  s i t e - control plot lists  combination  are l i s t e d  i n Table 17.  Appendix 9  the S o i l Great groups f o r the e n t i r e S t e i n a c c o r d i n g to M i t c h e l l  e_t_ a_l_. (1981) and N i c h o l s (1982, P e r s o n a l Communication). expected  most s o i l s i n the lower  f i e d as Humic Regosols  As would be  f l o o d prone v a l l e y bottom were  and E u t r i c B r u n i s o l s on undeveloped  classi-  glaciofluvial  material. Sites  f u r t h e s t west, i n the wetter  t r a n s i t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d was  as Humo-Ferric p o d z o l s .  found at a c i r q u e b a s i n s i t e  were found at high e l e v a t i o n At each p l o t ,  subcontinental climatic region  (#10), while Humic and L u v i c G l e y s o l s  ' l e v e l meadow' s i t e s (#11  'surface s u b s t r a t e ' was  as d e f i n e d by Walmsley e t ^ a l .  A Eutric Brunisol  divided  and  into s i x categories  (1980):  1.  water  4.  organic  2.  bedrock and b o u l d e r s  5.  decaying wood  3.  cobbles and  6.  exposed m i n e r a l  stones  #12).  matter  soil  93  TABLE 17.  S i t e number  S o i l inventory r e s u l t s : material origins  Great group  Great groups and parent  Parent m a t e r i a l  origin  1  Humic Regosol  undeveloped  glaciofluvial  material  2  Humic Regosol  undeveloped  glaciofluvial  material  3-4  Humic Regosol  undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l and c o l l u v i a l m a t e r i a l - >500 cm t h i c k  5-6  Humic Regosol  undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l  material  Regosol  undeveloped  glaciofluvial  material  Regosol  undeveloped g l a c i o f l u v i a l  material  7  Eutric  Brunisol  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  10  Eutric  Brunisol  Cirque b a s i n  11  Luvic  Gleysol  l e v e l meadow i n steep s i d e d v a l l e y sediment t r a p  12  Humic G l e y s o l  l e v e l meadow i n steep s i d e d v a l l e y sediment trap  13  Humo-Ferric P o d z o l  s h e l t e r e d g r a n i t i c r i d g e o v e r l a i n by a t h i n veneer of t i l l  14  Humo-Ferric P o d z o l  l e v e l meadow i n steep s i d e d v a l l e y sediment t r a p  15  Humo-Ferric Podzol  colluvium, horizon  sediment  v o l c a n i c ash i n Ah  94  Each ground cover type was it  occupied  (Appendix  r a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the percent of the s u r f a c e  11).  The  i n f o r m a t i v e r e g a r d i n g impacts Exposed m i n e r a l t o t a l surface area. ranged  from  soil  'exposed mineral s o i l ' c a t e g o r y was  (Table 18).  at campsites  ranged  from <1 t o 30% o f  When compared with c o n t r o l p l o t s ,  none to 20 p e r c e n t .  The  d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n of p r i m i t i v e 9.0  two  differences  recreational  facilities.  These campsites  Marr's 0-5  impact  of  1.0  10% or l e s s of t h e i r s u r f a c e area as exposed m i n e r a l  In  the case of s i t e 1.0,  mineral s o i l . 1.  T h i s was  were the o n l y two r a t e d as  '3' on W i l l a r d  and  A l l other s i t e s , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n  both c o n t r o l p l o t and campsite most l i k e l y due  to two  had  15%  soil. bare  factors:  Both p l o t s a t s i t e 1 a r e s i t u a t e d on f l u v i a l sand d e p o s i t s , which do not support  2.  Campsite  c o n t a i n s 'Adam's  Shelter'.  scale (Table 2 ) .  the  s i t e s r a t e d h i g h e s t were used  i s a d j a c e n t t o the Cable C r o s s i n g , and 2.0  had  most  l a r g e amounts of p l a n t cover.  The open nature of the IDF  zone t r e e canopy and  riverside  l o c a t i o n of both p l o t s promotes removal of l e a f l i t t e r  by  wind. S i t e s s i t u a t e d on g r a n i t e c o l l u v i u m tended boulder coverage  ( s i t e s 5, 6 and  Lower S t e i n tended to  lowest:  because i t was  little  4).  S i t e 2, had  stone coverage  rock.showing  S i t e s 9 and  and  sand  15 on c o l l u v i a l  a t the s u r f a c e .  sites  and  i n the  (from h i g h e s t  no exposed rock of any k i n d ,  most probably s u b j e c t to s i l t  during recent f l o o d i n g . had  7), while recent f l u v i a l  toward high cobble and  3, 8, 1 and  towards high bedrock  The  accumulation parent m a t e r i a l s ,  four high  elevation  TABLE 18. Comparison or" exposed mineral s o i l area (X of substrate) at c o n t r o l and experimental plots with Impact ratings from Table J (WlUard and Marr, 1970)  S i t e number and c o n t r o l l e v e l ^ 1  Parameters  Exposed mineral s o i l (Z)  11 .0 .1  12 .0 .1  .0  Cl  <1  10  <1  <1  5  3  1 . 1 .0 .1  10 .0 .1  10  <1  15  15  0  14 .0 .1  2  <1  15 .0 .1  3  1  7 .0 .1  4  2  3 .0 .1 4  3  0  8 .0 .1  10  5  13 .0 .1  8  0  6 .0 .1 3  10  2  4 .0 .1 4  9  9 .0 .1  0 30  10  2 .0 .1  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 r a t i n g 0 » none 1 - some 2 • much  0  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  Impact r a t i n g from W i 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  —  l  S i t e numbers:  2 ^-Control l e v e l :  1-15 .0 » experimental (campsite) plot .1 - control plot  J  S i t e s 5 and 6 share a s i n g l e c o n t r o l p l o t , due to t h e i r proximity  "'Sites 3 and 4 share a s i n g l e c o n t r o l p l o t , due to t h e i r 5  A l l <IX values were set at .SX f o r comparisons  proximity  96  valley  sites  little  rock coverage  (7%),  due  (10, 11, 12 and of any  14) which have served as sediment type.  Campsite 13 had  some exposed  to the s c o u r i n g e f f e c t s of wind on i t s slope c r e s t  'Decaying wood' and  of  position.  by  'mineral s o i l ' .  measurements were i n c o n s i s t e n t i n the lower  where coarse fragments  bedrock  'organic matter' s u r f a c e s u b s t r a t e s decreased  p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y w i t h an i n c r e a s e i n percent coverage Penetrometer  t r a p s had  Stein,  impeded i n s e r t i o n of the penetrometer.  t h i s problem, i t i s recommended t h a t t r a m p l i n g compaction  Because s t u d i e s be  d i s c o n t i n u e d or m o d i f i e d w i t h the use of 'bulk d e n s i t y ' measurements. P o t e n t i a l compaction identified  by examining  shown i n Table 12 and  19,  soil  growth may  also  be  t e x t u r e and e f f e c t i v e r o o t i n g depths.  these f a c t o r s t o g e t h e r are l i m i t i n g a t campsites  As 11,  14.  Low soil  problems r e l a t e d t o p l a n t  infiltration  texture ( s i l t y  than 10 p e r c e n t ) and T h i s was  and  loamy c l a y ) , low coarse fragment  high water t a b l e  most pronounced at campsites  severe l i m i t a t i o n All  r a t e s ( l e s s than 20 cm/hour) were r e l a t e d content  ( l e s s than .5 m from the 11 and  to f i n e (less  surface).  12, and would prove  to be a  f o r human waste d i s p o s a l .  lower S t e i n s i t e s have good drainage as evidenced by h i g h  infiltration  r a t e s , coarse fragment  content and  low water t a b l e  levels.  T h e r e f o r e , no l i m i t a t i o n s f o r waste d i s p o s a l would e x i s t as l o n g as p i t privies  are l o c a t e d away from ground water recharge areas  s i t e s ) and  (seepage  running water.  Hoffman et_ _al. (1975) found a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i n L F H and Ah  soil  h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s e s and h i g h numbers of i n v a d i n g p l a n t s p e c i e s .  TAILS 19.  Cups I t *  l l a i t a t t o o s b*t«d on M a i u r a a e n t i  of ««l«cted i o l l  partnwtcr*  S i t * H i n i b o r aod C o o t r o l L a v a l 1  Soil  t  3>  2  1  pnuitit  7  5*  J  8  -. .1 Soil  tartura'  Surfaea C M I M (X o f a r e . ) Infiltration (en/hr)  fragaanta  rataa  Dapth t o v a t a r t a b l a (cm) Effactlv* <c«)  I lafara  cs  frs  m  •  •a  l o  ol  90  so  60  to  >t00 MOO  >J00  .0 vcs  .1  .0  .1  vcs]  .0  .1  .0  .1  .0  .1  .0  .1  .0  .1  s  S  s  s  FS  rs  s  s  rs  PS  SL  SL  vcs  20  10  ]  10  to  IS  12  15  ts  25  S  10  SO  so  •0  90  ISO  250  2t0  250  IS  22  6)  ts  400  too  too  too  •0 >200 >200 250  >20O  Cootrol  5  Sltaa  *  >200 >200 >200 >200 >200 >200 >I50 >I50  t  to eaapatta r a r l a b l a a  t  1  alfalfrlof  «  5  imitations  s  s  ts  ts  s  )  3  1  J  5  5  t  t  f o r eaaplns  .0 .1  -  • a p a r l a a o t a l (caapalta) c o n t r o l plot  plot  3 aod t a h a r a a c o a a o o c o o t r o l p l o t do* t o t h a l r  proxloity.  S i t . . 5 and t a h a r a a c o a a o o c o n t r o l p l o t doa t o t h a l r  proalaUy.  5 5 ii t.Ktur.: 0  i  tt  .0 j SICL  12  71  It  13  .1  .0  .1  SlcL  LCL  LCL  L  .0  .1  .0 L  15 .1  .0  Llaitatlooa  .1  CL  q  SL  SI  Dlaplacaaaot nuekloi aod a r o d l b l l l t y Erodibility  5  5  «  1  5  3  10  2  3  2  3  ;  50 J20  20  7  t  t  t  10  10  100  100  55  to  3  >too >too >too >too >too MOO >300 >300 >too >too 250 250 J-50 0-20  I S l t o nuaber* 1—19 1  11  .1  .0  vcs  >200  10  71  25  25  24  26  100 0-30 0-20 21  21  22  Dralnaga-cootaaunanta aod a u c k l n g  0-2C  22  >300 >too >too >too 3t  -1  sb  50  Plant  growth  aod a u r r l y a l  LFH • A h M i l h o r l t o o t hlckn.ia (ca)  |  .1  CS  •0  rooting dapth  .0  2  9  rs • f l o a aaad CL - c l a y l o a n  I " aaod CS - c o a r a a oand VCS - v a r y e o a r a a aand LCL - l o a n ? d a y SICL - a l l t y c l a y .  L • loaa  SL - B a n d y  loaa  6  6  JO  30  12  12  13  13  9  9  1  3  7  7  98  T h i s was not borne out by t h e c u r r e n t study, as a l l lower S t e i n had  l e s s than seven  sites  cm t h i c k LFH and Ah h o r i z o n s ( T a b l e 19), but had  between 5 and 3 5 p e r c e n t of t h e i r t o t a l s p e c i e s complements as i n v a d e r s (Figure 3 ) . By m o n i t o r i n g LFH and A h o r i z o n s over the long term,  i t may be  p o s s i b l e to study f u r t h e r any r e l a t i o n s h i p s which may e x i s t h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s e s and p l a n t  between  s p e c i e s composition changes as w e l l as  o b t a i n d i r e c t measurements o f e r o s i o n and compaction  related to  trampling. S o i l e r o s i o n on t r a i l s negligible. trail,  Several t r a i l s  adjacent t o campsites  i s at present,  i n the lower S t e i n (main t r a i l , N. Shore  S t r y e n Creek t r a i l f o r 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 o f y e a r s .  Although e r o s i o n problems have  been kept i n check w i t h l o g b r i d g i n g , c u t and f i l l placement,  some steep t r a i l s e c t i o n s w i l l  o b s t r u c t i o n s to t r a v e l . identified procedure  techniques and rock  continue t o erode and cause  Trouble spots i n the Lower S t e i n have been  by BCFS t r a i l crews and documented i n i n t e r n a l r e p o r t s .  This  should c o n t i n u e and expand i n t o the upper reaches of t h e  v a l l e y where t r a i l s meadow t r a i l ,  exist  (Cottonwood canyon pack t r a i l , 5000 foot  N. S t e i n meadow t r a i l f o r example).  t r a i l development c o u l d be reduced  by proper demarcation  f l a g g i n g , rock c a i r n s or s i m i l a r d i r e c t i o n a l When campsite  impact  Further, duplicate of r o u t e s w i t h  indicators.  r a t i n g s ( F i g u r e 3 ) and s o i l Great Groups  ( F i g u r e 4 ) were compared, no impact  i n d i c a t i n g p a t t e r n s were e v i d e n t .  99  4.7  Campsite L i m i t a t i o n s Based on S o i l and S i t e V a r i a b l e Measurements  4.7.1  Erodibility  F i e l d measurements of s o i l t e x t u r e and coarse fragment s u r f a c e a r e a e s t i m a t e s r e v e a l e d t h a t only one of the 15 campsites ( T a b l e 19).  Campsite 2 was s i t u a t e d on v e r y f i n e sandy t e x t u r e d s o i l ,  w i t h no s u r f a c e coarse fragments. (1979) i n T a b l e sand  1, those  s i t e s were s i t u a t e d  of  s o i l s possessing intermediate textures ( f i n e  through  or c l a y content and no s u r f a c e erodible.  s o i l h o r i z o n examinations  t h a t a l l camp-  on weak s t r u c t u r e d , s i n g l e g r a i n e d s o i l s .  were of h i g h volume and v e l o c i t y . abrupt  snowmelt.  Because  i n the 'hanging  12 and 14).  virtually  v a l l e y ' topography  The Lower S t e i n campsites  d e s t r o y them.  creek a r e a (campsites have eroded  by water would be those  of the ESSFpf subzone are reasonably  secure  (sites from  d u r i n g severe f l o o d i n g , which would  Evidence  f o r t h i s can be seen i n the Cottonwood  3 and 4 ) , where numerous r e c e n t f l o o d  channels  t o a depth of s e v e r a l meters.  Although  the coarse sandy t e x t u r e d s o i l s a t s i t e s  not h i g h l y e r o d i b l e ,  they a r e prone t o displacement  t h e i r single grained structure.  by s c u f f i n g ,  T h i s c o u l d occur d u r i n g p e r i o d s  S i t e s most e a s i l y eroded  these e r o s i o n e f f e c t s except  to  and Plumley  t h i s , a l l s i t e s would be s u b j e c t to l a r g e amounts of e r o s i o n i f r u n -  situated 11,  by Leonard  r u n o f f v e l o c i t y ) are most e a s i l y  I t was determined  off  As i l l u s t r a t e d  and s i l t ) w i t h low o r g a n i c matter  c o b b l e s (which reduce  of  was h i g h l y e r o d i b l e  the sand  re-establishment  i s easily  difficult.  1, 3 and 4 a r e  w i t h t r a m p l i n g , due  Once the herb root l a y e r i s removed  s h i f t e d u n d e r f o o t , making p l a n t  100  The  loamy c l a y and s i l t y  campsites clay  s o i l s at the three ESSFpf subzone  (11, 12 and 14) are prone to mud f o r m a t i o n due to t h e i r  content  4.7.2  Soil  infiltration  high  and v a l l e y bottom p o s i t i o n s .  At s i t e s  observed  clay  drainage  11, 12 (N. S t e i n Meadow) and 13 (Tundra Lake), low r a t e s (4-10 cm/hr) and h i g h water t a b l e s (0-50 cm) were  (Table 19).  Site  10 ( C i r q u e 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 t a b l e (250 cm). D r i n k i n g water can be o b t a i n e d  from slow moving or stagnant  sources  w i t h i n a few meters of the best t e n t i n g s p o t s , a t each of the above campsites.  Because of t h i s , d i s p o s a l of human waste c l o s e t o them may  ultimately result  4.7.3  contamination.  P l a n t growth and s u r v i v a l  Shallow campsites  i n d r i n k i n g water  effective  (10-14).  r o o t i n g depths were observed  at high e l e v a t i o n  These depths ranged from 21 t o 34 cm (Table 19).  Damage to most of the r o o t volumes a t these s i t e s c o u l d r e s u l t  from  human t r a m p l i n g thus r e d u c i n g the chances of p l a n t growth and s u r v i v a l . A l s o , because t r a m p l i n g compaction g e n e r a l l y reduces s u c c e s s f u l p l a n t r e g e n e r a t i o n (seed g e r m i n a t i o n ,  the chances o f  root growth and  n u t r i e n t and water uptake r e d u c t i o n s ) e s p e c i a l l y at h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n s , these  s i t e s may not r e c o v e r w e l l from s e a s o n a l heavy  trampling.  E f f e c t i v e r o o t i n g depths o f 45-70 cm were observed and  a t s i t e s 8, 9  15, while a l l o t h e r Lower S t e i n s i t e s ' r o o t i n g depths were g r e a t e r  than 90 cm.  101  LFH  and Ah  i n T a b l e 19.  s o i l horizon  thicknesses  were l i s t e d  A l l of the Lower S t e i n campsites (1-9 (#14)  could  to reduced l e v e l s of p l a n t growth and  result  of removal of the t h i n s u r f a c e  The 240 cm.  subject  l e s s than 7 cm  majority  cm/hr, and  of campsites had  of Ah  and  f o o t meadow s i t e be  had  f o r each campsite  depths to water t a b l e ranging  Depths were e s t i m a t e d as  'greater  and/or LFH  s o i l horizons  infiltration  r a t e s and/or a h i g h water t a b l e may  such as at S i t e  4.8  cm'  5000  (Sayer,  and  a  1978). from 55 to  by o b s e r v i n g meter.  to  400 river  Low  i n c r e a s e mud  formation,  #13.  Campsite C a p a b i l i t y R a t i n g s Each of the  factors.  15 campsites was  given a c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g based on  Walker (1978) s t a t e d t h a t 20 of these were worthy of  a t i o n when p l a n n i n g Canadian N a t i o n a l has  s u r v i v a l as  from at l e a s t 200  than 200  the  horizons,  r a t e s ranging  cutbanks, s i n c e s o i l survey p i t s were l i m i t e d to one infiltration  15) and  and  Parks.  maintaining One  p r i m i t i v e campgrounds and  a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r , firewood  been added, as i t i s a p p l i c a b l e to  such as e x i s t i n the  trails  in  availability  ' p r i m i t i v e ' camping s i t u a t i o n s  a l l the l i m i t a t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y  w i t h the a d d i t i o n of s e v e r a l others worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  The  21 l i m i t a t i o n s are  described:  outlined  t h a t Walker (1978) s t a t e d were listed  i n Figure  D e f i n i t i o n s of impact i n d i c a t i n g f a c t o r c o n d i t i o n s were a l s o previously  consider-  Stein.  This c h e c k l i s t describes  where not  21  5.  included,  ^  •V  "V  V ,  ^  ^  ^  "V  ^  "V  Soil  order  Drainage  v.  Texture Rocklness Stonlness  00 c  Depth t o b e d r o c k "V*  "V.  •v.  -v  f e r c o l a t l o n r a t e and permeability F r a g i l e dominant vegetation Successional status Firewood  V V.  ^  "V.  V  V  availability  Vegetation Rooting  vigor  depth  •v.  Water  water  features  quality  Water t a b l e h e i g h t Climate Landforms Aspect  shading  Landslide  rHt-  3  PI M HOl  ible  Surface  n p>  <  hazard  •v.  i—•  QQ  Wildlife habitat Flood  M  0  sact indj  V  hazard  BJ rt  o S Ul  o  am  o  F i g u r e 5 ( c o n t 'd)  Limitations  Soil  order* Drainage Texture  Regosol: erosion, CryoBol: 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 t o very poor: e r o s i o n o r aud f o r m a t i o n S i l t y l o a m , s l l t y c l a y , c l a y loam, loamy s a n d : 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 : s e v e r e mud f o r m a t i o n Rocky t o e x t r e m e l y r o c k y : v e g e t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and l a c k o f t e n t s i t e s Moderately to e x c e s s i v e l y stony: v e g e t a t i o n s u r v i v a l and l a c k o f t e n t  . Rocklness Stonlness  sites Depth t o bedrock P e r m e a b i l i t y and percolation rate  V e g e t a t i o n type SuccessIonal  Firewood  L e s s t h a n •5 t o 1 • d e p t h : and human w a s t e d i s p o s a l S l o w (<25 m i n ) :  statua  availability  Rooting depth Wildlife habitat*  flood hazard Surface f e a t u r e s ^ Water q u a l i t y water table height  Climate Landforms Aspect shading L a n d s l i d e hazard  *A11  Rootlng  f o r vegetation  mud f o r m a t i o n and human w a s t e d i s p o s a l  Severe: damage t o 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 lack 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 a l g a e o r o t 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 w a s t e d i s p o s a l problems Heavy r a i n o r snowpack, low t e m p e r a t u r e e x t r e m e s ( c o l d a i r d r a i n a g e ) , high winds: undesirable U n c o n s o l i d a t e d , mass movement p r o n e l a n d f o r m s : erosion N a s p e c t may be e x c e s s i v e l y s h a d e d p r o m o t i n g wet and c o l d c o n d i t i o n s Below s t e e p s l o p e s o r s l i d e prone m a t e r i a l s .  (auger  e t 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 : h o l e method - W a l k e r  d e p t h - s h a l l o w (<15 cm), deep (>15 cm) f r o m W a l k e r  1978) - r a p i d  ( 5 - 1 5 min/era) mod  water f e a t u r e s :  interpretation  from W a l k e r  (1978).  (15-25  (1978).  ^ W i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s t o be a v o i d e d i n c l u d e a r e a s u s e d f o r r e p r o d u c t i o n and r e a r i n g o f y o u n g , w i n t e r a r e a s , m i n e r a l l i c k s and a r e a s c r i t i c a l t o t h e w i n t e r s u r v i v a l o f a n i m a l s . ^Surface  survival  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 c h a n g e s w h i c h may b e d e s i r a b l e o r u n d e s I r a b l e i . e . mode r a t e l y s p a r s e c o n I f e r o u e r e g e n e r a t I o n a s o p p o s e d to I n v a s i o n by d e n B e s h r u b s . O v e r m a t u r e s t a g e 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 h a z a r d s 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 s u p p l y oi f i r e w o o d e x c e e d s 70 m Dead t o p o u r ( 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 stiiKiidiil c o n d i t i o n Shallow-': e x t e n s i v e r o o t damage C r i t i c a l h a b i t a t (community types o r w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s p r e s e n c e )  v a r i a b l e measurements f o l l o w W a l a s l e y  ^ 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 : mln/cm) s l o w (>25 m l n / c n ) . 3  limitations  2  V.K«ir  Seasonal  severe  denning  104  Soil  Order  Walker (1978) s t a t e d d r a i n a g e , organic tions.  that s o i l  orders were i n d i c a t i v e of  matter c o n t e n t , i c e , c l i m a t e and  Those s o i l orders  Cryosol.  sarily  vegetation  associa-  which he s a i d would pose l i m i t a t i o n s f o r  camping were Regosol ( s i t e s 1, 3-8), and  general  Gleysol  ( s i t e s 11 and  12),  However, the Humic R e g o s o l Great Group would not  pose more l i m i t a t i o n s than the  Organic neces-  s o i l s of s e v e r a l other Orders  e.g.  Chenozemic, S o l o n e t z i c , P o d z o l i c , B r u n i s o l i c  F r a g i l e Dominant  Vegetation  Walker's (1978) recommendation was communities be  i d e n t i f i e d and  that  fragile  avoided when p l a n n i n g  vegetation campsite and  trail  locations. No  one  trampling ing  community was  damage than another, based on a review of l i t e r a t u r e  to trampling  analyses  r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g s of s i m i l a r a r e a s .  identified  vegetation other  found to be more or l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e  current  types had  impacts o n l y .  Thus, f r a g i l e  to be i n f e r r e d from g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s  of the 20 f a c t o r s a l r e a d y  considered  Those high e l e v a t i o n v e g e t a t i o n long p e r i o d s  Also  (campsites 11,  s u s c e p t i b l e to trampling  12 and  to pertain-  tabular  dominant r e l a t e d to  i n these c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .  communities which are s a t u r a t e d  14)  must be  considered  as  highly  damage.  These communities have a preponderance of s p e c i e s w i t h high content (Anemone o c c i d e n t a l i s , Lupinus l e p i d u s and for  example), which are e a s i l y b r u i s e d  of e a s i l y d i s p l a c e d Dicranum spp.,  and  'mat'  for  and  and  water  Valeriana sitchensis  broken, as w e l l as a number  'clump' forming mosses (Bryum  Rhacomitrium canescens f o r example).  sp.,  These s i t e s  are  105  a l s o s i t u a t e d at h i g h e l e v a t i o n where s h o r t growing season and growth r a t e s combine t o i n c r e a s e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y  to damage ( C o l e , 1977).  A l s o , herb s p e c i e s s i t u a t e d on u n s t r u c t u r e d sandy s o i l and  2) may  be s u b j e c t t o some root damage due  fast  (campsites 1  t o s h i f t i n g of the  soil  underfoot.  Successional T h i s was  Status assessed a c c o r d i n g to the c r i t e r i a of Walmsley et a l .  (1980).  Impacts may  be accentuated  i n overmature or d e c l i n i n g ecosystems  t h a t may  be r e p l a c e d by other v e g e t a t i o n types.  If s i t e s are  situated  i n overmature f o r e s t , then windthrow of snags or dying t r e e s may  become  a hazard, e s p e c i a l l y on newly c r e a t e d f o r e s t edges, p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o p r e v a i l i n g winds. Campsites were r a t e d as MEC 5, 6,  13 and  - s i t e 7 ) , OS  14), MS  (maturing  (overmature  (maturing edaphic climax - s i t e s 3,  serai - site  1) YEC  s e r a i - s i t e 2) and MCC  (Young edaphic (maturing  4,  climax  climatic  c l i m a x - s i t e s 8-12). Only deciduous  s i t e 2 has and  overmature t r e e s .  c o n i f e r o u s ' A 3 ' canopy may  However, the h e a l t h y mixed grow w e l l i n the  opening  c r e a t e d by p r e v i o u s t r e e c u t t i n g . The serai).  l a r g e s t t r e e s i n a l l study p l o t s were a t s i t e 2  Veteran D o u g l a s - f i r s over 50 m h i g h were present at  e x p e r i m e n t a l and  control plots.  t o p p i n g ' and ground f i r e s vigor.  (overmature  (fire  These t r e e s have s u r v i v e d 'wind 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  T h e i r s i z e makes them both a l i a b i l i t y  a t t r a c t i o n f o r the  campsite.  both  (windthrow hazard) and  an  106  Stand  i n f l u e n c e s may a l s o be i n c l u d e d i n the assessment of s u c c e s  s i o n a l status l i m i t a t i o n s .  Lower S t e i n campsites  i n f l u e n c e d by p e r i o d i c ground f i r e s . through  the a r e a was approximately  t r e e branch (canopies  whorl counts.  maintained excellent  large f i r e  1-9) have been to sweep  70 years ago, as evidenced by  T h i s f i r e burned understory v e g e t a t i o n  5-10) b u t only scorched  These ground f i r e s  The l a s t  (sites  -  the veteran and dominant t r e e s .  along with c h r o n i c h o t , dry c o n d i t i o n s have  an open f o r e s t canopy i n t h e lower  valley  bottom, which i s  f o r h i k i n g and e x p l o r i n g .  Other stand  i n f l u e n c e s have been d e a l t with s e p a r a t e l y .  Vegetation Vigor Although  some s p o r a d i c dead and dying  trees occurred on t h e study  p l o t s , no c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ( o f dead or dying t r e e s ) were found w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the lodgepole pine (Pinus c o n t o r t a var l a t i f o l i a ) t r e e s a t s i t e 9. The  l u s h meadow v e g e t a t i o n found  excellent  v i g o r , although  vigor with  light  a t s i t e s 11 and 12 showed  these meadow communities may be reduced i n  trampling.  W i l d l i f e Habitat Walker (1978) was concerned avoided,  and t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s and community types be  identified. exists.  t h a t c r i t i c a l w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t areas be  In the S t e i n , a s i g n i f i c a n t p o p u l a t i o n of g r i z z l y  bears  S i g h t i n g s were made a t Campsite 1, and near Campsite 4 d u r i n g  f i e l d work.  B l a c k bears  were a l s o encountered.  None of the campsites  107  i n v e n t o r i e d appeared s i g h t i n g s and area.  to be i n areas of h i g h bear use, as  tracks,  spoor o b s e r v a t i o n s were s c a t t e r e d throughout  the study  Mule deer and l a r g e numbers of deer t r a c k s were r o u t i n e l y  encountered  throughout  the S t e i n .  Mountain goats, on the o t h e r hand,  were never observed, even d u r i n g seven hours of h e l i c o p t e r and  'fixed  wing' r e c o n n a i s s a n c e of the v a l l e y .  Flood  Hazard S i t e s 3 and 4 were s i t u a t e d b e s i d e Cottonwood Creek,  which tends  f l o o d i n years of h i g h r u n o f f (numerous f l o o d channels e x i s t ) . hazard p r e c l u d e s any  facility  development at e i t h e r s i t e ,  to  This  although a  m u l t i t u d e of s i m i l a r s i t e s on h i g h e r benches c o u l d be used  f o r campsite  development. Sites  11 and  runoff years, s i t e  12 are s u b j e c t to s a t u r a t i o n by seepage. 11 would be inundated.  Site  12 i s c l o s e by,  s i t u a t e d on a bench which would remain above f l o o d w a t e r 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 The g e n e r a l area of s i t e s  13 and  11 and  In high but  This i s  14.  12 c o n t a i n s a number of e l e v a t e d  benches which would s u f f i c e as camping areas i n times of heavy r u n o f f . These h i g h e r benches would a l s o be more impact v e g e t a t i o n c o m p o s i t i o n more c l o s e l y  resembles  r e s i s t a n t as  their  that of s i t e s 10 and  13.  Water Q u a l i t y No problems w i t h water q u a l i t y  such as t u r b i d i t y or obvious  of c o n t a m i n a t i o n were noted upon v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n at the time of study.  S i t e 13 c o n t a i n s a s m a l l p o o l , which c o u l d be e a s i l y  nated w i t h overuse  of the s i t e .  T h i s p o o l i s maintained  source this  contami-  l a t e i n t o the  108  summer by  the presence of a l i v i n g moss d i k e .  disturbed,  then the  pool may  I f t h i s moss were to  be  be destroyed^as drainage occurs through  the  dike.  Climate Site  10 i s l o c a t e d  a i r drainage.  i n a cirque  b a s i n , which a c t s as an area of  T h i s , combined w i t h h i g h  s i t e i n shadow f o r almost h a l f the day, limitation.  adjacent peaks which put  peaks.  Due  to the  steep s i d e d n e s s of the  east-west o r i e n t a t i o n , d i r e c t sun months of the year. c a b i n , near the  ( T h i s was  high  lower h a l f of the v a l l e y , and i t s  does not  ascertained  ' s h e l t e r ' campsite -  the  c o n s t i t u t e s a moderate c l i m a t i c  S i t e 15 a l s o s u f f e r s from the shadow e f f e c t s of  adjacent  cold  shine  for a period  of  several  from the guest book at Adam's  #2).  Landforms The are  two  campsites i n v e n t o r i e d  s i t u a t e d on  during  the  last  r e c e s s i o n of a l p i n e g l a c i a l i c e .  many s i t e s do,  t e r r a c e s are  S t o n i n e s s at s i t e s be  l i m i t e d i n t h i s way,  very w e l l drained.  8 and  a minor l i m i t a t i o n to campsite use  rockiness or f u t u r e  as  the  Small sand pockets of  d i s p l a c i n g e f f e c t ( t o the sand) of f o o t 1, 3, 4 and  trap  This s i t e p o s i t i o n  however, c o n s t i t u t e a minor l i m i t a t i o n to  s u r v i v a l w i t h the  12)  to slow d r a i n a g e .  Lower S t e i n campsites are not  glaciofluvial  and  l e v e l v a l l e y bottom, which served as a sediment  accounts f o r t h e i r wetness, due The  at N o r t h S t e i n meadow (#11  at s i t e s 5,  vegetation traffic. 6 and  development.  7  may  109  Aspect It i s most advantageous to camp on s i t e s w i t h warm a s p e c t s . 7 and  15 face n o r t h and  Sites  are at the bases of steep t e r r a i n , and are  thus  cool.  L a n d s l i d e Hazard S i t e s 7 and  15 may  be s u b j e c t to l a n d s l i d e s as they are s i t u a t e d at  steep  slope toe p o s i t i o n s , w i t h l a r g e amounts of c o l l u v i a l m a t e r i a l  close  by. In summary, i t appears t h a t campsites  least desirable i n this  S i t e # 2, 9 5, 6, 8  limitations  -  minor l i m i t a t i o n of  15  shading, soil  'soil  order'  o r d e r , l a n d s l i d e hazard l a n d s l i d e hazard  order,  texture, flood  hazard  10  drainage,  14  drainage, rockiness, f r a g i l e r o o t i n g depth  13  depth to bedrock, p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e , v e g e t a t i o n v i g o r , s u r f a c e water f e a t u r e .  Previous As  no  soil  11,  4.9  -  4  be ranked from most to  way:  7  3,  may  12  vegetation,  s o i l order, drainage, texture, p e r c o l a t i o n r a t e , f r a g i l e v e g e t a t i o n , r o o t i n g depth, water t a b l e height and landforms.  Campsite  Use  shown i n Table  18,  been used most o f t e n .  r o o t i n g depth, c l i m a t e  i t i s the Lower S t e i n campsites  These s i t e s a l l c o n t a i n one  which have  or more f i r e p i t s .  11.0  A l s o , a number of them have l e a n t o s (#2), teepee  frame (#8) and  at s i t e s  6, 7, 8 and 9,  2, 6, 8 and The than  benches (#2, and  pit toilets  6, 8 and  9).  t r e e c u t t i n g has  (#2 and 8 ) , a  Garbage has been found  a l s o o c c u r r e d a t some s i t e s  9).  10 s i t e s chosen f o r study i n the Lower S t e i n r e p r e s e n t  10 percent of the campsites  which have been i n i t i a t e d and used  number of times, over a p e r i o d d a t i n g back to p r e - s e t t l e m e n t h u n t i n g use.  T h i s l a r g e number of campsites  s e r i o u s n e s s of The  h i g h e r e l e v a t i o n upper S t e i n has trails  impacts.  exist.  of much of the a l p i n e and  l o g g i n g or mining  tends  This lack subalpine to spread  damages, should access be g r e a t l y improved by road  c o u l d e a s i l y change i n j u s t a few years to over  100 people a year e n t e r  1000  i n t o the h e a r t of the  S t e i n t r a i l up t o Adam's s h e l t e r , and  Blowdown Pass-North  are  valley.  routes appear to be most p o p u l a r .  Cottonwood Creek and  This  or more, i f the  Duffey Lake road i s improved and p o p u l a r i z e d , and l o g g i n g roads  the lower  further  the r e s u l t s of Dr. D o o l i n g ' s use study have not yet been  the S t e i n w i l d e r n e s s f o r camping t r i p s of 1 t o 10 days d u r a t i o n .  trip  out  development.  a n a l y z e d , i t would be s a f e to say that w e l l over  Two  may  I t i s t h i s open nature however, which c o u l d r e s u l t i n  s e r i o u s widespread  built  the  a p p a r e n t l y been l e s s w e l l  a r e a s , which a l l o w s g r e a t e r freedom of movement, and  Although  Indian  has helped to d i l u t e  or e s t a b l i s h e d campsites  t o the v a s t , open nature  use and  a  impacts.  t r a v e l l e d , as few be due  less  the S t e i n R i v e r .  The  Cottonwood Creek mining  The most t r a v e l l e d i s on to the confluence of  next most popular i s the road and p a c k t r a i l  through  Cottonwood Canyon to the Lower S t e i n t r a i l . not  w e l l marked i n spots  to a l p i n e t e r r a i n  4.10  Watershed  This one-way t r i p ,  i s used because of the  i n the area  relatively  although  easy a c c e s s  of the North f o r k of the Cottonwood.  Perspective  After 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  r e c r e a t i o n development c a p a b i l i t i e s ,  and  these r e s u l t s can be g e n e r a l i z e d  to  the watershed as a whole.  PPBGd and  IDFc subzones  T h i s area r i v e r s i s hot  s i t u a t e d c l o s e to the confluence and  dry  from e a r l y May  to the end  of the S t e i n and of October.  Fraser  It offers  open f o r e s t e d f l o o d t e r r a c e s , which are e x c e l l e n t f o r camping.  Also,  since  unique  these subzones are  to the s e m i - a r i d kilometers If  climate,  and  Steelhead  of the S t e i n , they are very  a logging  terraces  endowed with a s p r i n g bloom of f l o w e r s  road were to be  t r o u t run i n the f i r s t a t t r a c t i v e f o r camping.  built  above the m a j o r i t y  of  i n these subzones, camping use  would d r a m a t i c a l l y  increase.  Three l i m i t a t i o n s f o r more i n t e n s i v e camping are consider.  Most important would be  f i r e w o o d , and  the h i g h  These problems could be or as a l a s t flood  few  r i s k of w i l d f i r e due eliminated  subject  and  important  Surface  to  production  to the dry  by p r o v i d i n g  r e s o r t , banning campfires.  t e r r a c e s would be  mortality.  the poor supply  flood  firewood  conditions. and  fireboxes,  sand pockets on some  to s h i f t i n g underfoot causing  vegetation  T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s a moderate l i m i t a t i o n , as most of the  pockets are s m a l l .  of  I f these sandy areas were avoided, any  of the  sand flood  112  t e r r a c e s would be s u i t a b l e  f o r campsite development and i n t e n s i f i e d  use.  IDfd subzone T h i s subzone has a denser f o r e s t canopy than the PPBGd and IDFc subzones, and as a r e s u l t , more d e a d f a l l i s a v a i l a b l e f o r firewood. area i s dry, and may  be prone t o f o r e s t f i r e s  The  d u r i n g drought p e r i o d s .  Most of the e a s t e r n p o r t i o n of t h i s subzone i s s i m i l a r to the PPBGd and IDFc subzones, w i t h abundant f l o o d t e r r a c e s f l a n k i n g the r i v e r . Many of the l o d g e p o l e pine stands are s u f f e r i n g heavy m o r t a l i t y #9).  (site  These areas i n c l u d e a number of t e r r a c e s which c o u l d be c l e a r e d of  deadfall  (a source of f i r e w o o d ) and used as campsites.  a d i s t a n c e above the r i v e r , w e l l as sunny f o r e s t  thus p r o v i d i n g good p i t p r i v y l o c a t i o n s , as  canopy openings.  p o r t i o n of the lower S t e i n Canyon. a severe l i m i t a t i o n  Some are l o c a t e d  The IDFd subzone i n c l u d e s a l a r g e  Steep s l o p e s i n t h i s area  constitute  f o r campsite development, as evidenced by new  slide  t r a c k s between campsites 7 and 8. The Cottonwood Creek area has good p o t e n t i a l f o r h i k i n g t r a i l campsite development.  and  In a d d i t i o n to t h i s area's present use from two  a c c e s s p o i n t s (Blowdown Pass - S i l v e r Queen mine road and Lower S t e i n t r a i l ) and f u t u r e immunity from l o g g i n g (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e P o l i c y ) a l a r g e remnant  climax Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass community  has s u r v i v e d  from an e a r l i e r dry p e r i o d , 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 esthetically.  F u r t h e r 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 a t t e s t e d to by P o j a r (1977) i n h i s 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 i n c l u d e the p r e s -  ence of sandy t e r r a c e areas ( u n s t a b l e f o r 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 f l o o d i n g i n years of h i g h snowpack and  early  melt.  the  Numerous f l o o d channels e x i s t on most creeks f l o w i n g i n t o  S t e i n from the n o r t h i n t h i s subzone, w i t h the Cottonwood h a v i n g the highest flood levels alleviated  and channel e r o s i o n .  by e s t a b l i s h i n g  campsites  T h i s problem  c o u l d be  on some of the h i g h e r benches away  from the water, such as near Cottonwood f a l l s . Scudamore Creek, a s h o r t d i s t a n c e to the west, a f f o r d s o p p o r t u n i t i e s and  limitations  as the Cottonwood.  T h i s creek can be  f o l l o w e d i n t o a l p i n e areas i n the v i c i n i t y of campsite a good c a n d i d a t e f o r h i k i n g t r a i l and  ESSFf  campsite  similar  #10,  and  thus i s  development.  subzone Only  one  campsite  (#15)  was  chosen  f o r study i n t h i s subzone.  The  reason being that t h i s subzone has a u n i f o r m l y dense o v e r s t o r y canopy over much of i t s area.  T h i s canopy e f f e c t i v e l y b l o c k s out l i g h t ,  r e d u c i n g the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the subzone f o r camping.  thus  Steep n o r t h  f a c i n g s l o p e s are shaded and most of t h i s subzone i s l o c a t e d on s l o p e s too steep f o r camping.  Streamsides  are o f t e n choked w i t h D e v i l ' s Club  (Oplopanax h o r r i d u s ) and w i l l o w s ( S a l i x spp.) making access to water difficult. , Firewood One  p r o d u c t i o n i s not a problem  area t h a t may  North and South  be of some i n t e r e s t  i n this  subzone.  i s the c o n f l u e n c e of the  f o r k s of the S t e i n , j u s t below S t e i n Lake.  open grown t e r r a c e s i n t h i s area could be developed nearby  A number of  as campsites,  views of w a t e r f a l l s i n t h r e e d i r e c t i o n s ( E l t o n f a l l s  to the  with  114  South, f a l l s  below S t e i n Lake to the west and f a l l s  R i v e r , j u s t North of the c o n f l u e n c e ) .  i n the North S t e i n  T h i s area would a l s o serve as a  d e s t i n a t i o n f o r h i k i n g 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 H o r l i c k l o g g i n g road a c c e s s e s .  In the event t h a t the lower v a l l e y i s  logged, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the road may  extend as f a r as t h i s  making v e h i c l e camping and a l p i n e h i k i n g t r i p  point,  access p o s s i b l e .  ESSFpf Of a l l the subzones mentioned here, t h i s one o f f e r s the most s p e c t a c u l a r camping. and summer.  Surrounding mountain peaks and  p l e a s i n g to the eye. valley  Three waves of f l o w e r s bloom throughout the s p r i n g 'U' shaped v a l l e y  s i d e s are  W i l d l i f e seek the s h e l t e r of these h i g h e l e v a t i o n  s i t e s where wet meadows p r o v i d e ample food and water.  Three campsites were s t u d i e d i n t h i s subzone (#s 11, 12 and 14). All  t h r e e were chosen f o r the s i z e of l e v e l ground a r e a and p r o x i m i t y to  water.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , those two c r i t e r i a  tions, a l l related  ensure a number of l i m i t a -  t o drainage.  Human waste d i s p o s a l would be a problem due t o the h i g h water t a b l e and degree of s o i l  s a t u r a t i o n from heavy r u n o f f and c l a y s o i l  S i m i l a r l y , r i s k of minor f l o o d i n g would be acute d u r i n g heavy  texture. rains.  T h i r d l y , the f r a g i l e nature of the wet meadow herbage would c o n s t i t u t e a severe l i m i t a t i o n r e g a r d i n g denudation and subsequent s o i l mud and e r o s i o n .  formation  As f i r e w o o d i s at a premium i n t h i s subzone, campfires  s h o u l d be d i s c o u r a g e d . These l i m i t a t i o n s up o f f the v a l l e y  c o u l d be reduced i f camping l o c a t i o n s were moved  f l o o r s and onto e l e v a t e d , b e t t e r d r a i n e d small benches  115  of  m o r a i n a l and  fluvial  origin.  I f t r a i l s were to be developed  areas they would be best s i t u a t e d on lower adequate t o prevent mud the v a l l e y  i n these  s l o p e s where drainage i s  f o r m a t i o n , denudation and e x c e s s i v e e r o s i o n i n  bottom.  ATb S p e c t a c u l a r f l o w e r blooms a l s o occur i n t h i s subzone. ( P h y l l o d o c e spp. and Cassiope mertensiana) best campsite  Heather  communities would p r o v i d e the  l o c a t i o n s , as they possess a combination  of r e s i s t a n c e  to  t r a m p l i n g damage, and an abundance of showy f l o w e r s . The  important  limitations  to note i n t h i s  subzone are extremes of  c l i m a t e ( s p o r a d i c s n o w f a l l s , exposed l o c a t i o n s and drainage), thin o v e r a l l s o i l problems and  profile  the e n t i r e subzone. severe, f r a g i l e  S i n c e the growing  p e r i o d i s s h o r t , and  the c l i m a t e  communities must be i d e n t i f i e d and a v o i d e d , to e l i m i n a t e  moss rimmed p o o l at campsite  13.  One  such v e g e t a t i o n community i s the  T h i s p o o l c o u l d be enjoyed  for i t s  and as a source of d r i n k i n g water by a few campers a y e a r .  e v e r , i f use were to i n c r e a s e above t h i s , nated and  i t might q u i c k l y be  trampled, c a u s i n g an i r r e v e r s i b l e  Because of the f r a g i l i t y p l a n t communities, campsites impacts  precipitation.  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 f o r  the p o s s i b i l i t y of severe damage.  beauty  of c o l d a i r  c a u s i n g human waste d i s p o s a l  s a t u r a t e d c o n d i t i o n s d u r i n g heavy  Campsite 13 poses  presence  i n this  subzone.  How-  contami-  impact.  of t h i s and o t h e r f e a t u r e s such as r a r e should be c a r e f u l l y p l a c e d to  minimize  116  5.0  CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY  Some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g r e c r e a t i o n 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 i n f o r m a t i o n ( S e c t i o n 4.10). 1.  No severe r e c r e a t i o n impacts  have yet o c c u r r e d  i n any subzone,  s i n c e use has been l i g h t , and d i s p e r s e d over a wide a r e a . 2.  Major campsite  limitations  are p r e v a l e n t o n l y i n the h i g h e r  e l e v a t i o n areas such as a t campsites limitations  10-13 ( F i g u r e 5 ) . These  can be overcome with c a r e f u l  campsite  s e l e c t i o n and  continued d i s p e r s i o n of use. 3.  P o o r l y d r a i n e d high e l e v a t i o n v a l l e y bottom s i t e s may prove to be h i g h l y s u s c e p t i b l e to t r a m p l i n g damage (denudation, t i o n , mud f o r m a t i o n and s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n be avoided.  Adjacent  nate campsites  changes) and should  t e r r a c e d s l o p e s would be f a v o r a b l e a l t e r -  which would be l e s s prone t o impacts  b e t t e r drainage and the presence 4.  compac-  due to  of c o a r s e r t e x t u r e d  F r a g i l e moss v e g e t a t i o n surrounding  soils.  a l p i n e pools c o u l d  easily  be destroyed with any Increased use, and should be avoided. 5.  The m a j o r i t y of high e l e v a t i o n s i t e s  i n the ESSFpf and ATb sub-  zones cannot s u s t a i n firewood use because of slow growth r a t e s and  s p o r a d i c occurrence  of stunted t r e e clumps.  This  l i m i t a t i o n can be accommodated by i n s i s t e n c e on stove use i n these areas . 6.  In g e n e r a l , 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  S t e i n , although water q u a l i t y may d e t e r i o r a t e with use at h i g h e l e v a t i o n campsites  which possess  s m a l l stagnant  pools  117  (Campsites 11 and lies  13 f o r example).  i n p u b l i c education  isolated  The  about waste d i s p o s a l .  from groundwater recharge  and  s l o p e s l e a d i n g to streams, pools and ment on shallow 7.  s o i l should  The Regosols and  remedy f o r t h i s problem  a l s o be  discharge  lakes.  Coarser sites,  trampled  These sandy spots  terraced It can  best  can be  provide  i s easily  In the upper S t e i n , limitations.  b e t t e r s u b s t r a t e s f o r camp-  found above the G l e y s o l i c v a l l e y bottoms on  t o l e r a t e trampling  to these  s p e c i f i c a l l y which v e g e t a t i o n pressure  communities  severe,  or  f o r comparisons to be made.  comparisons i s the need f o r use  be a v a i l a b l e a f t e r a p e r i o d of  i n c l u d e more s i t e s ,  as impacts are not  enough between s i t e s  In the event that the c u r r e n t to  which  slopes.  sufficiently different  will  develop-  Vegetation  G l e y s o l s c o n s t i t u t e camping  i s too e a r l y to say  Also c r u c i a l  on t h i s s u b s t r a t e .  t e x t u r e d Podzols and  Campsite  such as  avoided.  c o n s t i t u t e minor l i m i t a t i o n s f o r camping.  poorly drained  areas  be  B r u n i s o l s at some Lower S t e i n campsites con-  t a i n s m a l l s u r f a c e sand pockets.  uprooted and  Feces should  i n f o r m a t i o n which  years. campsite m o n i t o r i n g  study  i s expanded  i t would be advantageous to be more c a r e f u l i n  the c o n t r o l p l o t s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s .  T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y important  h i g h e l e v a t i o n s where a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e i n s l o p e , aspect  or  at  slope  p o s i t i o n can produce a l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e i n moisture regime, which i s a major f a c t o r i n determining  the s e v e r i t y of  impacts.  118  Four campsite - c o n t r o l p l o t  combinations e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s  were not i d e a l l y matched, due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n microtopography. site  11, the campsite p l o t c o n t a i n e d  d u p l i c a t e d anywhere nearby.  12.  At  a l a r g e hummock which could not be  Consequently, the c o n t r o l p l o t was p l a c e d  on l e v e l ground w i t h a w e t t e r moisture regime. e x i s t e d at s i t e  study  A s i m i l a r problem  Campsite 14 was chosen f o r i t s c r e e k s i d e p o s i t i o n  on the lower s l o p e of a h i g h e l e v a t i o n 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 p r o v i d e d  views of  meadow f l o w e r s , a w e l l d r a i n e d Unfortunately, without  s u r f a c e f o r t e n t i n g and f r e s h water.  t h i s c o u l d not be reproduced a t an a d j a c e n t  i t being  i n danger of human use.  As a consequence, the c o n t r o l  p l o t was e s t a b l i s h e d on a bench, h i g h e r up the s l o p e . changed the moisture regime as t h i s groundwater seepage. control plot. some u n d e r s t o r y  to include veteran  s p e c i e s composition  to some  t o match w i t h a  d i f f e r e n c e s had t o be t o l e r a t e d .  i n v e n t o r i e s i s the use of one c o n t r o l p l o t  i n f u r t h e r campsite  f o r more than one campsite  The problem w i t h t h i s d o u b l i n g up comes when a s p e c i e s i s found  only on the c o n t r o l p l o t . out  effectively  t r e e s i n the c o n t r o l p l o t ,  Another problem which should not be repeated  plot.  This  l o c a t i o n was a l s o s u b j e c t  Campsite 2 was e q u a l l y d i f f i c u l t  In o r d e r  control plot,  I t t h e r e f o r e appears t o have been  trampled  of e x i s t e n c e on two campsites i n s t e a d of one, which may not always  be the case. In the event t h a t a l o g g i n g road  i s built  from the F r a s e r R i v e r  i n t o the h e a r t 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 e s t a b l i s h e d on an impromptu b a s i s , i f steps are not taken by t h e B.C. Forest Service to provide  camping f a c i l i t i e s .  I f such f a c i l i t i e s were  119  t o be  built,  i t i s recommended t h a t they be  s i t u a t e d at the  following  locations: 1.  Lower S t 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 t e r r a c e w i t h a minimum of s u r f a c e  3.  At  and  views of o t h e r f a l l s  the j u n c t i o n of the  River,  across  North and  below S t e i n Lake.  fluvial  sand.  Cottonwood Creek, above campsites 3 and falls  4.  6 on a l a r g e  4, c l o s e to Cottonwood  the  Stein.  South arms of the  T h i s area has  Stein  numerous dry  benches  w i t h views of three w a t e r f a l l s c l o s e at hand. In the event t h a t alpine that  t e r r a i n i n the  the BCFS chooses to manage some or a l l of  S t e i n f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes, i t i s recommended  a t t e n t i o n be focussed 1.  the  Tundra Lake r i d g e  on the  following  areas:  i s an i d e a l d e s t i n a t i o n campsite as w e l l  a stopover f o r j o u r n e y s to S t e i n Lake, 5000 f t Meadows numerous other d e s t i n a t i o n s . and  moss p o o l s .  This  can  campsites at h a r d i e r 2.  best  the Van is  road, i t s s e n s i t i v e nature  camping use  Horlick logging  away from the  be accomplished by  l o c a t i o n s on the  North S t e i n meadow can be  Stein confluence.  Any  providing  hours from the end  of  Because of t h i s easy access i t  a good c a n d i d a t e f o r campsite c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  an access road i s b u i l t  fragile  ridge.  reached i n 1.5  road.  and  Although t h i s area i s remote,  would never be accessed by  makes i t necessary to d i r e c t  as  especially i f  i n the v i c i n i t y of the North and development here should be  South  restricted  120  to the western v a l l e y 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.  I f a logging road were to make v e h i c l e access to  the confluences of the S t e i n and Scudamore or S t e i n and Cottonwood possible then t h i s lake (campsite #10) would be i d e a l f o r development as a d e s t i n a t i o n from two d i r e c t i o n s , and could be part of a c i r c u l a r h i k i n g route using Scudamore and Cottonwood creeks. If logging does not proceed i n the S t e i n , l i t t l e or no management of the area would be necessary u n t i l such time as r e c r e a t i o n 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 S t e i n main t r a i l .  Further  improvements could include lengthening the Lower S t e i n main t r a i l as f a r as Cottonwood or Scudamore Creek (thus e l i m i n a t i n g duplicate t r a i l establishment) and c l e a r i n g of the Cottonwood pack t r a i l . In e i t h e r event, an ongoing campsite monitoring program would be advantageous i n g i v i n g the Forest Service an opportunity to provide sound r e c r e a t i o n management p r i o r to the establishment of severe impacts. problems.  This would e l i m i n a t e c o s t l y remedial measures and e s t h e t i c I t i s my view that the S t e i n 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 r e c r e a t i o n opportunities for the c i t i z e n s of  B.C.  This could be done to great benefit with or without the removal of  121  timber. to  On  the one  p r o t e c t views,  hand, i f l o g g i n g were to proceed,  enhance h i k i n g and  the p u b l i c w i t h an example of how  i t would be  camping o p p o r t u n i t i e s and  best  provide  d i f f e r e n t uses can be compatible  and  accommodated i n a workable management framework, based on t h o u g h t f u l planning.  On  ongoing t r a i l  the o t h e r hand, i f no and p r i m i t i v e  l o g g i n g were to take p l a c e , an  campsite  maintenance program would demon-  s t r a t e the s e r i o u s n e s s of the F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s i n t e n t  to use i t s  r e c r e a t i o n management mandate to improve r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the people  without  extracting  timber.  Future  first  campsite  having  monitoring  to maximize the government's revenues by  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 e s c a l a t e d use.  I f , a f t e r f i v e years  reconnaissance then a f u l l  i t i s apparent  t h a t use has  c o u l d determine whether impacts  doubled,  then a  were p r o g r e s s i n g .  I f so,  set of seasonal i n v e n t o r i e s c o u l d be c a r r i e d out so t h a t the  areas-by-times  f a c t o r i a l experimental  o p t i m a l impact  assessment would then p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r p l a n n i n g  d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g campsite  d e s i g n c o u l d be completed.  improvement and  establishment  of  This  new  sites. From a p u r e l y e x p e r i m e n t a l  s t a n d p o i n t , t h i s study  s e v e r a l i n t e r v a l s would p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y to study between v e g e t a t i o n v i g o r , s u r v i v a l and p r e s s u r e over the long term. to  and  trampling  then changes i n impacts  changes c o u l d a l s o be i n v e s t i g a t e d .  over  relationships  F u r t h e r , i f road access were to be  some of the Lower S t e i n campsites,  type  composition  replicated  due  built to use  122  6.0  LITERATURE CITED  B a i l l a r g e o n , M.K. 1975. R e c r e a t i o n Impact on Campsite V e g e t a t i o n . M.Sc. T h e s i s . F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. B a l l a r d , T.M. and J . Otchere-Boateng. 1974. S o i l Survey of Kluane N a t i o n a l Park. Douglas Ecology C o n s u l t a n t s L t d . , 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, S c o t l a n d , from D i s t u r b a n c e by Trampling. B i o l . Conserv. 15(3). Bekker, P. 1981. E s t h e t i c Judgements of F o r e s t T r e e s i n R e l a t i o n t o Timber Q u a l i t y . Unpublished Masters T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , Vancouver, B.C. Boorman, L.A. and R.M. F u l l e r . 1977. S t u d i e s on the Impact o f Paths on the Dune V e g e t a t i o n a t W i n t e r t o n , N o r f o l k , 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. I n : T . J . Toy ( e d . ) , E r o s i o n : Research Techniques, E r o d i b i l i t y and Sediment D e l i v e r y . Geo A b s t r a c t s . Norwich, England. C h r i s t e n s e n , H.H., R.E. Packa, K.J. Varness and R.F. Lapen. 1979. Human use i n a D i s p e r s e d R e c r e a t i o n A r e a , and i t s E f f e c t on Water Quality. I n : I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . lrR-6-001-1979. C i e s l i n s k i , T . J . and J.A. Wagar. 1970. P r e d i c t i n g the D u r a b i l i t y of F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n S i t e s i n N o r t h e r n Utah. Preliminary Results. USDA F o r e s t Intermtn. F o r . and Range Exp. S t n . Ogden, Utah. INT-117. Coen, G.M., P.F. Epp, J . T a j e k and L. Knapik. 1977. S o i l Survey of Yoho N a t i o n a l Park, Canada. A l b e r t a S o i l Survey Rept. #37. A l t a . I n s t , of Pedology #S-77-37, Land Resource I n s t . P u b l i c . #1. C o l e , D.N. 1977. Man's Impact on W i l d e r n e s s V e g e t a t i o n . An Example from Eagle Cap W i l d e r n e s s , N.E. Oregon. Ph.D. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, Dept. o f Geography. C o l e , D.N. and E.G.S. S c h r e i n e r . 1981. Impacts of Backcountry Recreation. S i t e 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  C o l e , D.M. 1982. W i l d e r n e s s Campsite Impacts: E f f e c t Use. USDA F o r . Serv. Research Paper INT-284.  of Amount of  Crawford, A.K. 1977. The E f f e c t of Trampling on N e u t r a l G r a s s l a n d . 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. H a r t e s v e l d t ( e d s . ) , A Report on W i l d e r n e s s Impact Study. S i e r r a Club O u t i n g Committee ( C o n s o l i d a t e d Pub. Inc., C a l i f o r n i a ) . d e l M o r a l , R. 1979. P r e d i c t i n g Human Impact on High E l e v a t i o n Ecosystems. I n : I t t n e r , R., D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . #R-6-001-1979. Douglas, G.W. and L.C. B l i s s . 1977. A l p i n e and H i g h S u b - a l p i n e P l a n t Communities of the North Cascades Range, Washington and B.C. E c o l o g i c a l Monographs, 47(2):113-150. D u f f e y , P. 1967. As c i t e d i n L i d d l e , M.J., 1975. A S e 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 N a t u r a l Ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36. Dumanski, J . (Ed.) 1978. The Canada S o i l I n f o r m a t i o n System Manual f o r D e s c r i b i n g 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. A g r i c u l t u r e Canada, Ottawa. F e r b e r , P. 1978. Guidebooks - For B e t t e r or For Worse. In_: I t t n e r , R., D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . #R-6-001-1979. F o i n , T.C. E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham and R.O. S c h u l t z . 1977. Q u a n t i t a t i v e Study o f V i s i t o r Impacts on Environments of Yosemite N a t i o n a l Park, C a l i f o r n i a , and t h e i r Impacts f o r Park Management P o l i c y . J . Environmental Management 5:1-22. Freeman, R. and D. Thompson. 1979. E x p l o r i n g Douglas and M a c l n t y r e , Vancouver, B.C.  the S t e i n R i v e r V a l l e y .  F r i s s e l , S.S. 1978. Judging R e c r e a t i o n Impacts on W i l d e r n e s s Campsites. J . F o r . pp. 481-83. F r i s s e l , S.S. J r . and D. Duncan. 1965. Campsite P r e f e r e n c e s and D e t e r i o r a t i o n i n the Q u e t i c o - S u p e r i o r Canoe Country. J . F o r e s t 63(4):256-260. G o l d s m i t h , F.B., R.J.C. Munton and A. Warren. 1970. The Impact of R e c r e a t i o n on the Ecology and Amenity of Semi-Natural Areas. Methods of I n v e s t i g a t i o n Used i n the I s l e s of S c i l l y . Biol. J. L i n n . Soc. 2:287-306.  124  Greacen, E.L. and R. Sands. 1980. Compaction of F o r e s t S o i l s . Review. A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of S o i l Research V o l . 18:163.  A  Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and S t a t i s t i c a l Methods f o r Environmental B i o l o g i s t s . John W i l e y and Sons, N.Y. H a r t l e y , E.A. 1976. Man's E f f e c t s on the S t a b i l i t y of A l p i n e and Subalpine V e g e t a t i o n i n G l a c i e r N a t i o n a l Park, Montana. Ph.D. T h e s i s , Duke U n i v e r s i t y , Dept. of Botany. H e l g a t h , S.F. 1975. T r a i l D e t e r i o r a t i o n i n the Selway B i t t e r r o o t Wilderness. USDA F.S. Res. Note INT-193 Intermtn. F o r . and Range Exp. S t n . , Ogden, Utah. H i t c h c o c k , C L . , A. C r o n q u i s t , M. Ownbey and J.W. Thompson. 1959. V a s c u l a r P l a n t s of the P a c i f i c Northwest. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r e s s , S e a t t l e ( f i v e volumes). Hoffman, M.K. , J . J . M a c i n t o s h and D.W. Smith. 1975. Impact o f R e c r e a t i o n Use of S o i l and V e g e t a t i o n i n Rushing R i v e r 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, U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph. I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l . 1979. Recreation Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c . Oct. 1978. S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . //R-6-001-1979. K e t c h l e d g e , E.H. and R.E. Leonard. 1970. The Impact of Man on the Adirondack High Country. The C o n s e r v a t i o n i s t (Oct. Nov.) 14-18. K l o c k , G.O. 1979. S o i l F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Q u a l i t y of W i l d e r n e s s Impact. In: I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l . ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . l/R-6-001-1979. Krajina, V.J. 1969. E c o l o g y of f o r e s t t r e e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. E c o l o g y of Western North America 2:1-146. L a n d a l s , M. and G.W. Scotter. 1973. V i s i t o r Impact on Meadows, near Lake O'Hara, Yoho N a t i o n a l Park. C.W.S., Edmonton. A l t a . Leeson, B.F. 1979. Research i n W i l d l a n d R e c r e a t i o n Impact i n the Canadian R o c k i e s . In: I t t n e r , R., D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. P u b l . 0R-6-OO1-1979. Legg, M.H. and G. S c h n e i d e r . 1977. S o i l D e t e r i o r a t i o n on Campsites: Northern F o r e s t 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 I n f o r m a t i o n f o r Dispersed Recreation Planning. In: I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , Seattle. USDA F.S. P u b l . 0R-6-OO1-1979.  125  Lesko, G.L. and E.B. Robinson. 1975. Impact Study and Management Recommendations f o r P r i m i t i v e Campgrounds i n the Sunshine-Egypt Lake A r e a , Banff N a t i o n a l Park. Northern F o r e s t Research Centre, Can. For. Serv. I n f . Rep. NOR-X-132. L i d d l e , M.J. 1975. A S e l e c t i v e Review of the E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s o f Human Trampling on N a t u r a l Ecosystems. B i o l . Conserv. 7:17-36. L u t z , H.J. 1945. S o i l C o n d i t i o n s of P i c n i c Grounds i n P u b l i c F o r e s t Parks. J . For. 43. 123 pp. M a g i l l , A.W. and E.C. Nord. 1965. An E v a l u a t i o n of Campground C o n d i t i o n s and Needs f o r Research. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Res. PSW-4. 8 pp. Pac. S.W. F o r . and Range Exp. S t n . B e r k e l e y , California.  Note  M i t c h e l l , J.K. and D.G. Dubenzer. 1980. S o i l Loss E s t i m a t i o n . In: K i r k b y , M.J. and R.P.C. Morgan ( e d s . ) , S o i l E r o s i o n . John W i l e y & Sons, T o r o n t o . M i t c h e l l , W.R., R.E. Green, D. L l o y d , F. R u s s e l l , W. E r i c k s o n and D. Walkem. 1981. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ecosystems of the Western Kamloops F o r e s t Region. Land Management Handbook //2. V o l s . I and I I . P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , 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 P l o t Data f o r the S t e i n Valley. P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , Kamloops Region, u n p u b l i s h e d manuscript. M o n t i , P.W. and E.E. M a c i n t o s h . 1979. E f f e c t of Camping on S u r f a c e S o i l P r o p e r t i e s i n the B o r e a l F o r e s t Region of Northwestern O n t a r i o , Canada. S o i l S c i . Soc. Am. 45:1024-1029. Morgan, R.P.C. 1979. S o i l Erosion. Logman Group L t d . , London, Eng.  Topics i n Applied  Geography.  N i e , N.H., C.H. H u l l , J.G. J e n k i n s , K. S t e i n b r e n n e r . 1975. Statistical Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . MacGraw H i l l Book Co., N.Y. Palmer, R. 1979. Experiments on the E f f e c t s of Human T r a m p l i n g Damage on V e g e t a t i o n i n S i e r r a Nevada. I n : S t a n l e y , J.T., H.T. Harvey and R.J. H a r t e s v e l d t ( e d s . ) , A Report on W i l d e r n e s s Impact Study. S i e r r a Club, C o n s o l i d a t e d Pub. Inc. C a l i f . Pojar, J . 1977. 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. P r o v i n c e 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 S t e i n V a l l e y . BCFS, Kamloops Region.  Unpublished manuscript.  126  Ream, C.H. 1980. Impact o f Backcountry R e c r e a t i o n i s t s on W i l d l i f e . Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-84.  An  Roemer, H.L. 1975a. E c o l o g i c a l Impact of R e c r e a t i o n Use i n the Berg Lake T r a i l A r e a , Mt. Robson P r o v i n c i a l Park. Biocon Res. L t d . , 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 R e c r e a t i o n use i n the Magog Area, Mt. A s s i n n i b o i n e P r o v i n c i a l Park. Biocon Res. L t d . , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Root, J . and L. Knapik. 1972. T r a i l C o n d i t i o n s along a P o r t i o n of the Great D i v i d e T r a i l Route, A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia Rocky Mountains. CWS unpubl. r e p t . 45 pp. Ryder, J.M. 1981. S t e i n R i v e r B a s i n : T e r r a i n C o n d i t i o n s and I n t e r p r e tations f o r Forest Engineering. P r o v i n c e 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 B u f f a l o N a t i o n a l Park ( d r a f t ) . Parks Canada, Ottawa. S c h r e i n e r , E. 1979. Human Impact I n v e n t o r y and Management i n the Olympic N a t i o n a l Park Backcountry. I n : I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . //R-6-001-1979. Smith, R.T. and K. A t k i n s o n . Science. London.  1975.  Techniques i n Pedology.  Eclectic  S p e i g h t , M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n and i t s E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s , A B i b l i o g r a p h y and Review. D i s c u s s i o n Papers i n C o n s e r v a t i o n #4, U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e , London, England. S t a n l e y , J.T. J r . 1979. S i e r r a Club W i l d e r n e s s Impact Study C o n c l u s i o n s and S p e c i f i c F i n d i n g s . I n : I t t n e r , R., D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. Proc. Oct. 1978. S e a t t l e . USDA F.S. P u b l . #R-6-001-1979. S t a n l e y , J.T. J r . , H.T. Harvey and R.J. H a r t e s v e l d t . 1979. A Report on W i l d e r n e s s Impact Study. Prepared f o r the O u t i n g Committee o f the S i e r r a Club. C o n s o l i d a t e d Pub. Inc., C a l i f . S t e i n B a s i n Study Committee. 1975. S t e i n B a s i n Moratorium Study. P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Strand, S. 1979. Recovery of S i e r r a n Meadows a f t e r Trampling by Packstock. In: S t a n l e y , J.T. J r . , H.T. Harvey and R.J. H a r t e s v e l d t ( e d s . ) , A Report on W i l d e r n e s s Impact Study. Prepared f o r the Outing Committee of the S i e r r a Club. C o n s o l i d a t e d Pub. Inc., C a l i f .  127  T a y l o r , R.L. and B. MacBryde. 1977. V a s c u l a r P l a n t s o f B r i t i s h Columbia: A D e s c r i p t i v e Resource I n v e n t o r y . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Thompson, D. and R. Freeman. 1975. The S t e i n R i v e r Watershed: A R e c r e a t i o n a l Resource Study. V o l s . 1 & 2. F e d e r a t i o n o f Mountain C l u b s , Vancouver, B.C. T r o t t i e r , G.C. and G.W. S c o t t e r . 1973. A Survey of Backcountry Use and the R e s u l t i n g Impact near Lake L o u i s e , Banff N a t i o n a l Park. C.W.S. Edmonton, A l t a . USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e . 1969. S o i l Survey Procedure Handbook, 1969. F.S. Washington FSH 2559.1.  USDA  V o i d , T. 1976. A Resource and V i s i t o r of I n v e n t o r y of Yoho V a l l e y . . . . 1975. M.F. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , Vancouve r . Wagar, J.A. 1964. The C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y of W i l d l a n d s f o r R e c r e a t i o n . For. S c i . Mon. Washington, D.C. S o c i e t y of American F o r e s t e r s . 24 pp. Walker, C.J. 1978. I n f o r m a t i o n Requirements f o r T r a i l and Campground P l a n n i n g and Management. Resources S t u d i e s S e c t i o n , N a t u r a l Resources D i v i s i o n , Parks Canada, Ottawa. Walmsley, M., G. U t z i g , T. V o i d , D. Moon, J . van B a r n e v e l d ( e d s . ) . 1980. D e s c r i b i n g Ecosystems i n the F i e l d . RAB T e c h n i c a l Paper #2. P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y o f Environment and M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Weaver, T., D. Dale and E. H a r t l e y . 1978. The R e l a t i o n s h i p of T r a i l C o n d i t i o n t o Use, V e g e t a t i o n , User, Slope, Season and Time. I n : I t t n e r , R. , D.R. P o t t e r , J.K. Agee and S. A n s c h e l l ( e d s . ) , R e c r e a t i o n Impact on W i l d l a n d s Conf. P r o c , S e a t t l e . 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 A l p i n e Tundra Ecosystems. Rocky Mountain N a t i o n a l 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 A l p i n e Tundra under P r o t e c t i o n a f t e r Damage by Human A c t i v i t i e s i n the Rocky Mountains of C o l o r a d o . B i o l . Conserv. 3:131-90. Wischmeier, W.H. 1974. New Developments i n E s t i m a t i n g Water E r o s i o n , pp. 179-186. I n : Land Use: P e r s u a s i o n or R e g u l a t i o n . Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y o f America.  128  Wischmeier, W.H. 1975. C r o p l a n d E r o s i o n and Sedimentation. In: C o n t r o l of Water P o l l u t i o n from C r o p l a n d , V o l . I I , An Overview. U.S. A g r i c u l t u r a l Research S e r v i c e and E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n 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. I n : T . J . Toy ( e d . ) , E r o s i o n : Research Techniques, E r o d i b i l i t y and Sediment Delivery. Geo A b s t r a c t s L t d . , Norwich, England. Wischmeier, W.H. , C B . Johnson and B.V. Cross. 1971. A Soil Erodibil i t y Nomograph f o r Farmland and C o n s t r u c t i o n 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 U n i v e r s a l S o i l Loss E q u a t i o n to Guide C o n s e r v a t i o n Farm P l a n n i n g . 7 t h I n t . Cong. S o i l S c i . , Madison, Wise. V I , 418-725. Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1965. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from C r o p l a n d East of the Rocky Mountains. Agr. Handbook 282. USDA Agr. Res. Serv., Washington, D.C. Young, R.A. 1976. Camping I n t e n s i t y E f f e c t s on V e g e t a t i o n 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 P r e v i o u s I n v e s t i g a t o r s  Those used i n t h i s 1.  Site Selection: Based on i n i t i a l r e c o n n a i s s a n c e and d e s i g n a t i o n of t h r e e t r a i l impact c l a s s e s f o r each impact type: low, medium and h i g h impacts f o r deepeni n g , mucking and b r a i d i n g . Followed by e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s e v e r a l " e x p e r i m e n t a l " and " c o n t r o l " p l o t s f o r each impact c l a s s and type.  Roemer, 1975a  P i c k e d 70 meadow s i t e s from i n i t i a l r e c o n n a i s sance showing s i g n s of e r o s i o n and a s s o c i a t e d impacts due to t r a m p l i n g .  Burden and Randerson, 1972.  *-  Chose impact s i t e s on the b a s i s o f s i z e , u n i f o r m typography and g e o l o g i c a l s u b s t r a t e c r i t e r i a . " C o n t r o l " and " e x p e r i m e n t a l " p l o t s sampled.  Hoffman, Macintosh and Smith, 1975.  -  I d e n t i f i e d meadow s i t e s showing t r a m p l i n g and camping impacts. Established l i n e transects w i t h v e g e t a t i o n and s o i l sampling one meter on e i t h e r s i d e of the l i n e a t d e s i g n a t e d i n t e r v a l s .  T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973.  Soil *-  -  *_ 5. *-  6.  7.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*)  Pits:  Measured s o i l h o r i z o n t h i c k n e s s e s to bedrock and sampled each h o r i z o n f o r l a b o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s .  a l l Investigators.  T r a i l grade and slope - i n p e r c e n t , measured w i t h an Abney l e v e l .  H e l g a t h , 1975.  Slope  Wagar, 1964.  l e n g t h and p o s i t i o n on slope -  estimated.  Aspect and e l e v a t i o n , measured w i t h compass and e l e v a t i o n meter.  T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973.  Stoniness: *-  Measured s u r f a c e s t o n i n e s s i n percent  *-  Measured s t o n i n e s s o f each s o i l h o r i z o n i n percent o f exposed s u r f a c e .  Consistence  of a r e a .  measured u s i n g C.S.S.C. (1971) methods.  Hoffman, Macintosh and Smith, 1975. T r o t t i e r arid S c o t t e r , 1973. Roemer, 1975a.  131  Texture: *-  10.  11.  12.  Measured o v e r a l l t e x t u r e u s i n g hand methods.  Hoffman e_t a l . , 1975.  Measured t e x t u r e u s i n g the Bouyoucos hydrometer method.  Landals and S c o t t e r , 1973.  Measured t e x t u r e of f i n e f r a c t i o n standard s i e v e s .  Roemer,  S t r u c t u r e : Used f i v e s t r u c t u r e c l a s s e s : IA s i n g l e g r a i n e d , lB^ amorphous, 2A angular b l o c k y , 2B subangular b l o c k y , 2C g r a n u l a r .  B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974.  *-  Color: Used M u n s e l l dry samples.  B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1975a.  Organic  c o l o r c h a r t f o r moist  and  matter: Wagar,  -  Measured depth of o r g a n i c matter  -  Measured o r g a n i c matter i n percent by weight for each h o r i z o n , u s i n g wet o x i d a t i o n w i t h dichromate.  stain.  1964.  Tree roots; («a - micro, b_ - very f i n e , c d - medium, e - c o a r s e )  *abundance  (V - very few, F_ P - plentiful) ^ E f f e c t i v e r o o t i n g depth. Parent  fine,  B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974.  till,  T r o t t i e r , and S c o t t e r , 1973.  few,  materials  S u b j e c t i v e l y assessed as to o r i g i n ; c o l l u v i u m and a l l u v i u m .  14.  1975.  *-  *Size  13.  using  *-  t i l l , colluvium, alluvium, loess, eolian, 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.  B a l l a r d and Otchere-Boateng, 1974.  *-  Ash-mica, s c h i s t , l o e s s , b i o t i t e g r a n i t e , g n i e s s and horneblende.  Helgath,  1975.  Trottier Scotter,  and 1973.  *Geologic age.  substrate:  Rock analyzed  as to type  and  132  15.  pH: -  Measured u s i n g bromothymol blue c r e s o l green i n d i c a t o r s .  -  Measured u s i n g a l a b o r a t o r y CaCl2 and water.  and  bromo  Hoffman et a l . , 1975.  pH - meter i n  Hoffman et a l . , 1975.  16.  S o i l temperature: Using a YSI t h e r m i s t o r at 5-10 cm depth, at the s u r f a c e and at an e l e v a t i o n of 15 cm above the s u r f a c e .  17.  Moisture -  *-  -  *-  -  18.  *-  conditions:  Measured i n f i l t r a t i o n r a t e s u s i n g PVC c y l i n d e r s 10.8 cm i n diameter; sunk to a depth of 7.6 cm a f t e r s a t u r a t i o n of adjacent s o i l , s e a l e d by t u r n i n g ; measured i n cm/minute.  Roemer, 1975a.  Measured i n f i l t r a t i o n USDA methods.  Helgath,  rates using  standard  1975.  Measured percent moisture of s u r f a c e h o r i z o n s at 1/3 bar and 15 bars to determine a v a i l a b l e water.  Hoffman et a l . 1975.  S u b j e c t i v e l y determined m o i s t u r e c l a s s e s d r y , mesic, wet mesic and wet.  Trottier Scotter,  as  and 1973.  Drainage determined as good, moderate and poor based on weekly samples at depth of 5-10 cm moisture percent on a dry weight b a s i s .  Landals and S c o t t e r , 1973.  M o i s t u r e index developed from i n d i c a t o r species.  Roemer, 1975a.  Soil -  Landals and Scotter, 1973.  vegetation  strength:  Measured bulk d e n s i t y , methods.  using  standard  Used penetrometer measurements as an i n d i c a t o r of shear r e s i s t a n c e .  Landals and S c o t t e r , 1973. Hoffman et a l . , 1975.  133  APPENDIX 2.  V e g e t a t i o n I n v e n t o r y Methods Used by P r e v i o u s I n v e s t i g a t o r s  *2.1 2.2  S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Parameters E x p e r i m e n t a l Methods  *2.3  Vegetation C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  *2.4  Macroplot  2.5  Those methods used  Schemes  Sampling  Techniques  M i c r o p l o t Sampling  Techniques  i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k (*)•  134  Author 2.1  S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Parameters  1.  Camping l o c a t i o n , d i s t a n c e from a c c e s s , e l e v a t i o n , s i z e , number of t e n t pads, f i r e p i t s and t r e e s c a r s .  Lesko and Robinson,  2.  Area of bare ground, number of s o c i a l t r a i l s , t r a m p l i n g d e p r e s s i o n s around t r e e s , o c u l a r e s t i m a t e s of crown c l o s u r e i n 20% c l a s s e s , and evidence of horse t r a m p l i n g .  Schreiner,  *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 p l a n t communities on s i t e , through s u b j e c t i v e assessment of a d j a c e n t a r e a s , photos of v i s i b l e impacts, and d e s c r i p t i o n s of p l a n t development stage ( p h e n o l o g y ) .  Borman and F u l l e r , 1977,  *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 d u r i n g v e g e t a t i o n i n v e n t o r i e s , garbage, p l a n t s p e c i e s o c c u r r i n g i n a d j a c e n t stands and e s t i m a t e d damages to sampled communities.  Trottier Scotter,  Noted r a r e p l a n t s , a d v e n t i v e s and species present.  Roemer, 1975a.  5.  2.2  'grazing'  1973.  1978.  and 1973.  E x p e r i m e n t a l Methods  1.  Located two p l o t types (3 x 3 m w i t h 9 1 m s u b p l o t s and 1 x 10 m w i t h 10 1 m subp l o t s ) on l o c a t i o n s of g e n t l e r e l i e f , v e g e t a t i o n u n i f o r m i t y and i n c o n s p i c u o u s n e s s . Trampled them w i t h h i k i n g boots by s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t e p p i n g on a l l the a r e a w i t h i n p l o t s . An i n t e n s i t y g r a d i e n t of 0, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 per week was used to demonstrate the s t e p - b y - s t e p p r o c e s s o f d e t e r i o r a t i o n . Percent cover e s t i m a t e s were d e r i v e d by sampling 100 random p o i n t s w i t h i n each m2 s u b p l o t , b e f o r e and a f t e r t r a m p l i n g t r e a t ment. A l s o c l i p p i n g t r i a l s to e s t i m a t e s t a n d i n g crop biomass (oven d r i e d ) were c a r r i e d out on one t e n t h o f each s u b p l o t a t 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 p o i n t s between samples taken a t 1 and 10 m from paths, as determined from l e a s t squares r e g r e s s i o n and c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s c a l c u l a t e d f o r each. 2  2  Frissel,  1978.  135  Author E s t a b l i s h e d 10 m l i n e t r a n s e c t s permanently marked w i t h h o l e s d r i l l e d i n bedrock a t 3 m i n t e r v a l s a l o n g a 30 m b a s e l i n e p a r a l l e l i n g a newly e s t a b l i s h e d campsite s h o r e l i n e . Subj e c t e d t h i s campsite to 2 days use by a group of 30. Measured s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n and frequency on each l i n e t r a n s e c t before and a f t e r use.  B o g u i c k i et_ a_l., 1975.  T r a n s e c t s 5 m long tampled 5, 25, and 200 times 3 days per week f o r 4 weeks, by a 59 kg walker i n t e n n i s shoes (7 s t e p s per pass) e s t a b l i s h e d on 2 community types. P e r c e n t covers determined by l i n e i n t e r c e p t method. The sums of each s p e c i e s under a s t r a i g h t l i n e was used. A l s o , used 20 x 50 cm q u a d r a t s on each t r a n s e c t a f t e r one year to measure cover changes and i n v a d e r s p e c i e s . Ground l e v e l c l i p p i n g done on two 10 x 50 cm p l o t s per transect. Oven dry weights from b e f o r e and a f t e r t r a m p l i n g treatments compared.  B e l l and B l i s s , 1973.  A p p l i e d a range of normal walking treatments to a v a r i e t y of ground v e g e t a t i o n types to d i s c o v e r the number of passages needed to reduce cover or biomass by 50%. T h i s number was to be used as an index of s p e c i e s f r a g i l i ty. Percent cover of l i v e v e g e t a t i o n remaini n g at v a r i o u s measurements was regressed on l o g of the number of passages to produce a c u r v i l i n e a r e q u a t i o n y = a x + bx + c, then a, b and c were used to e s t i m a t e the p r e c i s e number of passages needed to reduce v e g e t a t i o n cover or biomass by 50 p e r c e n t , u s i n g t h i s equation.  Liddle,  1973.  Used normal walking on newly e s t a b l i s h e d woodland p l o t s (20 x 30 m) to evaluate changes i n average l i t t e r depths a f t e r 7900 p a s s e s .  Burden,  1970.  Measured average l e a f h e i g h t s on t r a n s e c t s e s t a b l i s h e d at r i g h t angles to a r t i f i c i a l paths, (.4m wide) s u b j e c t 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.  e  2  b + b x at y = 50 =  2  - 4a(c -  50)  2a"  136  Author D e f i n e d 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 l o g of the number of tramples and p e r c e n t r e d u c t i o n i n sward height. 7.  1.2 x 4.6 m p l o t s s p l i t i n t o 5 equal s u b p l o t s , s u b j e c t e d t o 0, 40 and 80 t r a m p l i n g s a t once, and 120 and 240 t r a m p l i n g s s p l i t i n t o 3 monthl y treatments. Trampling was performed by a 70 kg man i n c l i m b i n g b o o t s . Each treatment was r e p l i c a t e d 3 times and randomized w i t h i n blocks. V i s u a l e s t i m a t e s of cover and damage made by 2 people, b e f o r e , immediately a f t e r and 2 y e a r s a f t e r t r e a t m e n t s . R e l a t i v e cover was expressed as: g£ _ cover on trampled p l o t s ^ i n i t i a l cover on c o n t r o l p l o t s initial  Bayfield,  1979.  cover on c o n t r o l p l o t s x cover on trampled p l o t s  8.  10, 3 x .5m l a n e s were l a i d out i n 6 x 3 m p l o t s , w i t h 2 l a n e s per p l o t as c o n t r o l s . P l o t s were s u b j e c t e d to weekly t r a m p l i n g s o f 10, 20, 40, 80, and 160 f o r 5 weeks, and s i n g l e t r a m p l i n g s o f 25, 50, 100, 200 and 400 at peak a n t h e s i s . Damage was determined by a s s e s s i n g changes i n s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n , cover i n percent and v e g e t a t i o n h e i g h t .  L a n d a l s and S c o t t e r , 1973.  9.  Used l i n e i n t e r c e p t i n v e n t o r y techniques on 30, 20 m l i n e a r p l o t s , l a i d out i n s e r i e s of 3 ( e x p e r i m e n t a l , c o n t r o l , e x p e r i m e n t a l ) on suba l p i n e meadows. C o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e p l o t s 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 s e v e r a l community t y p e s . These were done u s i n g h e e l to toe and normal w a l k i n g (concentric circle plots). Sets of p l o t s were e s t a b l i s h e d i n June, J u l y and August. V e g e t a t i o n was sampled p r i o r to t r a m p l i n g and 2 times d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g year ( e a r l y June and l a t e August). Some p l o t s trampled 1 y e a r p r e v i o u s l y , were f u r t h e r s u b j e c t e d to an i n c r e m e n t a l s e r i e s of t r a m p l i n g i n t e n s i t i e s by adding 1 pass a t each succeeding meter on the 20 m transects. Cover v a l u e s on the p l o t s s u b j e c t ed to v a r i o u s t r a m p l i n g t i m i n g s 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 t r a m p l i n g f o r each community sampled.  Palmer,  1979.  100  137 Author 10. C o n s t r u c t e d and used a square tamper as an impact s i m u l a t o r , on 16 x 64 i n c h p l o t s i n uniform v e g e t a t i o n at v a r i o u s s i t e s . V e g e t a t i o n was c l i p p e d , d r i e d , and weighed, from both c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l p l o t s . M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n s were used to r e l a t e v e g e t a t i o n dry weight to t r a m p l i n g i n t e n s i t y and p e r c e n t of p l o t s covered by g r a s s e s and t r a i l i n g r a s p b e r r y . D e r i v e d t r a m p l i n g damage p r e d i c t i o n equations u s e f u l f o r comparing the r e l a t i v e d u r a b i l i t y of v e g e t a t i o n on s i t e s a s s e s s e d f o r p o t e n t i a l development, g u i d i n g the d e s i g n and placement of f a c i l i t i e s and g u i d i n g use r e s t r i c t i o n s .  Wagar,  11. C o n s t r u c t e d and used a 100 pound c o n f i g u r a t e d cement r o l l e r (6 l b s / i n ) on 40, 16 x 64 inch p l o t s . These p l o t s r e p r e s e n t e d a range of o v e r s t o r y t y p e s , s o i l t e x t u r e s , stone c o n t e n t , amount of d i r e c t s u n l i g h t (measured w i t h an i n s o l a t i o n g r i d ) , b a s a l t r e e a r e a s , d r a i n a g e and a s p e c t s (coded as 1.0 x s i n e of the azimuth from South E a s t , so t h a t 0.0 = c o o l NE exposures, 1.0 = moderate SE and NW exposures, 2.0 = hot SW e x p o s u r e s ) . Treatments of 12 passes per week f o r 11 weeks were done. V e g e t a t i o n was measured i n 2 ways: 12 by 30 i n c h g r i d s w i t h 200 1.2 x 1.5 i n c h c e l l s were put on each h a l f of the 16 x 64 inch p l o t s . Account was taken of the number of stocked r e c t a n g l e s . These v a l u e s (2 per p l 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 variables.  C i e s l i n s k i and Wagar, 1974.  2  2.3  1964.  V e g e t a t i o n 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 m o i s t u r e regimes: wet meadow, heath-moss, d r y meadow, rocky ledges a s s o c i a t e d w i t h snow m e l t , rocky ledges a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e s s i c a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , w e l l d r a i n e d f e l l f i e l d and rock communities ( t a l u s , s c r e e and m o r a i n e ) .  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 a c c o r d i n g to Ohmann (1971). C l u s t e r analyses used to v e r i f y u n i t s .  Hoffman £t_ j i l . , 1975.  138  Author *3.  5.  Vegetation c l a s s i f i e d using releve species l i s t s i n a computer s o r t i n g method.  Roemer, 1975a.  Meadow v e g e t a t i o n c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to p l a n t growth form. Grouped i n t o e r e c t and p r o s t r a t e growth forms.  L a n d a l s and S c o t t e r , 1973.  Community types d e f i n e d and i d e n t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to Daubenmire (1968).  B a y f i e l d , 1977,  V e g e t a t i o n i n v e n t o r y techniques may take a v a r i e t y o f forms, depending on v e g e t a t i o n types ( f o r e s t o r meadow) and the d e s i r e d degree of i n t e r p r e t a tion. The f o l l o w i n g i s a l i s t of procedures used i n s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of a d e s c r i p t i v e n a t u r e :  2.4  M a c r o p l o t Sampling Techniques 1.  F o r e s t stand survey p l o t s e s t a b l i s h e d , u s i n g v a r i a b l e s i z e d quadrats of from 235 t o 330 m (2500-3600 f t ) . A l l species i d e n t i fied. A d u l t t r e e , s e e d l i n g and s a p l i n g d e n s i t i e s measured along w i t h c a l c u l a t i o n s o f b a s a l a r e a , diameter a t b r e a s t h e i g h t (dbh) and o v e r a l l tree height.  F o l n e t a l . , 1972.  Braun-Blanquet (1932) r e l e v e method f o r e s t stand survey p l o t s e s t a b l i s h e d , u s i n g v a r i a b l e p l o t s i z e s g r e a t e r than 400 m . Percent cover of each s p e c i e s present determined f o r s i x canopy l a y e r s : dominant t r e e s ( A ^ ) , secondary t r e e s ( A 2 ) . h i g h shrubs ( B ^ ) , low shrubs ( B 2 ) , herbs ( C ) , mosses ( D ) . Trees examined f o r branch removal wounds.  Lesko and Robinson, 1973.  F o r e s t stand survey p l o t s e s t a b l i s h e d and mapped, twice y e a r l y f o r f i v e y e a r s , u s i n g campsite area as p l o t b o u n d a r i e s . Tree species i d e n t i f i e d . Tree increment b o r i n g s taken f o r growth r e c o r d , and crown c o n d i t i o n s ( s u b j e c t i v e v i g o r r a t i n g ) noted. Permanent photo p o i n t s e s t a b l i s h e d and mapped.  F r i s s e l , 1978.  2  2.  2  2  3.  1  139  Author  2.5  B l o c k d e s i g n f o r e s t stand survey p l o t s e s t a b lished. Samples taken a t 50 f o o t (15.4 m) intervals. F i r s t sampling p o i n t chosen a t random. Trees and shrubs sampled by p o i n t q u a r t e r method. T a l l shrubs and t r e e s e e d l i n g s sampled i n m i l a c r e p o i n t - c e n t r e d plots. Herbs and low shrubs noted i n one by two f o o t p l o t s .  Hoffman e_t al^. , 1975.  F i f t y meter g r i d sampling of f o r e s t stands, u s i n g two meter wide l i n e i n t e r c e p t s t o measure s p e c i e s d i v e r s i t y and percent cover.  Hoffman e t a l . , 1975.  F o r e s t stand survey p l o t s e s t a b l i s h e d , u s i n g v a r i a b l e 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 p o i n t s and compass b e a r i n g s . Noted s p e c i e s and cover i n o v e r s t o r y , shrub and herb l a y e r s .  Boorman and F u l l e r , 1977.  Microplot  Sampling Techniques  F i v e r e c t a n g u l a r p l o t s of dimensions 7 x 10 m e s t a b l i s h e d p a r a l l e l to c o n t o u r s . Ten meter s i d e s d i v i d e d i n t o t e n rows of which f i v e were sampled. Daubenmire frame (20 x 50 cm) s y s t e m a t i c a l l y p l a c e d a t one h a l f meter i n t e r v a l s on each sampled row, a l t e r n a t i n g i n a checkerboard p a t t e r n . Species percent c o v e r , and t r e e damage n o t e d .  T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973.  L i n e t r a n s e c t s e s t a b l i s h e d on campsites. One meter square p l o t s i n v e n t o r i e d f o r s p e c i e s and percent cover a t i n t e r v a l s of from f i v e to twenty meters, depending on the r a t e o f change (of s p e c i e s and cover) and l e n g t h of t r a n s e c t .  Lesko and Robinson, 1973.  Four meter square p l o t s p l a c e d a t random on campsites. Used o r d i n a l s c a l e o f cover and abundance (taken from Westhoff and Maarel 1975).  Roemer, 1975a.  E s t a b l i s h e d meadow t r a n s e c t s u s i n g a p o i n t quadrat method. Used 235 m quadrats (2500 f t ) w i t h 100 p o i n t s per sample ( e x c l u s i v e of bare ground). Species noted a t each p o i n t . Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of s p e c i e s o c c u r r e n c e over the 100 p o i n t s .  F o i n e t a l . , 1972.  2  2  140  Author 5.  F i v e to twenty l i n e t r a n s e c t s e s t a b l i s h e d at each meadow s i t e . S p e c i e s recorded under sample p o i n t s at 10 cm i n t e r v a l s on each t r a n s e c t . Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of s p e c i e s occurrence over a l l p o i n t s sampled.  Frissel,  1978.  6.  L i n e t r a n s e c t s e s t a b l i s h e d p a r a l l e l to t r a i l margins at predetermined d i s t a n c e s r e p r e s e n t ing a sampling g r a d i e n t . 100 to 250 sample p o i n t s per t r a n s e c t . Species i d e n t i f i e d a t each p o i n t . Percent cover determined by r a t i o s of s p e c i e s occurrence over a l l p o i n t s sampled.  Frissel,  1978.  7.  Use of a one square meter welded s t e e l quadrat frame w i t h e l a s t i c 10 cm square g r i d p a t t e r n f o r c o u n t i n g f l o w e r s and i n f l o r e s c e n c e s produced w i t h i n a v i s i t o r impact g r a d i e n t on t r a i l c o r r i d o r s . P l a c e d on l i n e t r a n s e c t s p e r p e n d i c u l a r to t r a i l s . Three s i d e by s i d e quadrats analyzed at each 10 m i n t e r v a l along the t r a i l .  Frissel,  1978.  8.  T r a i l c o r r i d o r transects established using f i v e by f i v e decimeter quadrats l a i d p a r a l l e l to the t r a i l c e n t r e l i n e a t d i s t a n c e s of 50, 120, 240 and 460 cm. S p e c i e s and percent cover r e c o r d e d .  Dale and Weaver, 1974.  9.  Measured d i s t a n c e to f i r s t l i v e p l a n t on l i n e i n t e r c e p t s r a d i a t i n g along e i g h t p o i n t s of the compass from campsite c e n t r e . Used average d i s t a n c e to compute bare ground a r e a ( r a d i u s of a c i r c l e ) .  Schreiner,  10.  T r a i l c o r r i d o r transects established using three t r a n s e c t s , two meters l o n g , p l a c e d along each t r a i l and at equal d i s t a n c e s on each side. T r a n s e c t s e t s r e p l i c a t e d t h r e e times each at one l o c a t i o n . Transects also placed p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the t r a i l . Sampling done by l i n e i n t e r c e p t method, u s i n g l i n e a r d i s t a n c e covered by each s p e c i e s as an e s t i m a t e of cover.  F o i n et a l . , 1972.  1978.  APPENDIX 3.  RESULTS DERIVED FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES  1  Trampling Resistant Plant Species from Eight Authors.  2  Trampling Susceptible Plant Species from Eight Authors.  APPENDIX Trapip! im;  Species  "li-sistant  Author  3.1  Plant Spi'iies Mm  Found a t S i t e  1  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,  Abies  ta-iivCOApct.  (seedlings )  (seedlings)  membAartaceum  2  Vaccinium  spp.  3  mitie^ottMitt  AiUerviaAia AAabv,  and  umbAineZla  spp.  AsteA  sp.  Catiiu.  P  P  [cil-LOiata]  tnt.ti.uiMt  Ipiicbium  aipinum  and  li-igtAOn  peAegAinat,  Fuja^ca  viA.gitiia.tui  HieAaouur,  gAaccte  Potentcitd  angasti^titium  (spp.)  di.veASiioi.ia  1,  (spp.)  2,  4  1,  4  1,  Caxui  15  14,  15  11,  12  11,  12,  14  7,  8,  5,  b,  7,  8  2  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14  4  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14  10  11  12  12,  13  11,  12,  13,  2,  3,  4,  b,  13,  14  14  1,  2,  6,  8 7,  7,  8 12  2  ,  12, 10,  spp.  13  10, I I , 12,  11  IU. I I , 12,  b  I.  12,  1  plant species  follow: Roemer, 1975a H a r t l e y , 1976 T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973 P a l m e r , 1979 W i l l a r d and M a r r , 1971 S p e i g h t , 1973 C o l e . 1977 C r a w f o r d , 1977  , •"Notes In p a r e n t h e s e s '( )' i n d i c a t e a d e v i a t i o n from t h e a u t h o r . F o r e x a m p l e , ' ( s p p ) ' means t h a t the s p e c i e s i n t h i s s t u d y d i d n o t match t h o s e o f t h e a u t h o r . Generic s i m i l a r i t i e s allowed their 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 in question.  I I . 14  7  5  5,1  14  12,  1 0 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 4  /  b.l.l  |ip.  of 32 t r a m p l i n g r e s i s t a n t  7  1  r  14  13  2  spp.  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I). 7. 8.  14,  6,  1  spp.  Authors  13,  5,  Pliteum atpiimm  Total  7, 3,  13,  12 1,  5, 6, 7,  15  13,  8  12  2  Poa  6,  15  15  10  12,  1  and  14,  8  11,  b  Juncus  7,  7  viAide  S  5,  8,  11,  IV.v,n,\i U V - J N J I . - j o ( d i t  / o fucd  4,  5,  8  7,  10,  A.ll.'J (l S s  I'.lli-v  4,  7,  4  sp.  fivui(mutt  6,  11,  10,  inal'c  Mi'l'fuij afbt'^i'uAiii  2,  1,  4  cccidctttdte  TA-i^viiutn  5,  10,  ^  pAvcumbcni  OflQ to  6,  1  '  T / u i f ictAiutt  4,  5,  1  6  Tifunacuin  13,  (spp.)  sp. tn.Utlgu.td.XLS  3,  ,  4  Ruincx. acetocetla  Sibbaidia  1  2,  1  Sedwn Se.ittiC.ic  12,  10, 1,  4  (spp.)  K a t i u i i c i u u s agAciX-i-i and R. vccA.den(atis  11,  13,  5  tcplcscpaia  CasCillejd  10,  1  neglecta  #s  10, 11, 12, 13, 14,  1  Vacciniuin  AclUUea  7, 8, 9,  1  2  P i c e a CngeimantvLi  I i I i ril  8  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 3: 3 4: 4 5: 6 6: 8 7:13 8:10 9: 1 10:12 11:13 12:17 13:14 14:13 15: 4  14  'APPENDIX 3.2 Trampling Susceptible Plant Species I d e n t i f i e d Species  Author  O u i U ' l - v . mnAtoiAiana  4  Co.'uiui liyuei'.a  1  Found at S i t e 0s 1, 2, 3, A,-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,  10, I 1, 12, 13, 14 2  ,  8  'Madoiuui i c p c i u (spp. )  1 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Phytlodoce.  1  2  Salix  sp.  nivalii  (spp.)  SympkoiXcxuipoi  ;  4  albuA  10, 11. 12, 13,  14  11, 12,  14  5,  8  2  5, 6  Anemone octUdentaLU  1  10, 11, 12,  AAenaAia. aapillAAii  2  10, 11  M t u c a c<Vuii|So.tUa  2  A i i e A conip-tcuai  5  8, 2,  10,  14  12, 13, 14  8  Gejitiana amoAelta (spp.)  1  11, 12  l u p u i u i lepidui  2  11, 12, 13  (spp.)  Luzula IvUchcockii  2  Piilox di&ltUAa (sp.)  5  OAthelia  itauiida  ValiAiana Viola  8  iitchzniii  2, 3, 4,  Vanthonia  ititervrnzdia  Vuciumpiia  10, 11,  2  8  (spp.)  sp.  7, 8, 9,  1, 2, 3, 4,  catieiccni  spp.  1  Ctadonia  spp.  [  polydactylui,  (spp.)  1  Roemer, 1975a Hartley, 1976 T r o t t i e r and S c o t t e r , 1973 Palmer, 1979 W i l l a r d and Marr, 1971 Speight, 1973 Cole, 1977 Crawford, 1977  ^Notes i n parentheses ( )' i n d i c a t e a d e v i a t i o n from the author. For example, '(spp)' means that the species i n t h i s study d i d not match those of the author. Generic s i m i l a r i t i e s allowed t h e i r i n c l u s i o n 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. 1  7, 8, 9,  10,  15  6,  7, 8, 9,  15  8, 1. 2, t  j  i_ 2,  Total of 29 trampling susceptible plant species ^Authors follow:  15  9, 5, 6,  1  Cctn.aA.ia  10, 11, 12, 13, 14,  7, 8  1 It  spp.  RliacomitAitim  2, 3, 4,  1  sp.  Polijttichum  14  11,12  4,1  Homatotliecium Hylocomium  14 12, 13,  4  VicAanum  12  6,  8  t>^(/cuii sp.  14  5 6 7  1  caeipitoia  15 10, 11, 12,  t  ipicatum  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  9,  i  sp.  Ag-lopy-ton  PeltigeAa  11, 12, 13, 14 io  3, 4, 3, 4_ 3, 4,  5_  0  , 7, 8, 9,  5, 6,  7, 8, 9,  12,  11,  13, 14,  13, 14 14  10,  11, 12, 13,  14,  15 15  S i t e # 1: 5 trampling susceptible species 2: 10 3: 7 4: 7 5: 7 6: 8 7: 8 8: 11 9: 8 10: 11 11: 14 12::15 13::10 14: 14 15:; 6  144  APPENDIX  4.  ECOSYSTEM  ASSOCIATIONS PRESENT  WITH CAMPSITE INTERPRETATIONS  IN THE STEIN WATERSHED, BASED ON SLOPE POSITION  Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i ons f o r t h e S t e i n 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 , F o r e s t E c o l o g i s t f o r t h e Kamloops R e g i o n of t h e B.C.F.S. ( M i t c h e l l , p e r s o n a l communication, 1980).  Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r the Western Kamloops Region were d e f i n e d and l i s t e d i n M i t c h e l l e t a l . , 1981.  Ecosystem a s s o c i a t i o n s used i n Appendix 4 were e x t r a c t e d from the above sources. Campsite i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were based on s l o p e , which r e p r e s e n t s 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 a s s o c i a t i o n nomenclature used i n Appendix 4 f o l l o w e d ( p e r s o n a l communication, 1982).  Klinka  APPENDIX 4. Ecosystem A s s o c i a t i o n s Present in the Stein Watershed w i t h Campsite I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Based on Slope P o s i t i o n  Subsone  PPBGd  IDPc02  Approximation? of Hygrotope  Ecosystem Associations  3  on on on on  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  [\izlutinuA]  PaxiAtima [lacuAtAZ.)  [myAiinitZi) - CCAKUA  - PC - PM [izMcza) -  IDFd02  Combination of 1 and 3 above  IDFe  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  ESSFe  ESSFf  Vaccinium  licopaAium]  - PE - AL  ValzAiana Oplopanax  [iitchzmii) [hoAAiduA]  - Vaccinium - AL - PE  AAcXoitaphyloA  none (too steep) on gentle midslopes on gentle slopes and l e v e l ground  - PM - PP  CalamagAOAtit [AubZACznA] EquA^ztum [oAvZnAz) - Ribti  [uva-uAAi)  PE  on gentle slopes  [mzmbAanaczum)  1  4 5 6  AL - PE  1 4 .  on c r e s t to upper gentle slopes on g e n t l e slopes on lower g e n t l e slopes and l e v e l ground  I  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  6  - PC - AL  LupinuA loACticui) - Ph£ox (spp.I - JanipzAui (ccmnmuA) - AL + PE Phyllodoce IzmpztAifioAmii) - Caiiiopz (me/Lte.vs.car.a) - AL + PE [ipzctabitU) - E/Uge*on (peAeg/unuil - A l + PE Cotex (nigAicani) - Antenmttca [lanata) - Salix I c a A c a d z n A i i ) -AL + Ca/iex (nig/ticaiu) - Caltha [IzptoAzpala] - AL + PE  COAZX  ATb  on h i l l c r e s t s and gentle slopes on gentle slopes on gentle lower slopes on g e n t l e lower slopes too wet - D e v i l ' s club i s l i m i t i n g  3  2  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  ESSFpf  lower to middle gentle slopes middle gentle slopes middle g e n t l e slopes lower slopes and l e v e l t e r r a i n  none on l e v e l c r e s t to midslope p o s i t i o n s  - PP  IDFd Czanothui  P o s s i b l e Campsite Locations  3  4 5 6 7  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)  2 4 5  on gentle upper slopes on l e v e l meadows none - too wet on l e v e l meadow i n basin on l e v e l r i p a r i a n t e r r a i n  6  7 1  unknown unknown on g e n t l e lower slopes on l e v e l meadow i n basin  3  4 5  Extracted from: Mitchellet aj_. (1981), M i t c h e l l (1980, unpublished Plant Species L i s t ) and K l i n k a (1982, personal communication). Approximate Hygrotope where: 1 - x e r l c , 2 • subxeric, 3 - submeslc, 4 - mesic, 5 • subhygrlc, 6 • h y g r l c , 7 • subhydrlc. Tree species abbreviations follows i n order of occurrence:  PP =  PC - Pinui  TH • Tiuga  contOAta  var  lati&olia,  PE - Picza  zngzlmannii,  PinuA  pondzAOia, hetZAophylla,  PM •  PAzudotAuga  TP » Thuja  mznziziii plicata,  var AL - AbiZA  glauca, lOAiocaApa.  APPENDIX 5.  S o i l s O c c u r r i n g i n the S t e i n  Watershed  1  Subzones and Approximate Hygrotope i n which they occur Soil  Subgroups PPBGd  IDF  IDFd  IDFd  IDFe  ESSFe  ESSFf  ESSFpf  O r t h i c Regosol  Atb 1,4  O r t h i c Cumulic Regosol Orthic Melanic Brunisol Orthic E u t r i c Brunisol O r t h i c Sombric  Brunisol  Orthic Dystric  Brunisol  2,3,5  1,2  1,2  1  1,3  1,2  1,2  Eluviated Dystric Brunisol  1,3,4  Gleyed E u t r i c B r u n i s o l  5,6  Gleyed D y s t r i c  2  3,4  2  1  1,3  Brunisol  Gray L u v i s o l  1,2  O r t h i c Humo-Ferric Podzol  1,4  O r s t e i n Humo-Ferric Podzol  4  Gleyed Humo-Ferric P o d z o l  1,2,3,4  3,4  6,7  O r t h i c Humic G l e y s o l  5,6  Rego G l e y s o l Organic  5,6,7  E x t r a c t e d from B, Green e t a l . (1981), B. M i t c h e l l (1980, u n p u b l i s h e d S o i l Survey R e s u l t s ) and S. N i c h o l s (1982, p e r s o n a l communication). Approximate Hygrotope where:  1 = xeric 2 = subxeric 3 = submesic 4 = mexic 5 = subhygric 6 = Hygric 7 = Subhydric.  5  147  APPENDIX  6.  SITE SURVEY FORMS  6.1  Site Description  form (from Walmsley e £ a l . , 1980).  6.2  Soil Description  form (from Walmsley  6.3  Vegetation Description  6.4  S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Supplement  #1.  6.5  Site Description  #2.  e t a l . , 1980).  form (from Walmsley  Supplement  e t a l . , 1980).  6.1 SITE DESCRIPTION FORM  03827  Hark  a cross  (x) over  parameter  number when  not t o be entered  Mark  a slash  (/)  parameter  number  not found.  1.  © 6. 7. 8.  Proj. NTS  over  ID.  2.  L.  Sheet  UTM S y s t e m  2  o  n  /  _  must  be f i l l e d  '  •  •  (Y/M/D)_  Long.  t  Easting  OF  in are circled.  © D a t e  © U > t .  e  PAGE  computer. which  Plot No.  /  _ _ •  •  / _ »  Northing  Photo  # & Co-ord.  Terrain  flight  line  *  r©  Y r . 19  photo Slope  J^. Phys.  Sub  Qual.  Texture  Mat.  Surface  Oesc.  Hod.  Qual.  Express.  Proc.  jesc.  1  1  1  J*.  1  1  1  1  1  Assoc.  -U-  t  metres  System  v  1  Cover  © E l e v a t i o n ,  Ecological  1  Vegetative  X  1 4 . Zone/Subzone  Gen.  !  no.  p e r c e n t  Terrain  16.  Into  Parameters  Location  © A s p e c t 12.  *hen  Classification  ;  Type  .  s  1  17.  System  Soil  p  System  *  p  Classif.  Year  19  Phase  9  T .  T  Family  _ 18.  Plot  f l 9 J  Site  25.  representing  position  macro  apex  b.  face  c.  d.  upper  middle  slope  e.  lower  slope  f.  valley  Meso  Site  Size  —  a.  q.  23.  _  Particle  slope  crest  b.  upDer  c.  middle  d.  lower  f.  length  position r o l l  m  diagram  (refer  meso  slooe  (zij  Site  ^-^^  a.  concave  b.  convex  c.  straight  slope slope  shape  (?2^  level  2 4 . veso  to data  *;rm  up-slope  length  Microtopography smooth  toe  m  b.  micro  c.  slightly  d.  moderately  e.  stronqly  mounded mounded  f.  severely extremely  h.  ultra  noJ  b.  wind  d.  frost  f.  mounded  mounded  Type  not  e.  mounded  mounded  a. c.  Direct ion  mounded  g.  ExDOSure  no.  no.  ,photo  surface  deoression  g.  slooe  position  a.  e.  floor  plain  photo  Site  applicable  insolation  cold  a i r  s a l t s p r ay  drainage  q. atmospheric other  toxicity  Comments:  J  scale  27.  Ecological a.  very  Moisture xeric  Regime  JB.  Nutrient a.  Regime  xeric  b.  oligotrophic S'-ibmesotrooh i c  d.  submes i c  c.  mes i c  d.  -esotrophic  e.  b.  c.  f.  9-  subxeric  subhygric hygric  h.  subhydric  i.  hydr ic  e. f  1  Jf.  Soil a.  b.  c.  Temperature extremely very  30.  cold  d.  eutroohic  cool  e.  mild  Soil a  Moisture  Subc l a s s  n  cold  oermesotroph ic "ivpereutrophic  cold  Class  c '  d e f g  h i j .  per aquic  149  31.  Soil  drainaqe  a.  b.  c.  d.  Perviousness  32.  rapidly  well  mod.  well  imperfectly  e.  poorly  f.  very  rapidly  b. c.  moderately slowly  a. b.  39.  Depth  water  b.  rooting  c.  root  c. e.  restricting  e.  bedrock  f.  carbonate  9-  salinity  Bedrock  c.  41.  type  Bedrock  37.  PS,  YS,  MC,  M C C , M E C , D C , NV  slow  type  (in  b.  mixed  Factors  MS, OS,  Area  .  Surface  SUBSTRATE Decaying  i r r e g u l a r  may  be  exDected  rare no  hazard  structure  litnoloqy  order  of  Influencing  dominance)  Stand  Establishnent  YEC, YCC,  42.  d.  e.  normal  Veg. Plot:  fragment  a.  Form  Class.  Variants  rapid  very  rapid  (ha)  #  Humus  Profile  Shape_  x  (m)  —  :  Status  a. b.  modal variant  c. d.  t'axadjunct undecided  ;  it.  b.  46.  Deviation  solum  thickness  colour  e.  drainage  e. f.  chemical  thickness  COVER  Wood Bedrock  47.  Soil  48.  Associated  50.)  Project  Coordinator  52.)  Type  Soil  b. c. d.  texture  g. horizon other  Soil a.  none  c.  d.  Substrate X  ;  Profile a.  f.  43.  and  frequent  Status  succession  slow  Dim  ;  climax  very  Coarse  •38.  40.  Stage:  Expected  layer  layer  Success ional  b.  b.  (effective)  frozen  of  absent  hazard  frequent  table  d.  a.  a.  (cm)  a.  Rate  Flood  34.  poorly  to  Present  Water nresent  d.  36. 35.  Free  33.  a.  Mappinq family  associate  associ at ion  catena  complex land system land type other  name  soil  49.  Profile  No.  Cobbles and  Stones  Surveyor  (5U)  Agency  Mineral Soil  Orqan ic  A.  Matter  of  54.  Notes  Chemical  a. b.  100» on S i t e  Description  B.  53.  Sampled  1.  Uater Total  Sample  No  full  partial  Sample  2.  Physics! a. b.  full pa r t i a 1  Veq. Sampling  Unit  series  Tech.  vol  o  <t  < 2min  SECONDARY  PR:MA-:Y CLASS  OL  •;I;;D  O  c  <: re  CLASS  KIND  D M W  CO  10  |  I  Gravel Cobbles Stones 7.5SOIL • 7.5cn 25cm •> 2 5 cm TEXTURE  /  MST CONSIST.  .1 moist  MIN MA A  by  STRUCTURE  dry  cm.  •  8  KIND MOD.  HORIZON THICKNESS cm.  7  KIND MOD.  HORIZON DEPTH  6  5  COA RSE FRAGMENT DESCRIPT  Itype 1  HORIZON DESIG.  3  Itype 1  2  Itype 1  1  HORIZON ^ 1 Form BOUNDARY  cr»  «-> LO  CJ  2  ro C  LABOfMTORY SAI 1PLE NUIIBER No. 1  g  r~ D m co O DO  No. 2  1 >  i  1  I  -4— 1  •  I  1  . I....  j —  i  _j_ L_  .  1  11  1  COLOUR 2  F M C  F D P  LO  COLOUR  i —1i — Ji 1  i  i  a  V F P A  s  C D  V F M C  L.  o  V H 0 R  11  Dist  Ab. S i z e  IN EX  V F P A  MA  i  I1 1 I I1 1  1 1  I  U l |. J 1 1  I I1 1 1 1  1 1  1  1  1  1  1 1 i  1  o  HORIZON NOTES  IN EX MX  1 I  1 1  i  I  i  i  -n O 2}  -  .1 1  s  I I  II i IIi 1 1 1 I i l Ii I l I1 i 1 1 i.„ i i  z c 2  03 m 3)  • i  I  1 1  V II 0 R  I—  1  1  1 1  1  1  1|  -•I  „.L,  Dist  V F M C  1 M 1i 1l 1  1  -  i - iHi + i i i 14  1  I  1 1  ROOTS 2  1  1 1  1  —1—I—1~  !  1  !  1  1  I I I !  —1—|—|—1-  -+  «=C  1  1 1 1 1  i  Size  3 o cn  aspect  aspect  F C M  J3  3  —1—1  —(•  1  1  ROOTS 1  -4  -  1  i  j -  MOTTLES AB SI CO  HORIZON DESIG.  —1  1  1?  COLOUR 1  aspect  i  r I t  1 l  _ i  1  n O  1  1  '  1  1  1  1  I  1  1  1  1  1 1  1  —  1  !  1  1 1  00 O  Ui  o  -  ZT  un  m  re  CL  n  cr  I— m <  m (—  -  o  fc  n  cr  r— m «c m r—  Kind  Decom oo  n: 3 i  w  ^ oT  a.  \  method 3> "o -n <:  Ab.  r~> 3 "n <=  Si ze  —  o ac <c  7a  3 x.x m  o o  Ori o  _ z  o o  o o  *  Cont'  Scale  -a 3:  PORES  Index von Post  reaction  DESCRIPTION  Woody Material Vol  <  z  ORGANIC MATERIAL  Material Composi t  Kind  HORIZON DESIG.  HORIZON DESIG.  -  ro  o  oo  Mor Type  .—<"--•<  o  o  TO PO  o 3 o -n oo  3  —1  2  Loc.  <=cT-  o 3 -n Str.  TO  Spo  —  O  1 Dry  3  SC  c~i  -n  Ab. Si ze Loc  ro  •X) —  O  oo  Shape  Aspect  J  L  Number c Letter(s)  ~o m  8?  Coloi  fD  Value  CONCRETIONS, NODULES AND CASTS  n 3 "n OJ  o  Ki nd  — o 3  ro  SAL  1/1  Consist.  Mst  -  —  Shape  <  PO  SECONDARY CARBONATE DESCRIPTION  n -n  EFFER  -  Ab. S i z e  3  Degr Cont  *>o  FILMS  —1  Thi  •= -1 —1  CLAY  Freq.  --  ro ro  Chroma  Agent  ^ o oo  DEPTH  (cm)  3  n Degree Extent  n n m —^  ro CO  151  152 6.3  V E G E T A T I O N PKUJLCT  DESCRIPTION  I.D.  I—I—I—I—TTT—|—  F O R M  PLOT NO.  PAGE  OF  SURVLYOR STRATUM > +J  r -  M  •—  3  ro J T 1— LO CO  CO  z>  3 SO -C _ i LO  C Herbs  o s-  a.  c o ro na 5 : <_)  JC  Total Shrubs  • — OJ E OJ  Total Trees  c  TO C l/l  O  CNJ CO  Height of top of strata(m) Number o f dead snags Iota 1 percentage cover o f each l a y e r SPECIES LIST  •  Comments on Vegetation  l/! cr» c »/i - i . OJ t — ui ~o l/l OJ O GJ _ l  A3 Trees  specify entries here  NOTES  Characteristics  s: co  A l l Strata  LIST  Veteran  FLORISTIC  153  6.4  S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Supplement #1.  Stoniness (Cansis, (loose m a t e r i a l )  1978 - 8J)  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 E x c e s s i v e l y Stony > 50  Rockiness (bedrock)  1978 - 8K)  Non rocky S l i g h t l y rocky Moderately rocky Very rocky Exceedingly rocky E x c e s s i v e l y rocky  Erosion  (Cansis,  (Cansis, 1978 - 8H)  General water e r o s i o n - s l i g h t < 25 moderate 25-75 severe > 7 5 gullied severely gullied Seepage 5.  (Cansis,  Susceptibility  Some Moderate  1978  to f r o s t  (Cansis,  hazard  (Cansis,  Average penetrometer  8,  I n f i l t r a t i o n rate  reading  (Cansis,  High  Severe  1978 - L) Slight Moderate  7,  wind eroded 25-75 severely wind eroded >75 blown out profile destroyed  1978 - R)  Slight Moderate Landslide  % of s u r f a c e  % of surface  1978 - P)  Severe range cm/hour  154  6.5  S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Supplement #2.  Access type - c o n s t r u c t e d t r a i l cross-country Trail difficulty Distance  to:  road animal t r a i l  other  (1-10 s c a l e - s u b j e c t i v e )  water  Attractions: destination meadow flowers  n e a r e s t a c t i v i t y area s p e c i f y type fishing scenic  climbing other  Evidence of Human waste, garbage and c o n s t r u c t e d photo # Tree:  facilities  Role #  r o o t exposure: % of s u r f a c e damage photo # role disease photo # role crown c l o s u r e (% c l a s s ) 1) none 2) 1-20 4) 41-61 5)61-80  Stage of p l a n t development (Phenology)  # # 3) 21-40 6) 81-100  overstory shrubs ground  Firewood a v a i l a b i l i t y : r a d i u s t o o b t a i n one evening's firewood (15 kilograms) Firering:  construction  Wildlife:  browse damage fecal pellets footprints other  diameter  photo #  role #  155  APPENDIX 7.  REFERENCES USED IN PLANT IDENTIFICATIONS. PUBLICATION OR  Arno, S.F. and R.P. S e a t t l e .* Hale, M.E. 1969. Iowa.** H i t c h c o c k , A.S. V o l s . 1 and  Hammerly.  How  SOURCE  1977.  Northwest T r e e s .  to Know the L i c h e n s .  Wm.  The  Mountaineers,  C. Brown Co. Dubuque,  1971. Manual of the Grasses of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 2, Dover P u b l i s h i n g Inc., N.Y.**  Hitchcock, C L . 1969. Key to the Grasses of the P a c i f i c Northwest, Based on V e g e t a t i v e C h a r a c t e r s . U. of Washington P r e s s , S e a t t l e . * * H i t c h c o c k , C.L., A. C r o n q u i s t and M. Ownbey. 1969. V a s c u l a r P l a n t s of the P a c i f i c Northwest. U. of Washington P r e s s , 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. B o t a n i c a l L a b o r a t o r y , N i c h i n a n , M i y a z a k i , Japan.**  The  Hattori  Lyons, C P . 1974. T r e e s , Shrubs and Flowers to Know i n B r i t i s h Columbia. J.M. Dent and Sons, T o r o n t o . * S p e l l e n b u r g , R. and S. R a y f i e l d . 1979. The Audobon S o c i e t y F i e l d Guide to North American W i l d Flowers - Western Region. A.A. Knopf, N.Y.* T a y l o r , R.L. and B. MacBryde. 1977. V a s c u l a r P l a n t s of B r i t i s h Columbia: a d e s c r i p t i v e r e s o u r c e i n v e n t o r y . The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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  ** Used w i t h a 20X  zoom d i s s e c t i n g  on  ***  site.  microscope.  *** Used w i t h a l i g h t microscope f o r c e l l u l a r  examination.  APPENDIX 8. Plant Species L i s t f o r Stein V a l l e y Recreation Impact Assessment C o l l e c t i o n (UBC Herbarium)  TREES 1.  AbieA  2. 3.  AceA.  glabmm AtnuA -incana  var dougtabii Torr. subsp. tznul^otla (Nuttal.) Breitung  5.  Picua  e.nge£immuX Parry ex. Engelm.  4. 7. H. '). 10. 11.  ta6iuc.aA.pa  (Hook.) N u t t .  1  Septula papijtii&eAa Marshall gtauca  Rinai albicaatu Engeimann PuiuA contofita var la-ti^ot-ia Douglas ux Loud. P.umi munt icola 1). Douglas P.6lu<J pondiUio6a D. Douglas ex. Lawsun and Lawson Poputiu Oiemuto4.dz6 A. Michaux  12.  Popular  13.  P&eudo&iuga  baldaniiiiLKa  14. 15.  Tkuja T6uga  var tA.ic.kacaApa  menzieAAA. var gtauca  L.  (Belssher) Franco  pLicata Donn ex. D. Don i n Lamb. meAte.n6-iana (Bongard) C a r r i e r e  Subalpine f i r Douglas maple Thin-leaved Mountain alder Common paper b i r c h I n t e r i o r spruce Whltebark pine Lodgepolu plne Western  white  plnu  Ponderosa pine Trembling aspen Black cottonwood Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir Western red cedar Mountain hemlock  SHRUBS 16.  AiiuLtandilcsi  17.  AA.cto6-taph.yto6  atnl^otia tiva-mteA.  (Nutt) Nutt.  Common saskatoon Kinnikinnick Scrub glandular b i r c h 19. Qa66X.opQ. moAXtnUi-iana v a r xnQjiten6iana (Bongard) G. Don Merten's cassiope 20. CeanotkiU 6angiu.ne.u6 Pursh. Redstem ceanothus 21. Ceanothu6 veZutina6 D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker Snowbrush ceanothus 22. CttmaXU alpina (L.) P. M i l l e r A l p i n e clematis 23. CoKytiM aveZtana (L.) Common f i l b e r t 24. Con.nu6 6QAA.cea (Torrey + Gray) Fossberg Western Red Osier dogwood 25. Empe,Vium nigKum (L.) Black crowberry 26. HotodiAcab dUtColoi (Pursh.) Maxim Ocean spray 27. JunipeAiU command subsp. atpina ( N e i l r e i c h ) Celakovsty Common j u n i p e r 29. Katnita mtCAophytta (W.L. Hooker) A.A. H e l l e r Western swamp kalmia 30. • Linnaea bo^ejicu L. Northern twinflower 31. LontceAa utahcn6-i6 S. Watson Utah honeysuckle 32. loAJiQJLzjjJiia fM.ocumbe.nA (L.) N.A. Desvaux A l p i n e azalea 3 3. PaxAJituna my>u>inite6 (Pursh) Oregon Boxwood 34. . PhtZadetpku6 tmi&isi Pursh Lewis Mock-orange 35. Pkyttudoce. mpeXnX^OfmLit (J.E. Smith) D. Don Red Mountain-heather 36. Phyttodoce. gtandati^toAa (W.J. Hooker) C o v i l l e Cream Mountain heather 37. PtumuA eina/iginata (D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker) B i t t e r cherry Walpers and Western chokecherry Prunus v-iAgxiniana D. Douglas T a l l Oregon-grape 38. Makonta aqul^otiam (p rsh) Nuttall Creeping Oregon-grape and Mahouia fie.pe.n6 ( L i n d l e y ) G. Don P a c i f i c menziesia 39. Wznz.ieM.ia faeAAuginea. J.E. Smith White-flowered rhododendron 40. Rhododendron aZbl^lotvm Hook. Squaw currant 41. Rtb£6 C C A e u w D. Douglas and S t i c k y currant HibeA vAl6C066-iA6imum Pursh Nuotka rose 42. Rota mtfkana K.R. P r e s l . American Red raspberry 43. Rufaoi .a/atiui L. Black raspberry 44. Rubu6 teuCOde/wUA D. Douglas ex Torrey and Cray Western thimbleberry 4 5. Rubu6 pa/iv^to/uu Nuttall Five-leaved creeping raspberry 4 6. RubaA pzdatu6 J.E. Smith Blue elder 47. Sambucu6 CQAutea Rafinesque 4 8. Satix ca6Cade\i6AJ> Cockerall (and others) Cascade willow (and others) Bebb's willow 4 9. Satix behbiana Sargent Soopolalie 50. SkepheAdia canade.n6l6 (L.) N u t t a l l Western mountain-ash 51. SoA.bu6 6C0puLina var ca6cade,n6AJ> (G.N. Jones) C.L. Hitchcock S i t k a mountain-ash 52. Solbu6 6itche.n6-L6 M.J. Roemer Common snowberry 53. Sympho/vicoApoA atbu6 S.F. Blake Dwarf blueberry 54. VaccUnium ca<Lt>ftiXo&um A. Michaux Velvet leaved blueberry VacCAnium mijhXWLoidZA A. michaux (and others) Cascade blueberry 55. Vac<Unium dtticio6am Piper Black blueberry 56. UaccXnium membfianacejjxn D. Douglas ex. W.J. Hooker Oval-leaved blueberry 57. VaccirUum ovati^otium J.F. Smith i n Rees 58. VAlbuAnum 0putu6 subsp. txXtobum (Marshall) R.T. Clousen American bush cranberry 18.  SeXata  L.  gtandtxto6a A. Michaux  U  157  APPENDIX 8 ( c o n t ' d )  FLOWER I Nt:  PLANTS  Ti. 80. 81. 8J. 83.  m<r"f v faHum L. A c c m f u i n i'('fumu<a*1imt N u l l . - i l l In Tnrri-y ;in<l Ci.iy 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 AguAliA-t-s s p p . K a f l u i t a Q u e PuCiotilla occidentalii ( S . Watson) Fnei/11 AntennaAia spp. J . Gaertner UicAoieAii boAealii (Bongard) S c h u l t s - B l p o n t i n u s Apocmwi andAoiaemi^olium L. AAabii s p p . L. AAabii lemmonii S. Watson AAa.Ha nudicaulii L. AAenaAia capitlaAii P o l r e t I n Lamarck AAnica COAdi^ol.ix w.J. Hooker A l u c c a iatiiolia (Rydberj;) A r n i c a diicuidea AitCA conipicuui L i n d l e y i n W.J." H o o k e r AiteA ciliotatui L i n d l e y i n W.J. H o o k e r AthyAium ip. R o t h Caltha te.ptoie.pala v a r bi^loAa (A.P. C a n d o l l e ) G. Lawson Caltha leptoiepala var leptoiepala Caititteja spp. M u t i s ex. L. f i l . ChimaphXtla umbellata (L.) Barton Coltiniia gAandi^loAa Lindley C t c p t i otAabaAba A.A. H e l l e r Delphinium glaucum S. Watson DiipoAum hookeAi (Torrey) Nicholson E p i t o b i u m anagattidiioHum Lamark  8i.  Ipilobium  S'l.  t.il. (il . ti; . b.l. bU. 65. 66 67. bb. 69. 70. 71. 7:'. 73. 7;. 7s 7c. 77.  7a.  85. 8ti. 87. 8.S. 89. 90. 91. '9J.  Ac/uffiM  anguAtifaotium  L.  Epilobium gtandutoium Lehmann iQui&etum s p . L. s p . L. ttligeAOn COmpoiitui Pursh tAigeAon peAegAinui Pursh Eliogonum s p p . A. M i c h a u x £AiophoAum anguitifaolium Hanckeny FAagOAia viAginiana v a r ptatypetala  K  Comintin y.-irruw Cn I nmli 1 .-in u o n k c h o i M l '- u;uiulu:i'ry False dandelion Western pasqueflower Pussytoes Apargidlum S p r e a d i n g dogbane Rock c r e s s Lemmon's Rock c r e s s Wild s a r s a p a r i l l a Thread leaved sandwort Heart-leaved arnica u  Showy a s t e r Lindley's aster Lady f e r n Two-flowered w h i t e marshmarigold Alpine white marsh-marigold Indian paintbrush Common W e s t e r n p i p s l s s e w a L a r g e f l o w e r e d B l u e - e y e d Mary S l e n d e r hawksbeard Glaucous delphinium Hooker's f a i r y b e l l s Alpine willowherb Fireweed  lligeAon  Rydberg  Sticky willowherb Scouring rush Fleabane Cut-leaved fleabane Subalpine fleabane Umbrella plant Narrow-leaved cottongrass Broad-petalled wild strawberry Blue-leaved strawberry Rattlesnake plantain Four-parted gentian Rein orchid Fragrant white r e i n orchid Slender rein orchid L y a l l ' s goldenweed Golden a s t e r Round-leaved alumroot Alumroot W h i t e hawkweed S l e n d e r hawkweed S c o u l e r s hawkweed Leatherleaf saxifrage Fern-leaved lomatium Columbia l i l y Lomatium Luetkea Lupine A l a s k a c l u b moss Lewis's monkeyflower Wood f o r g e t - m e - n o t  93. 9~. 95. 96. 97. 9.S. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 10b. 109. 110. 111. 11J. 113.  v a r glatica ( S . Watson) S t a u d t GuudyeAa oblongifaolia Raf. Gcntianella pAopinqua J . Richardson i n Franklin PtatantheAa s p . L.C.M. R i c h a r d PtatantheAa ditatata Pursh PtatantheAa itAicta Lindley H d p f u p a p u i lyaltii A. C r a y HeteAotheca sp. C a s s l n l HeucheAa cytindAica D. D o u g l a s e x . W . J . H o o k e r HeucheAa s p . L. HieAacium albiitoAum W . J . Hooker HieAacium QAacile W.J. Hooker HieAacium AcouleAi W . J . Hooker LeptOAAhena pyAotiiolia (D. Don) R. Brown Lomatium diiiectum ( N u t t a l l ) Mathias & Constance Lolium columbianum Hanson e x J . G . B a k e r Lomatium sp. Rafinesque Luetkea pectinata ( P u r s h ) C.E.O. K u n t z e Lup-cnUA s p . L. l i / c o p o a U l i J n iitchenie Rupreckt Uimatui tetoiiiii Pursh Utjoiotii iylvatica L i n k e x Roemer a n d S c h u l c e s  114.  Hicia  115. lib. 117. 118. 119.  OAthelia sp. Rafinesque OAthelia Aecanda L. OAthoCOApui sp.Nuttall OAthoCOApui lutein Nuttall OAthoCOApui tenuifaolini ( P u r s h ) Bentham  One-sided wintergreen M a n y - f l o w e r e d One-sided w n t e r g r e u n Owl c l o v e r Yellow owl clover Thin-leaved owl clover  1211.  PedicutoAii,  Elephant's-head  l-'l.  PenitCtivil  amcAicana  gAoentandica  sp. M i t c h e l l  Nlcia  Retziui  Penstemon  lousewort  APPENDIX 8 ( c o n t *d)  FLOWERING PLANTS ( c o n t ' d ) 122. 123.  Pcn&tzmon Pzn&tzmon  ( fiutico6u4. v a r 6C0utesU P u r s c h ptioceAui D. D o u g l a s e x . R.C. Graham  124.  PcXa^ltzs  paljna£u&  125. 12*>.  Pkacztia tinnzaAc& (Pursh) H o l z l n g e r Piifox di^a&a Bentham  i  A. G r a y  127.  PlzctAitU  128.  Polygonum  12^.  PotznUtta  congz&ta  1 U). I'll.  P o f c n t i f f a d t v C L i i r f o t t a Lehmann P t j f c n f t f f a tfuheXtiftoLia W.J. Hooker ex T o r r e y and G r a y  Lindley  s p . L. s p p . L.  132.  PoUntilla  133. 13^.  K a n u H c u & i * s p p . L. Rumex acc£uce££a L .  gtandulo&a.  Lindley  135.  SaJUola kati L .  13". 137.  SaiUfjAnga s p p . L. S a x x ^ t a g a DAOtichlatU  13*.  Saxi^Aaga  lijalLLL  139.  Saxl^Aaga  cccUdzntciLLt,  14Q. 141.  Saxx-fj-taga tolmzi T o r r e y and G r a y S e d u m ui^egA-t^utuurt (Rafinesque) A. Nelson and Sedurn d i v c A g e n A  142 .  Sztaginztla  143.  SzmcA.o  s p p . L.  144.  Sznzcio  CtjmbalzoAO-idz6  L.  Engler S. Watson.  U.'J.C£ac<U Hieronymus Bueck  145.  Senecx.0 VUanguta/iUi  146.  Sibbaldla  pA.ocumbe.ru> L.  147.  Smiiaczna  Aaczmoia  14S. 149.  151. 152.  Sfncfacena /lacemoaa v a r tiacemota (L.) Desfontaines S p ^ t e a s p p . L. SpiAan-t/ieo Aomanozo^iana. Chamissa LtXkophA-xgma paAvi&loium (W.J. H o o k e r ) N u t t a l ToAaxacum s p p . H a l l .  153.  TiaAztla  154.  ThaLictAum  155. 156.  To&izlda To^izlda  g£utoio-ia (A. M i c h a u x ) P e r s o o n puAitta (A. M i c h a u x ) P e r s o o n  157.  TAOIIMIA  laxiU  158.  TAagopogon  159.  TsUfiotuim s p p . L.  160.  \JalZAiana  161.  VzAaXAum  vvu.de v a r  162.  VzAonica  MOAm^kjotdLi  150.  W.J. H o o k e r v a r amplzxicaulXA  urU&otiata  163.  Viola  164.  Woodi-OX  S. W a t s o n  W.J. H o o k e r  occidztUolz  A. G r a y  Salisbury  dub-LuA  Scopuli  &<Xckzni><4> B o n g a r d  adunca  z6ckt>cko£Xzii Roemer a n d S c h u l t e s  J . E . S m i t h i n Rees  s p . R.  Brown  S h r u b b y penstemon S l e 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 Cinquefoil B l u e - l e a v e d c I n q u e f o 11 Fan-1eaved c i n q u e f u i l Sticky cinquefoil Buttercup Sheep s o r r e l Russian t h i s t l e Saxifrage Prickly saxifrage Lyall's saxifrage Western s a x i f r a g e Tolmie's s a x i f r a g e Rosefoot Spreading stonecrop Wallace'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 Creeping 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 Spirea 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 Dandelion u n i f o l i a t e - l e a v e d foam f l o w u r W e s t e r n meadow-rue S t i c k y f a l s e asphodel Common f a l s e a s p h o d e l White g l o b e f l o w e r Yellow s a l s i f y Clover Sitka valerian Green f a l s e h e l l e b o r e Alpine speedwell Early Blue v i o l e t Woodsia  GRASSES, RUSHES AND SEDGES 1 b> . 1 6<> .  AgioptjAon sp. J . Gaertner Agioptjion & pi cat tun v a r inZAmc A.A. H e l l e r  le/.  Agtuf-U/AUH  16S.  AgAO&tli  s p . L.  169.  AgA0&ti&  ZXOAaXa  170. 171.  ScrUziga&hyKium BVLOma6 s p . L.  r  ipicatum  v a r ApicaXum  Scrlbner  Trinius  ^copaAum  Nash i n S m a l l  172. CciZamagA06tL6 s p . Ad an son 173.  COAZX  174.  COACH  175. 176. 177.  COAZX COAZX COAZX  macAockazta c.A. Meyer rUgAicatt& C.A. Meyer AupZ&tAiA B e l l a r d i ex A l l i o n i  178.  Cinna  tatiiotia  179. 180.  VatUkonui s p . Lamarck and de C a n d o l l e VatUkonia canddznt-U F i n d l a y and Baum VahlocUa atAOpuApuAza E . M . F r i e s  181. 182. 183.  spp. L. faoznza  Wlldenow  L.  iAoiphoAum s p . L . F w - t u c a s p p . L.  and S m i t h  Wheat g r a s s B e a r d l e s s B l u e b u n c h Whe.it gr.'i B l u e b u n c h wheat g r a s s Bentgrass Spike bentgrass L i t t l e Bluestem Beard grass 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 grass Vahlodia Cottongrass Fescue  159  APPENDIX 8 (cont'd)  CRASSES. RUSHES AND SEDGES (cont'd) Juncus spp. L. KoeAlia spp. I..  184 18'. 18l> 187 188 189 190 191 19-' 193 194  Luzula luXcha.ic.kiA. Hamet-Ahtl Ofiyzopsis exigua Thurber i n Torrey PkalaAis ajwndi.na.cca L " . Phlcum alpinum L. Poa spp. L. Poa fcendleAiaiia (Stuedel) Vasey Poa sXenanXha T r i n i u s Poa pnaXensis L. SiXanion hysXCAAX ( N u t t a l l ) J.G. Smith  Rush Koerlia Smooth wood-rush L i t t l e Rice grass Reed Canary grass A l p i n e timothy Blue grass Mutton grass T r i n i u s ' 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  197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202 .  AuXacomnium  julacea andKogynum  AuXacomnium  patusXAC  Bnachythecium  albicans  B>mchijXhccium  staAkci  Bflijum BAiium  Hedw schwaegr. Hedw. schwaegr. Hedw. Brid.  spp. Hedw. Hedw.  beAgii  203.  CaltieAgon  204.  CeAaXodon  sXnaminium  ( B r i d ) Kindb.  (Hedw) B r i d . 205. Oicnanclla sp. (C. Muell.) Schlmp. 206. P(Cul»tujn spp. Hedw. 207. Pic-tailum d'niCJCCfli Turn. 20s. Ptc-tammi mcntanum Hedw. 20 i. Viciamun mucltt cnbecki.i B.S.C. 210. Otcnamun pall idesetum ( 1 1 i y ) l r e l . .'It. P ( i " I ( l i t i l » l prlusctuin Sw. .'}.'. P* ( ' " i . t t i i u n Si'i'l M t t I I I H l l c i l w . punpuneus  4  21  I.  Pd'l.lmtin  tau 1 (cum  S.I|K-II  In  21'.. 2 13. 21b.  Hcmatol  217.  HygAchypnum  233 .  PseudolcskeeXa  2 34 . 235. 2 36. 237 .  (Hedw.) De Not. sp. ( S u l l . ) De Not. RiiacomiXnXum ^aciculoAe (Hedw.) B r i d . RhacomiXAium canescens (Hedw.) B r i d .  Oncpiiiwcladus  exannulatus  Dicpatu'ctadus  unanatus  iiccium  pinnaLifoidium  ocllAaceum  (B.S.C.) Warnst . (Hedw.) Warnst ( S u l l . and Lesq.) Lawt .  (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.) B r i d . 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 B r i d .  238.  PXiLium  sp. Klndb.  chAAJtXa-casXAensis  Ptilium  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.. 24ii. 24,'. .'•Vi.  Myotonia bicoton (Khrh.) N y l . Alc.ctOA.ia sp. Acli. tiaoi'ini/ce.5 AnQU5 (Huds.) Rebcnt. (YM.lK.t up. I A<ii. 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.) F r . 26'!. Cladonia gnac^lii (L.) W i l l d . 27ii. CtadonLa sp. Wigg. 271. Cladonia mitii Sandst. 272 . C f a d j i u a 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. 2Si). .'Si. 2S.' . 2H<.  Nci-Wi-li'iiu /ictYc t iciun Ach. J\M/m.'t'{\l sp. Ach. IVl'figcAa aphtkoid (1..) W i l l d . Pel t igCAd iMlu'iia ( L . ) W i l l d . Pcl'flilO.l sp. W i l l d .  2S'. .  >" f C . C O C a u l ' u n  2S>.  <tc\coc.aul\<i:  spp. albicani  Hoffm. 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. Columbia. U.B.C. Press, Vancouver.  1977. Vascular Plants of B r i t i s h  Mosses f o l l o w Lawton. 1971. Moss F l o r a of the P a c i f i c Northwest H a t t o r l B o t a n i c a l Laboratory, Nichinan, M i y a z a k i , Japan. Lichens follow Otto, G.F., Teuvo A h t i . manuscript, Dept. of Botany, UBC.  1967. Lichens of B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished  APPENDIX 9.  F i f t e e n Campsite and C o n t r o l P l o t Maps and D e t a i l e d Directions  f o r Locating  Them.  163  CAMPSITE 1 A.  View f i r s t t r i b u t a r y creek on N s i d e of S t e i n , walk approximately steps to 4 m h i g h g r a n i t e o u t c r o p on l e v e l ground, to N s i d e of trail. 1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r campsite 1. outcrop.  Highest  p o i n t of 4 m h i g h  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at NE p l o t c o r n e r , under IDf 80° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE p l o t c o r n e r , under IDf m 79° S of E from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  4.  SW c o r n e r , IDf A 3 t r e e , 30 m, stake.  5.  NW c o r n e r , IDf A 3 t r e e , 29 m 9° S of W from primary stake.  6.  P o i n t on t r a i l , a d j a c e n t forked PP t r e e .  300  rock  s e e d l i n g 39  seedling  3° S of W from secondary  m  26.4  tie-in  tie-in  to campsite 1 c o n t r o l landmark ( b e s i d e  Control Plot 1 7.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 1, 239 steps west on t r a i l #6 above ( b e a r i n g 40° S of W) a 1.5 m h i g h b o u l d e r , to N of trail.  8.  Primary t i e - i n stake under a f l a t boulder at NW p l o t c o r n e r , 1.5 m from r i v e r bank - walk b e a r i n g 40° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark to r i v e r bank.  9.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE p l o t c o r n e r , under PP s a p l i n g 35 58° E of N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  10.  SE p l o t  11.  SW  c o r n e r , 32 m,  64° S of E from secondary t i e - i n  p l o t c o r n e r , 37 m 49°  S of E from primary  Photo s t a t i o n s on i n v e n t o r y  plots.  tie-in  stake.  stake.  from  m  1  165  CAMPSITE 2  1.  Adam's s h e l t e r campsite landmark f o r CS 2.  - SW c o r n e r of s h e l t e r  i s control  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t SW c o r n e r of p l o t . from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t SE c o r n e r of p l o t . from c o n t r o l landmark.  4.  NE p l o t c o r n e r , 49 m, 25° E o f N from secondary  5.  NW p l o t c o r n e r , 30 m 9° E o f N from 1° t i e - i n  6.  Campsite c o n t a i n s 6 l e a n t o s h e l t e r s , one c o n s t r u c t e d s h e l t e r , an open outhouse, 4 f i r e p i t s , an o l d sweathouse, 2 sawhorses, an o i l b a r r e l s t o v e , and a f l a g p o l e .  19.2 m 04° S o f W  20.3 m 76° E o f N  tie-in  stake.  stake.  Control Plot 2 7.  Adams c a b i n - not marked on map 6, Freeman and Thompson, 1979. SW corner of c a b i n i s c o n t r o l landmark f o r C o n t r o l P l o t 2.  8.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t W c o r n e r of p l o t . On N s i d e of v e t e r a n IDf t r e e . Approximately 100 steps from corner of c a b i n .  9.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at S c o r n e r of p l o t , 18 m 53° S o f E from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  10.  N p l o t c o r n e r , 23 m, 39° E o f N from 1° t i e - i n  11.  E p l o t c o r n e r , 23 m 40° E of N from 2° t i e - i n  /\  Photo  stations.  stake. stake.  l:5,000  167  CAMPSITE 3 1.  Control landmark f o r 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 c o n t r o l 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 f o r Campsite 4 - centre of f i r e p i t 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 c o n t r o l landmark.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at E p l o t corner, 10.5 m 32° ESE of E from c o n t r o l landmark.  9.  S plot corner, 20 m 26° S of W from secondary t i e - i n stake.  10.  approximately  W plot corner, 20 m 25° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake.  Control P l o t 3-4 11.  Primary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner, 39 m 41° W of N from c o n t r o l 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 s t a t i o n s .  lf>:  1. 5 . 0 0 0  169  CAMPSITE 5  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 5 - A D o u g l a s - f i r t r e e , 1.5 m from R i v e r bank. B e a r i n g from t r e e to o u t f l o w of S t r y e n Creek 71° S of E.  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at SE p l o t c o r n e r , under b o u l d e r t r a i l , 11 m 76° E of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t NE p l o t c o r n e r , under Saskatoon 30.8 m, 16° W of N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  4.  NW c o r n e r - A3 PP t r e e , 28.5 t i e - i n stake.  5.  SW c o r n e r - A 2 t i e - i n stake.  ^  Photo  u  B r i d g e over S t r y e n Creek.  2  p  p  m,  14° S of W from  to N of  bush,  secondary  t r e e on rock o u t c r o p , 29 m 09° S o f W from  station.  1°  171  CAMPSITE 6  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 6 - A^ PP t r e e on top of 3 m h i g h rock outcrop to W of l a r g e f i r e p i t # 7 m, a l s o 2/ 500 m E of f i r s t c r e e k on N. shore.  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at NW from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t NE p l o t c o r n e r , under A^ Df t r e e , 28 m 81° E of-JJ from c o n t r o l landmark o r , 36.2 m, 85° E of N primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  c o r n e r , under shrub, 8.2  4.  SW c o r n e r at A3 PP stake.  t r e e , 15.4  5.  SE c o r n e r at A2 Df t i e - i n stake.  (dead), 21.4  Control Plot  m,  m 88° W of N  81° S of E from primary  m 81°  S of E from  from  tie-in  secondary  5-6  6.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 5-6 - where t r a i l of S t e i n d i p s down to water's edge (as seen from N. rock outcrop p r o t r u d e s here. B e a r i n g s i g h t e d on W. bedrock o u t c r o p .  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake at S p l o t c o r n e r , under dying A2 PP t r e e s i g h t b e a r i n g 47° S of E on c o n t r o l landmark, at t h i s p o i n t on S. R i v e r bank.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at E p l o t c o r n e r , under A2 Df t r e e , w i t h b o u l d e r b e s i d e 33.6 m, 25° E of N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  9.  W c o r n e r , at A2 PP t r e e , 28.4, stake.  10.  A  N c o r n e r , at dying A2 secondary t i e - i n s t a k e . p  Photo  stations.  p  on S. shore shore) - A s i d e of  56° W of N from primary  t r e e , l e a n i n g , 16 m,  40° W of N  tie-in  from  72  1--5POO  173  CAMPSITE 7  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 7 - f i r s t of two l a r g e boulders (1.5 m h i g h ) a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 steps from f o r k i n t r a i l a t D e v i l ' s s t a i r c a s e , on lower f o r k . D i s t a n c e s and b e a r i n g s taken from N. s i d e of b o u l d e r .  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at N p l o t c o r n e r on top of R i v e r bank to N. of t r a i l , 7 m 7° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t E c o r n e r , 15.4 c o n t r o l landmark.  4.  W c o r n e r , 60 m 21° S o f W from primary  5.  S c o r n e r , 60 m 22 S of W from  m,  83° S o f E  tie-in  secondary  from  stake.  tie-in  stake.  Control Plot 7 6.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 7, i s f i r s t l a r g e boulder at opening to boulder s l o p e , on t r a i l , c o n t i n u i n g W of CS 7. B e a r i n g s and d i s t a n c e s measured from N. s i d e .  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake at W p l o t c o r n e r , 6.8 c o n t r o l landmark.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at S p l o t c o r n e r , 14.3 primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  9.  N c o r n e r , 18.7  10.  m 77° E o f N from primary  E c o r n e r , 18 m 77° E of N from Photo  stations.  secondary  m,  31° E of N  from  m 66° S of E  tie-in  from  stake.  secondary  tie-in  stake.  175  CAMPSITE 8  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 8 i s the l a r g e f i r e p i t # teepee s t r u c t u r e .  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at NW p l o t c o r n e r , under A2 Df t r e e on R i v e r bank, 17.5 m, 49° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE cottonwood, on r i v e r bank.  4.  SE c o r n e r , at A2 Df t i e - i n stake.  5.  SW  c o r n e r at A 3 Df  Control Plot  p l o t c o r n e r , under A^  t r e e , 23 m,  58°  5 m NW  of  Black  S of W from secondary  t r e e , 19 m 71° S o f W from 1° t i e - i n  stake.  8  6.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 8 - f i n d 1.2 m h i g h boulder edge of t e r r a c e . 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 b o u l d e r .  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake at SW c o r n e r , under Amelanchier shrub, i n middle of s m a l l c l e a r i n g , 30 m 39° S of E from c o n t r o l landmark.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at SE c o r n e r , under k\ S of E from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  9.  NE  corner,  10.  NW  c o r n e r , 13 m 36° E of N from primary  ^  Photo  Df  13 m 36° E of N from secondary t i e - i n  stations.  tie-in  t r e e , 44 m  stake.  stake.  on  23°  176 Campsite 9, Control Plot 9 General D e s c r i p t i o n : See:  Cable crossing campsite at j u n c t i o n of t r a i l s to Cline's cabin and cable crossing.  *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.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 3, an A3 LPP 4.5 m N on c a b l e c r o s s i n g t r a i l , from the C l i n e ' s c a b i n j u n c t i o n (on E s i d e o f trail).  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t NW c o r n e r , under A2 Df t r e e , 11.2 76° W of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n s t a k e , a t NE p l o t c o r n e r under A2 20.5 m 57° S of E from c o n t r o l landmark.  4.  SE c o r n e r a t A^ Df t r e e , 24 m, stake.  5.  SW c o r n e r a t A2 Red Cedar t i e - i n stake.  Df  m,  tree,  80° S o f W from secondary  tie-in  t r e e , 23 m 69° S o f W from primary  Control Plot 9 6.  C o n t r o l landmark  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t NE c o r n e r , b e s i d e r o t t e d stump, 41 m, S o f W from campsite 9 secondary t i e - i n stake (#3 above).  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t NW, N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  9.  SW  10. l\  f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 3 - same as Campsite  under A3 Df t r e e , 22 m,  3.  59° W of  c o r n e r , 18 m 72° S o f W from secondary t i e - i n s t a k e .  SE c o r n e r , 20 m 72° S of W from primary t i e - i n s t a k e . Photo  stations.  80°  179  CAMPSITE 10  1.  Control landmark for Campsite 10, i s Cirque Lake outflow to North Scudamore Creek.  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake at N plot corner, i s 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. Aim high boulder p i l e , 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 p i l e , 30 m 08° S of E from primary t i e - i n stake.  Control Plot 10 6.  Control landmark for control plot 10 i s a pyramidal shaped boulder surrounded by SAF Krummholtz trees. This boulder i s 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 i s 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 l e v e l 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 stake.  10.  W plot corner on shoreline, 17 m 31° S of W from primary stake.  A  Photo stations.  tie-in  tie-in  J  180 Campsite 11, Control P l o t 11 General D e s c r i p t i o n :  F i r s t good campsite i n North S t e i n 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 i n t o small pool at t h i s point. T  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 a v a i l a b l e i n BC 78 s e r i e s . 1:  15,000  yo.OQO  181  CAMPSITE 11  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 11, i s f i r s t SAF t r e e clump beside stream on SE end o f f l a t s e c t i o n o f meadow ( o n SE s i d e o f stream).  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t E p l o t c o r n e r , on E s i d e o f c o n t r o l landmark (SAF t r e e clump), under b o u l d e r .  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at S p l o t c o r n e r , i n c r a c k of 2.5 m t a l l g r a n i t e b o u l d e r , on o p p o s i t e s i d e o f c r e e k , 31 m 77° S of W from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  4.  N plot  5.  W p l o t c o r n e r , 60 m 84° W o f N from secondary  c o r n e r , 60 m 77° W o f N from primary t i e - i n  stake.  tie-in  stake.  C o n t r o l P l o t 11 6.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 11 i s a 4 m t a l l b a s a l t b o u l d e r with a c r a c k e d f l a t f a c e , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 150 s t e p s due N of l e v e l meadow entrance (from p a s s ) , where creek l e v e l s o f f and begins meandering E a s t .  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake at E p l o t c o r n e r , under .5 m t a l l g r a n i t e b o u l d e r , by r u n o f f c h a n n e l , 92 m 19° S of E from c o n t r o l landmark.  8.  Secondary secondary  9.  S c o r n e r , 20 m 61° S o f W from primary  tie-in tie-in  stake a t N p l o t c o r n e r , 20 m, 67° W of N from stake.  10.  W c o r n e r , 20 m 60° S of W from  .A  Photo  stations.  tie-in  secondary  stake.  tie-in  stake.  182  }  183  CAMPSITE 12 1.  Control landmark f o r 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, a f t e r 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 p l o t "corner, by stream bank, 11.2 m, 25° E of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at S corner, 18.2 m, 65° S of W from c o n t r o l landmark.  4.  N p l o t 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 P l o t 12 6.  Control landmark - same as Campsite 12.  7.  Primary t i e - i n stake at S p l o t corner, under g r a n i t e boulder, 61 m, 25° E of N from c o n t r o l landmark.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at E plot corner under g r a n i t e boulder (.5 m h i g h ) , 22 m, 46° E of N from primary t i e - i n stake.  9.  N corner, i n w i l l o w s , 19 m, 41° W of N from secondary stake.  tie-in  10.  W corner, i n w i l l o w s , 19 m 41° W of N from primary t i e - i n stake.  &  Photo s t a t i o n s .  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 t i 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 i s a rock cairn, on top of bedrock, 29 m, 77° S of W from primary t i e - i n stake.  5.  SW corner i s 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 i s 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 i s under 3 (6 m t a l l ) A2 whitebark pines at W end of a b l u f f , approximately 80 m due N of W side of control landmark.  8.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at NW plot corner i s 20 m, due W from primary t i e - i n stake.  9.  SW plot corner i s 20 m, due S from secondary  10.  t i e - i n stake.  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 D e s c r i p t i o n :  See  5000 foot meadow, campsite at S end, on W side of stream running from S to N, at t r a n s i t i o n between steep s e c t i o n running from g l a c i a l bowl and l e v e l meadow.  •Freeman and Thompson, 1979, Page 118, Map 14. NTS sheet 92J/1, mercator coordinates 535.539 and 532.541. A i r Photo BC 78 128/084.  J-E*<\ Lake  i 5,000  187  CAMPSITE 14  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 14 i s W s i d e o f stream, where i t t u r n s from n o r t h e r l y flow t o w e s t e r l y f l o w (elbow), towards c r e e k coming from W ( F i g u r e - o f - E i g h t L a k e ) .  2.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t E p l o t c o r n e r i s under Willows on streambank a t elbow, as i n '1* above.  3.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t N p l o t corner i s under a dead SAF t r e e , 25 m, 50° W of N, (down creek) from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  4.  W p l o t c o r n e r , i s a g r a n i t e b o u l d e r , 19.5 m, 80° S of W from secondary t i e - i n s t a k e .  5.  S p l o t c o r n e r i s 20 m 77° S o f W from primary  tie-in  stake.  C o n t r o l P l o t 14 6.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 14, i s a 3 m h i g h mound, on W stream bank, below F i g u r e - o f - E i g h t Lake o u t f l o w stream j u n c t i o n .  7.  T h i s p o i n t i s a second c o n t r o l landmark. 3 m h i g h p o i n t e d g r a n i t e b o u l d e r , 55.5 m due W o f top c e n t r e of mound d e s c r i b e d i n '6' above.  8.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t NW p l o t c o r n e r , under l e a n i n g SAF t r e e , 20.5 m 86° S of W from W c o r n e r of second c o n t r o l landmark (#7 above).  9.  Secondary t i e - i n stake a t SW p l o t c o r n e r , on s i d e o f moss and heather covered g r a n i t e b o u l d e r (.4 m h i g h ) , 12.5 m 72° S of E from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  10.  NE c o r n e r , i s a white rhododendron bush, b e s i d e clump of mountain Hemlock t r e e s , 27.5 m, 66° E of N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  11.  SE c o r n e r i s 27.5 m 66° E o f N from secondary  A  Photo  stations.  tie-in  stake.  189  CAMPSITE 15  1.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r Campsite 15 i s 12 c l a i m stake posts on R i v e r bank at o u t f l o w , p i l e d t o g e t h e r .  2.  Campsite f i r e r i n g i s l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y c o n t r o l landmark.  3.  Primary t i e - i n stake at E p l o t c o r n e r i s under f o r k e d Df t r e e , 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 a t N p l o t c o r n e r , under 3 t r e e s growing t o g e t h e r (2 ES and 1 SAF), 21 m, 20° E of N from f i r e r i n g (#2 above).  5.  W c o r n e r i s A2 Df t r e e , 14 m, stake.  6.  E c o r n e r i s A2 SAF  t r e e , 19 m,  40 m 45° S of W  45° S of E from primary  60° S of E from  from  tie-in  secondary  tie-in  stake.  Control Plot  14  7.  C o n t r o l landmark f o r c o n t r o l p l o t 15 Is a rock outcrop overhanging the f i r s t set of f a l l s below S t e i n Lake o u t f l o w . Outcrop has 3 t r e e s on i t (ES, SAF and D f ) .  8.  Primary t i e - i n stake a t NW p l o t c o r n e r i s under Df t r e e , 15 82° S of E from c o n t r o l landmark.  9.  Secondary t i e - i n stake at NE p l o t c o r n e r i s under SAF 28 m, 82° E of N from primary t i e - i n s t a k e .  10.  SE c o r n e r i s an A2 Df t r e e , 12.5 t i e - i n stake.  11.  SW  c o r n e r i s 12.5  P l o t Photo  m,  82° S of E from  m 82° S of E from primary  stations.  tie-in  m,  A2 t r e e ,  secondary  stake.  23  190 APPENDIX 10. Ground cover (% of surface substrate) i n the c o n t r o l and experimental p l o t s  S i t e and control level* x.y  Water  5.0 5-6.1 6.0  00 00 00  1.0 1.1  Bedrock + boulders  Cobbles + stones  Decaying wood  Organic matter  Exposed mineral soil  Total area X  30 00 10  10 15 02  01 05 01  49 70 85  Ul 10 02  100 ioo 100  00 00  03 03  05 15  02 02  75 65  15 • 15  100 100  3.0 3-4.1 4.0  00 00 00  00 00 00  20 10 03  04 10 03  73 80 85  03 00 09  100 100 100  7.0 7.1  00 00  20 20  25 05  04 20  47 53  04 02  100 100  2.0 2.1  00 00  00 00  00 00  20 25  50 65  30 10  100 100  8.0 8.1  00 00  00 00  08 10  04 15  78 70  10 05  100 100  9.0 9.1  00 00  00 00  01 03  20 55  49 32  30 10  100 100  15.0 15.1  00 00  00 02  03 05  05 05  89 87  03 01  100 100  11.6 11.1  10 00  00 00  06 01  01 <1  83 99  <1 <1  100 100  12.0 12.1  00 00  00 00  05 05  01 <1  94 95  <1 <1  100 100  14.0 14.1  00 00  00 00  03 02  01 02  94 96  02 <1  100 100  10.0 10.1  00 00  00 00  02 05  <1 <1  97 95  <1  100 100 •  13.0 13.1  18 02  07 02  03 <1  02 <1  62 96  08  100 100  *For 'x.y' :  00  00  x » s i t e number , y » c o n t r o l 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 c o n t r o l 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