Recreational Carrying Capacity in Park Planning
RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY IN PARK PLANNING:
THE CASE OP GARIBALDI PROVINCIAL PARK
by .
PAUL EDWIN GRAVES
B.Sc, Simon Fraser University, 1988
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(School of Community and Regional Planning)
accept this as confirming to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
March 1991
copyright Paul Edwin Graves, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Sehoo! of Community & Regional P\oimtog University of British Columbia 6333 Memorial Road Department of Vancouver. Canada VAT |VV5
The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada
DE-6 (2/88) 11
ABSTRACT:
This thesis explores Recreational Carrying Capacity (RCC). The investigation looks at the theory of RCC, and trends in recreational use and management to make a first estimate
of the RCC of Garibaldi Provincial Park, British Columbia, Canada. An extensive literature review is used to synthesize the social, ecological and managerial factors called for in RCC theory; and to summarize relevant aspects of park policy and recreation trends. This review
serves as a foundation for adapting a RCC model from the literature. The model is then used
to estimate the RCC of the developed backcountry areas of Garibaldi Provincial Park.
The emphasis of the thesis is on the ecological component of RCC: a bio-climatic zone
inventory, a soil capability survey, and a visual impact assessment are all undertaken to
build an estimate of the ecological sensitivity of the study area. The model also uses
social influences and BC Parks policy to assist in the formulation of the RCC for the study
area.
The RCC estimates derived are not precise because of weaknesses in the data base.
Nevertheless, the estimates do indicate that the most desirable areas for recreation within
Garibaldi Park have reached or exceeded the capability of the biophysical resources of those
areas to sustain the recreational activities undertaken. As important as the RCC estimation
is the identification of biophysical limitations of the study area. These limitations call
for careful site selection in the development and management of Garibaldi Park to protect
the biophysical resources which attract recreational use. If the model is to be of greater
assistance in park planning and management then more precision is required in the
investigation. Increased precision requires dividing the broad bio-climatic zones into sub-
zones or micro-zones to allow site and route selection for managing the study area. RCC theory and the RCC model used are useful as planning tools because of the comprehensiveness required by the theory and the explicitness of the values used within the model. However, this comprehensiveness demands a large data base which is not available in the case study of Garibaldi Park. This points to the need for further research if RCC theory and the model used are to be of utility to park planning in B.C. iv
TABLE DF CONTENTS:
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv TABLES vii FIGURES viii BIBLIOGRAPHY ix LIST OF APPENDIXES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 THE STUDY 1 1.1 PARK MANAGEMENT 2 1.2 EXTENSIVE RECREATION DEMAND 4 1.3 THESIS OUTLINE... 8 1.3.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 8 1.3.2 PURPOSE 9 1.3.3 ASSUMPTIONS 10 1.3.4 METHODOLOGY : 10 1.3.5 RATIONALE 11 1.3.6 FORMAT. 13
CHAPTER 2: RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY THEORY 2.0. INTRODUCTION 14 2.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY 15 2.1.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT 15 2.1.2. RESEARCH ORIENTATION 17 2.2. CATEGORIES OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY 18 2.2.1. ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY 19 2.2.2. SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY 21 2.2.2.1. Willingness-To-Pay 21 2.2.2.2. Perceived Crowding 21 2.2.2.3. Preferences and Expectations 23 2.3. DESCRIPTIVE AND EVALUATIVE COMPONENTS 25 2.3.1. DESCRIPTIVE COMPONENT 25 2.3.2. EVALUATIVE COMPONENT 26 2.4. THE MODEL 31 2.4.1. THE WAGTENDONK MODEL 31 2.4.2. APPLICATION OF THE MODEL TO GARIBALDI PARK.... 33
CHAPTER 3: BC PARKS MANDATE AND POLICY, AND MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE 3.0. INTRODUCTION 36 3.1. MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE 39 3.1.1. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 39 3.1.2. PUBLIC REACTION TO MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 41 3.1.2.1. Reaction to Management Actions 41 3.1.2.2. Reaction to Zoning 42 3.2. BC PARKS MANDATE AND POLICY 42 3.2.1. LEGAL MANDATE 43 3.2.2. PROVINCIAL POLICY 43 3.2.3. GARIBALDI PARK OBJECTIVES .46 3.2.4. GARIBALDI PARK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 47 3.3. DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT UNITS 50
CHAPTER 4: SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY FOR DISPERSED RECREATION 4.0. INTRODUCTION 53 4.1. SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY 54 4.1.1. GENERAL RESEARCH FINDINGS 54 4.1.2. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 56 4.1.3. U.S. ACTIVITY STANDARDS. 57 4.2. DISPERSED RECREATION IN GARIBALDI PARK :59 4.3. THE ACTIVITY STANDARDS FOR GARIBALDI PARK 62 4.3.1. FURTHER RESEARCH 64
CHAPTER 5: ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY 5.0. INTRODUCTION 66 5.1. BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 67 5.1.1. BACKGROUND 67 5.1.2. RESEARCH FINDINGS IN ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY 70 5.2. THE ECOLOGY OF GARIBALDI PARK 74 5.2.1. CLIMATE 74 5.2.2. GEOLOGIC AND GEOMORPHIC FEATURES 74 5.2.3. VEGETATION 76 5.2.3.1. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone ; 77 5.2.3.2. Mountain Hemlock Zone 77 5.2.3.3. Alpine Zone 78 5.2.4. SOILS 79 5.2.5. WILDLIFE 80 5.3. BIO-CLIMATIC SENSITIVITY OF THE MODEL 80 5.3.1. SOIL CAPABILITY 81 5.3.2. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 82 5.3.3. RARITY 84 5.3.4. FURTHER RESEARCH 84
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF THE RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY OF GARIBALDI PARK 6.0. INTRODUCTION 86 6.1. REVIEW OF THE MODEL 86 6.2. SUMMARY OF DATA AND OBJECTIVES FOR INPUT 89 6.2.1. MANAGEMENT UNITS 89 •6.2.2. ACTIVITY STANDARDS 90 6.2.3. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW 90 6.2.4. SOIL CAPABILITY ." 95 6.2.5. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 96 6.2.6. RARITY 97 6.3. ANALYSIS 98 6.4. LIMITATIONS OF GARIBALDI PARK FOR RECREATION 103 vi
CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 7.0. INTRODUCTION 105 7.1. IMPLICATIONS FOR GARIBALDI PARK 105 7.1.1. RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY OF GARIBALDI PARK 106 7.1.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING GARIBALDI PARK 109 7.2. THE USEFULNESS OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY 114 7.2.1. THE UTILITY OF THE MODEL 116 7.2.2. THE UTILITY OF RCC THEORY 120 vii
TABLES:
Table 3-1: Inventory of Garibaldi Park Facilities, 1988 37
Table 6-1: Relative Soil Capability from Literature Review 93 Table 6-2: Soil Capability Summary from Field Survey Data 96 Table 6-3: Visual Impact Assessment Summary from Field Data 97 Table 6-4: Rarity Summary from Air-photo Interpretation 97 Table 6-5: Maximum Seasonal User Population 98 Table 6-6: Sensitivity Rating from Literature Review 99 Table 6-7: Sensitivity Rating from Field Survey 100 Table 6-8: Recreational Carrying Capacity of Garibaldi 101 Table 6-8: Recreational Carrying Capacity of Garibaldi (continued) 102 viii
FIGURES:
.Figure 1-1: Location of Garibaldi Provincial Park 5
Figure 2-1: Components and Categories of Recreational Carrying Capacity 15 Figure 2-2: Idealized Preferred Encounters 23 Figure 2-3: Evaluative Cycle 30 Figure 2-4: Deriving the Recreational Carrying Capacity 33
Figure 3-1: Garibaldi Park Topography and Place Names 38 Figure 3-2: Management Actions to Control the Impact of Recreation 40 Figure 3-3: Garibaldi Park Zoning 52
Figure 4-1: Summary of Research Findings for Social Carrying Capacity 55 Figure 4-2: Primitive and Semi-primitive Non-roaded Recreation Opportunity 58 Figure 4-3: Garibaldi Park Backcountry and Wilderness Trends 62 Figure 4-4: Data Requirements for Defining Social Carrying Capacity 65
Figure 5-1: Soil Survey Criteria for Extensive Recreation 69 Figure 5-2: Generalizations from Previous Research into Extensive Recreation 73 Figure 5-3: Summary of the Biophysical Characteristics of Garibaldi Park 75 Figure 5-4: Soil Parent Material and Process Summary 76 Figure 5-5: Soil Climates of Garibaldi Park 79 Figure 5-6: Summary of the Impact of Recreation 85
Figure 6-1: RCC Model Outline 88 Figure 6-2: Sample Bio-climatic Zones of Garibaldi Park 91
Figure 7-1: Sample Ecological Sensitivity Rating 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY:
REFERENCES CITED 121 OTHER REFERENCES 131
APPENDIXES:
APPENDIX 1: Declaration of the World Congress on Parks and Protected Areas 1982..138 APPENDIX 2: BC Parks Zoning 140 APPENDIX 3: Soil Capability Survey and Rapid Visual Assessment Methodologies 145 APPENDIX 4: Field Data 151 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Thank you to Greg Chin and Judy Miller of the South Coast Region, Ministry of Parks for their assistance in data collection.
With many thanks to Julia Gardner, Hans
Schreier, and Ralph Perkins without whose patient efforts and encouragement this thesis would not have been possible. Introduction -1-
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
1.0. THE STUDY
Garibaldi Provincial Park should be considered a jewel within the provincial parks system.
The park contains one of the few pristine wilderness areas in South-western British Columbia.
Further, the expanse of rugged mountains and glaciers, dotted with alpine lakes and meadows offers vistas unique in the world. This is an area worth protecting in its natural state for posterity.
Garibaldi Provincial Park is one of the oldest parks in the Province of British Columbia.
The park was originally established as a Park Reserve in 1920, designated as a Provincial Park in
1927, and designated as a Class 'A' Provincial Park in 1953 (BC Parks). Garibaldi Park has recently undergone a master planning process to define recreational demand and direct management. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the limitations and capacity of the park area to withstand the impact of use under the current management directives. Recreational carrying capacity theory has been used to direct this investigation.
Recreational carrying capacity (RCC) is used to identify those factors or inter-relationships which limit the use of recreational lands. Garibaldi Park is a large tract of pristine wilderness near the largest population center of British Columbia. This large population means there will be Introduction -2- heavy recreational pressure on this area. Assuming society wishes to protect the pristine character of the park, then society needs a measure of the area's capacity to withstand use.
Man can always create a recreation area. But once destroyed, the primeval area can never be restored. (Merritt, 1985, p. 355)
1.1. PARK MANAGEMENT
The planning and management of parks and outdoor recreation is on the verge of entering a new management era (Jubenville et al., 1987). In North America, park management has evolved through both the "Custodial Era" and the "Extensive Management Era." Now, park planning and management is entering the "Intensive Management Era".
The Custodial Era corresponds with the early development of North American national parks, and started with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in the U.S. (1872) and
Rocky Mountain National Park (now Banff National Park) in Canada (1887). At that time, the intent of management was to reserve tacts of land for public use and enjoyment. These early
National Parks were viewed as reserves necessary for the protection of the resources from excessive private exploitation and little attention was given to development of facilities for
recreational use. During this early era BC Parks designated many of its larger provincial parks,
such as Mount Robson, Strathcona, Wells Grey, Tweedsmuir and Garibaldi (Ministry of
Environment and Parks, 1988).
The Extensive Management Era began after World War II. This was a period when public
demand expanded rapidly due to the post-war economic boom. Managers met the increasing
demand through acquisition of more recreation areas and the development of facilities. For B.C.,
this was an important period of expansion of the parks system and the development of many of
the road-side provincial campgrounds.
The third era into which park management is now evolving is the Intensive Management
Era. Unlike the first two eras, the beginning of this period lacks any clear demarcation. Introduction -3-
Management priorities for this era are protection of the natural resources, identification of user needs, and establishment of a balance or equilibrium between protection of natural systems and recreational opportunity. Jubenville et al. (1987) question if this era has actually begun or if management philosophy and practice are only starting to evolve into this stage.
This new philosophy or awareness is shown in statements like the Declaration of the
World National Parks Congress, 1982 (McNeely and Miller, 1982). This statement links the physical and psychological health and well-being of mankind with the health and genetic diversity of the global environment. The declaration calls for "wise" management of the global resources to ensure long-run viability of all life and conservation of our cultural diversity (see Appendix 1).
This new approach in park management is perhaps an echo of a growing, world-wide trend in environmental protection linked with use. This awareness is shown by publications like the
World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980) and Our Common Future (WCED, 1987). These publications place increased importance on environmental protection in the allocation and
management (i.e. use) of all natural resources.
Human beings, in their quest for economic development and enjoyment of the riches of nature, must come to terms with the reality of resource limitations and the carrying capacities of ecosystems, and must take account of the needs of future generations. This is the message of conservation. For if the object of development is to provide for social and economic welfare, the object of conservation is to ensure Earth's capacity to sustain development and to support all life. (IUCN, 1980, p. 2)
If needs are to be met on a sustained basis the Earth's natural resource base must be conserved and enhanced. Major changes in policies will be needed to cope with the industrial world's current high levels of consumption,.... (WCED, 1987, p. 57)
Underlying these statements is the belief that, overall, current resource policies and management
practices do not adequately protect or conserve the natural resources upon which society depends.
What these documents call for is a new, more "environmentally sensitive" approach to resource
management. Introduction -4-
One area where it would be expected that environmental sensitivity would already play a key role would be within parks and protected areas. British Columbia legislation gives the
Ministry of Parks (BC Parks) the dual role of resource conservation and management. To be consistent with the IUCN and WCED statements the mandate of provincial park managers would have to ensure that development of B.C.'s Provincial Parks does not unduly impact upon the natural environment. To this end, the Government of British Columbia recently released its first formal public policy statement for the Ministry of Parks. Although the policy is ambiguous about these priorities, this document, Striking the Balance: BC Parks Policy (Ministry of Parks, 1988), calls for the people of the province to clearly define the roles of conservation and development within the parks system.
1.2. EXTENSIVE RECREATION DEMAND
For a study into recreational carrying capacity to have any meaning or direction the use of the study area must be placed within context. Therefore, some initial understanding of the study area and its future use is required. Garibaldi Provincial Park is located north of Vancouver on the west slope of the Coast Mountains (see Figure 1-1). The study area has been identified by BC
Parks (1988) as a regional representative landscape. The park can be characterized as a pristine natural setting used primarily for dispersed or extensive recreation. Within Garibaldi Park, there are both developed backcountry areas and large areas of undeveloped wilderness.
If use was unchanging, then this study would likely be unnecessary, for planning and management would need only to react to the current level of impact. However, recreational use changes over time and thus, so does the impact. Therefore, for any investigation or plan to be pro-active (i.e. to prevent deterioration or destruction of the resources), and not just reactive (i.e. repair the damage), future demand for the study area should be estimated. Source: Ministry of the Environment, 1978, Western Garibaldi Park, PS-G3, Victoria, B.C. Introduction -6-
Estimation of future demand is difficult and imprecise.
Any attempt at projections of the future immediately encounters two major paradoxes. ... First, the future is unknown and unknowable, yet every [management] action in the present is rational only in terms of some expectation of the future.... Second, the best guide to the future is the past, yet we all agree that the future will be different than the past in unknown and perhaps unimaginable ways. (Clawson, 1985, p. 73)
Despite these difficulties some attempt should be made to at least estimate the likely direction of change and magnitude of expected demand. Once demand is estimated then the need for and imperative of planning and management becomes evident.
Four main factors behind changing participation in outdoor recreation in North America have been identified (Canadian Government Office of Tourism, 1982; Canadian Outdoor
Recreation Research Committee, 1976; Clawson, 1985). The first factor is a shift in the population structure as demonstrated by the increasing average age, and a decline in population growth and immigration. The second factor is income, with an increase in real per capital income and an expected increase in disposable income (Clawson, 1985; Canadian Outdoor Recreation
Research Committee, 1976; Popma and Pollock, 1987; Wright, 1988). The third main factor is an increase in the volume of international travel (Canadian Outdoor Recreation Research Committee,
1976; Government of Canada, 1982). The final factor affecting participation in outdoor recreation is leisure time. The trends in available leisure time indicate a decrease the frequency of the long vacations (e.g. two weeks) in favour of more frequent, shorter trips (Clawson, 1985; Taylor, 1983;
Canadian Government Office of Tourism, 1982). Clawson (1985) summarizes the overall effect of these four trends: participation is expected to increase slowly over the long run (i.e. over the next
50 years) in the order of 4% (20-30 year doubling time) and the nature of participation will shift to individually more frequent, shorter vacations.
Other influences identified which will effect participation in outdoor recreation in south• western British Columbia are: an increase in the use of outdoor recreation by business for Introduction -7 meetings and employee training; the dominant market segment is the post war "baby boomers," who are and will continue to be economically active and will have more discretionary income; a market which is becoming more diversified and segmented as the consumers are becoming more discerning and selective about how they spend their valued time and monies; a general migration of the population toward Western Canada; and Vancouver as a major international tourist center, with its airport, cruise ship facilities, and convention centers which will increase local tourist traffic (Canadian Government Office of Tourism, 1982; Canadian Outdoor Recreation Research
Committee, 1976; Government of Canada, 1982; Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988a;
Popma and Pollock, 1987; Taylor, 1983; Broome, 1987; Roggenbuck and Lucus, 1985; Clawson,
1985). These trends support the diversification of the adventure travel industry, which is the current trend within B.C. (Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988b; Popma and Pollock, 1987).
The adventure travel industry is expected to grow at a rate of 15-21% (4-5 year doubling time) to
1995 in B.C. (Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988a). Simply, the implications of these projections and trends is an increase in both the use of and demand for recreation in the study area.
Further increasing demand, the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation, and Culture is actively promoting tourism in B.C. under the "Super Natural British Columbia" campaign. The campaign is "based in large measure upon natural scenic attributes" (Prince Rupert and Vancouver Forest
Region, 1989, p. 8). This campaign is promoting tourism throughout the province and effects not just the tourism industry but also other ministries including the Ministry of Parks. Assuming the
"Super Natural B.C." campaign is at least partially successful it will increase participation. The increase will come through tapping latent demand and redirecting participation from other areas.
This in turn will likely lead to increased use of existing infrastructure and facilities for the study area. Thus, identification of limiting factors involved in a recreational carrying capacity (RCC) investigation would be useful in light of the expected increase in use. Introduction -8-
To further support the use of a RCC approach, many British Columbian and Canadian studies into tourism have observed the primary attraction for visiting Canada and B.C. is the natural beauty and wilderness nature of the area (Basford and Juba, 1986; Canadian Government
Office of Tourism, 1982; Marktrend Marketing Research Inc., 1985; Canadian Outdoor Recreation
Research Committee, 1976; Popma and Pollock, 1987; Government of Canada, 1982; Outdoor
Recreation Council of B.C., 1988a,b). This attribute is true of foreign and domestic travelers alike. The studies all agree that the main attractions for tourism throughout Canada, and in B.C. in particular, is access to scenic beauty, outstanding or unique natural phenomena, and wild
"untouched" or pristine lands.
The appeal of British Columbia as an outdoor, adventure travel'destination is based on the expectation of experiencing a quality, unpolluted, uncrowded natural environment. (Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988b, p. 12)
In summary, it would appear that uncrowded and unpolluted nature of areas like Garibaldi Park are important from both social and ecological perspectives, whether it is a destination for the local, regional, national or the international market.
1.3. THESIS OUTLINE
The following will outline the focus, purpose, assumptions and methodology for the thesis.
1.3.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Given that British Columbia has tremendous potential for outdoor recreation and considering the expected increase in recreational demand, the central question of this thesis is - what are the critical limiting factors which recreational carrying capacity (RCC) identifies in the extensive recreational setting of Garibaldi Provincial Park? Questions subsequent to the main question are - what are the expected changes to the recreational environment under the influence of increasing use (i.e. identify the signs of overuse), and how might these negative impacts to the recreational environment be mitigated? External to the case study, but central to any discussion Introduction -9- about RCC is yet another question - how useful is RCC as a tool for a more intensive management approach to the protection and use of recreational areas ?
1.3.2. PURPOSE
The purpose of the thesis is to demonstrate a more "intensive" approach to the planning and management of parks and protected areas using the concept of RCC. More specifically, this thesis will use RCC theory to build a framework to evaluate recreation impacts in Garibaldi
Provincial Park. Within that framework those processes and influences which are critical to maintaining a "quality" recreational experience need to be identified. Once identified, they can be observed and changes to them which are deemed inappropriate noted. Once inappropriate changes have been noted management actions can be identified to ameliorate and/or prevent the loss of the quality recreational experience and protect the resource from degradation. Therefore, the main parameters of interest are those which can be affected by management. The emphasis of this thesis is on those aspects of park management which are applicable specifically to planning, not operations. To this end, the case study will remain at a general level of inquiry, rather than the site specific level.
A more intensive approach, as called for by the Intensive Management Era, is not to be confused with a more intensive management regime. Rather, the purpose of an intensive approach is to be more intensive in the overall planning of the system. While the planning exercise may be more intensive, the exercise may identify the need for minimal on-site management and use as the best approach to conserving the resources. Thus, management of a specific area within a system may be very intensive or be "hands-off" depending upon the specific needs identified for that area. RCC is seen here as the theory behind the planning exercise to form the foundation for management - out of sound planning, management priorities and direction can be constructed which would be consistent with the international conservation objectives discussed in Section 1.1. Introduction
As will be shown in the following chapters, the information available for the study area is mostly qualitative and there is little quantitative data. Due to this shortage of empirical data, the thesis will concentrate on two main areas. The first concentration will develop the RCC theory, including an outline of the current theory and the nature of the data required to define the RCC for the study area. The second concentration will focus on advancing the knowledge of the ecological carrying capacity of Garibaldi Park. Information on the social carrying capacity, while equally important, will be left at a general level. Thus, the thesis will advance the understanding of the RCC of Garibaldi from the viewpoint of the biophysical limitations. Again, because of the lack of data, the thesis will focus on the developed backcountry area of the park and the large undeveloped wilderness area will be left at a general level of investigation. Furthermore, no external influences will be investigated (e.g. the effects of air pollution or the visual impact of logging outside the park).
1.3.3. ASSUMPTIONS
1) Use will increase (as described in Section 1.2.).
2) The park facilities and development will be remain as they are in 1990.
3) There are two separate management areas: the developed backcountry along Highway
99 (e.g. Black Tusk - Garibaldi Lake area) and wilderness throughout the rest of the park, and these areas offer different recreational experiences.
4) The park is currently supplying the socially desired and correct recreational experiences.
1.3.4. METHODOLOGY
A combination of library and file research, interviews and field surveys have been conducted. The library and file research was used to define RCC theory, the important relationships and critical factors for RCC in dispersed recreation, and to establish a model appropriate for the case study. Interviews were conducted with BC Parks personnel to demonstrate the policy and management options for the area and to define issues of concern. Introduction -11-
Some field research has been conducted (i.e. soil capability survey and visual inventory) in conjunction with air-photo interpretation to establish the biophysical sensitivity of the study area.
1.3.5. RATIONALE
While employed by BC Parks, the author observed apparent evidence of overuse within
Garibaldi Park. The Black Tusk - Garibaldi Lake area demonstrates signs of site degradation and water quality problems associated with overuse. The campground on Garibaldi Lake (see Figure
3-1) was constructed adjacent to the closed Battleship Islands Campground. The original site was closed because of trampling and site degradation and is now being artificially regenerated. The new campground also shows signs of overuse (e.g. trail short-cutting, vegetation loss) and actions were taken to prevent further degradation of the vegetation. The Taylor Meadows Campground also shows signs of overuse, with exposed mineral soils and an apparent shift in the species composition from a mixed sedge and forb meadow to a less diverse sedge meadow. Further, the hiking trail network within the Black Tusk Meadows area has been reconstructed. This reconstruction involved re-routing the trails and using the surface duff and vegetation from the new trails to rehabilitate the old rutted trails. Finally, as part of the regular weekly routine, water samples from the campgrounds are analyzed for fecal coliforms. While the coliform counts never rose above acceptable health standards, during the high use periods visitors were advised to boil or treat their water (i.e. sterilize it) as a precaution against unusually high counts. As will be seen from subsequent chapters, these signs all indicate the area is near its RCC.
To complicate the situation, recent problems in B.C.'s resource use (e.g. in the areas of
South Moresby Island, Caramanah Valley, and the Stein Valley), highlight increasing demands and conflicts over the use of limited wilderness resources. Potentially exacerbating these conflicts, the Province is actively promoting tourism in B.C. based on outdoor recreation opportunities. Introduction -12-
Further increases in the tourist trade in B.C. will increase demands on the provincial parks system. Within British Columbia:
Most will also acknowledge the values of our modern life, which rests on an economy largely derived from the extraction of resources from the wilderness, particularly trees and minerals. What makes the province beautiful, its forests and its mountains, is also what produces British Columbia's wealth. Thus, the same areas are often in demand both for their wilderness and extractive resource values. By permitting logging and mining, we lose some wilderness values; but by preserving the wilderness, we lose some material values (Wilderness Advisory Committee, 1986, p. 1).
Therefore, mechanisms are required which will assist the process of choosing between or balancing alternative and competing social values. The focus of this thesis is not on conflicts in land allocation, but on the resolution or definition of the appropriate type and level of use of recreational lands (i.e. recreational carrying capacity). This definition of use also requires the balancing of alternatives - to protect the resources and supply recreational access.
The construction of a RCC model as a baseline for planning and management is timely considering the demands for more intensive management reflected in the current Ministry of
Parks policy statement Striking the Balance (Ministry of Parks, 1990), the current Master
Planning process for Garibaldi Park, and the likely increase in demand caused by current marketing of B.C.'s wilderness qualities. Garibaldi Provincial Park has been chosen as a case study because of its proximity to both the Lower Mainland - a major population center, and the major internationally known four season destination resort of Whistler-Blackcomb. These factors place this area under great user pressure and resource demand conflict (e.g. park deletions for ski area expansion). It is expected that the problems reflected here will be more easily identified due to the intensity of use. Thus, a RCC study of Garibaldi should provide an indication of the potential for problems throughout the system and assist the planning process for the park. Introduction
1.3.6. FORMAT
The structure of the thesis will be guided by RCC theory and the RCC model used for the case study. Chapter 2: Recreational Carrying Capacity Theory will outline the recreational carrying capacity and the model used to define the capacity of the study area. Chapter 3: BC
Parks Mandate, Policy and Managerial Influence is a review of current BC Parks legislation and policy, and a literature review of potential management strategies. This chapter will outline the biases or objectives behind the evaluations for defining the recreational carrying capacity of the park and review current management strategies for the park. Chapter 4: Social Carrying
Capacity will be divided into three sections: the first two sections will review previous research in the U.S. literature and Garibaldi-specific information. The concluding section of this chapter will define the acceptable density of users for the study area. Chapter 5: Ecological Carrying
Capacity will be divided into two main sections. The first section of this chapter is a literature review of the biophysical indicators of overuse and a review of available data for Garibaldi.
Ecological carrying capacity is the main focus of this thesis and this is the only chapter for which new data has been collected. The second section defines the methods used to collect the new data for the case study. Chapter 6: Analysis begins by summarizing the relevant information and observations from the previous chapters and inputting these observations into the RCC model defined in Chapter 2. As part of the analysis, limitations for the park will be identified from the available information. Chapter 7: Recommendations and Conclusions will use the limitations and the numeric analysis to recommend management actions suitable to conserve the park resources and supply recreational opportunities. The model will be reviewed for its usefulness. Finally, the usefulness of RCC theory will be discussed. RCC Theory -14-
CHAPTER 2:
RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY THEORY
2.0. INTRODUCTION
Recreational carrying capacity (RCC) theory attempts to define the interactions and limitations of those factors affecting both recreational site and the recreational experience. The implied objective behind defining these factors is to identify management strategies to prevent the deterioration or destruction of recreational resources and maintain the quality of the recreational experience. The intent of this chapter is to lay out the theoretical foundation of RCC and to introduce the model which will be used to estimate the RCC of the Garibaldi Park case study.
Much of the information in this chapter comes from Shelby and Heberlein (1986) because their work represents a synthesis of much of the previous work regarding RCC.
The process of identifying the deterioration of the recreational environment requires two subjective evaluations of the situation: first, to define the "limits of the acceptable change" and second, to evaluate the extent to which the area has been reserved for the intended recreational activity (Hendee et al., 1978). After all, it is possible to go on a weekend backpack trip into downtown Vancouver, but subjectively, it is inappropriate because the area has been "reserved" for other incompatible uses.
Shelby and Heberlein (1986) define RCC theory in a two-dimensional matrix of components and categories (see Figure 2-1). Within the Shelby and Heberlein model, RCC theory has two main components: the first is the descriptive, empirical, or quantifiable environmental and recreational use parameters, and the second is the evaluative or subjective value judgements sought for that recreational area. RCC theory also identifies several categories of carrying RCC Theory -In• capacity. RCC theory, as an attempt to define limits for the recreational site or experience, delimits the parameters of a specified recreational setting, so that there is a balance between the quantity of use, the nature of that use, and the quality of the recreational experience.
FIGURE 2-1: Components and Categories of Recreational Carrying Capacity
Components DESCRIPTIVE COMPONENT EVALUATIVE COMPONENT Categories (what's there) (limits to acceptable change)
ECOLOGICAL Biophysical inventory Biophysical assessment CARRYING and impacts of CAPACITY recreational use
SOCIAL User interaction Desired experience, CARRYING e.g. encounter rate perceived level of use and CAPACITY use patterns impact on environment
2.1. RATIONALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY
2.1.1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
In North America, recreational carrying capacity theory has evolved primarily over the last twenty-five years (Graefe et al., 1984; Hendee et al., 1978; Wagar, 1964; Washburne and
Cole, 1983). This evolution has occurred during the Extensive Era in park management (refer to
Chapter 1) and is a response to the increasing numbers and changing demands of outdoor recreationists (Canadian Outdoor Recreation Research Council, 1976; Velay, 1975). There is a large body of literature describing both the American and Canadian parks systems which demonstrates significant growth rates in park use since the Second World War (Canadian Outdoor
Recreation Research Council, 1976; Clawson, 1985; Nelson, 1970; Velay, 1975). This growth has been linked to a large number of factors associated with the post war economic boom. These factors include more leisure time, greater disposable income, inexpensive air fares, and improved road networks (Boyle & Samson, 1985; Lindsay, 1986; Mathieson & Wall, 1982, Shelby &
Heberlein, 1986). RCC Theory -16-
Immediately following World War II, managers met the increase in demand for outdoor recreation by improving access, enlarging facilities, and increasing the numbers of facilities and sites for outdoor recreation (Nelson, 1970;.Jubenville et al., 1987). During this period, parks were strongly facility-oriented and park management concentrated on three main areas: providing amenities to facilitate user satisfaction (e.g. toilets, change houses, campsites, and picnic sites); site hardening to increase site durability (e.g. road, parking lot, and trail improvement); and site expansion to accommodate increasing numbers of users (e.g. increase both the size and the number of recreation sites).
During the 1960's there was evidence that many of the more desirable parks and recreation sites were becoming overcrowded and over-used, and the natural features which drew the users to these sites were deteriorating (World Tourism Organization, 1984; Lindsay, 1986;
Washburne & Cole, 1983). In other words, "there is a real danger of people loving wilderness to death" (Hendee et al., 1978, p. 7). In response, managers and researchers sought methods to determine the limitations of use for recreation sites.
Early attempts at carrying capacity studies were adaptations of animal population studies from the field of range management and were strongly oriented towards physical and biophysical parameters (Graefe et al., 1984b; Stankey and McCool, 1984; Hendee et al., 1978). The intent of these studies was to determine the maximum population per unit area that a given habitat could sustain without deterioration. When carrying capacity theory is applied to recreation, the objective is to determine the maximum level of recreational use that a habitat or environment can withstand without deterioration of that environment or of the recreational experience.
Many early RCC studies investigated the impact of trampling on recreational sites. These studies did not adequately assess the social and political implications of recreational use. In response to this oversight, social parameters were integrated utilizing the users' perceptions of their recreational experience. Early user studies measured user satisfaction as a function of RCC Theory -17- crowding - the density of users (Becker et al., 1980; Heberlein, 1977; Shelby & Heberlein, 1986).
This social component of RCC theory has evolved into studies of user preferences and expectations to define.social carrying capacity. Consequently, these two fields of study - ecological and social - are the main subjects of RCC research.
2.1.2. RESEARCH ORIENTATION
Research into RCC has had two main orientations: first, the parks and recreation manager's (planner's) perspective; and second, the academic researcher's perspective. For the purposes of this discussion, these two perspectives have been intentionally polarized, though in practice, they overlap. From the manager's perspective, RCC theory is an attempt to find a tool which defines the optimal level and type of use to maximize user numbers and satisfaction (i.e. maximize social utility). RCC represents a potentially powerful management rationale for allocation, development and conservation of recreational lands. RCC as a tool has potential for application to conflict resolution, budgetary rationales, enforcement rationales, and allocation of resources. For the academic researcher, RCC studies explore the interaction of the parameters under specified conditions to find those factors which are limiting. The main difference between the two perspectives is that academia lacks the imperative to maximize service to the public that recreation managers have.
Authors like Becker et al. (1984) question the validity of RCC theory as a useful concept, and believe there are as many potential RCCs as there are combinations of parameters. In their opinion, RCC is too variable to be of practical or demonstrable use. However, overuse and deterioration of recreation sites is a real and current problem for which a solution is required.
Further, these authors see RCC as frequently being misused and caution against using RCC as an agent to control recreational use, rather than using it to understand the limiting factors involved in the recreational setting. RCC is misused if used as a "magic formula" in highly complex and dynamic systems. Nevertheless, a guiding theory or methodology is required which can be applied RCC Theory -18- in a variety of political and institutional contexts to define the critical parameters to protect and conserve the recreational setting.
While RCC theory is not a magic formula, it is a comprehensive theory which can be used in a wide variety of political and institutional situations. RCC theory will assist in the definition of the type and intensity of use under given assumptions and objectives. The intent of RCC is not to place a limit on use, but rather to define the relationships given a set of management assumptions, user desires, and ecological factors. The restriction of use is one management practice which can be used to assist in reducing overuse or crowding. The criticism of RCC as a methodology to restrict use confuses RCC theory with one possible management action to correct perceived problems in recreational use.
2.2. CATEGORIES OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY
RCC is research into the interaction of the parameters either affecting or affected by recreational activity. RCC is frequently sub-divided into four categories:
1) Ecological Carrying Capacity: the biophysical limitations imposed by the ecological and
recreational inter-relationships of an area - for example, between the frequency and/or
intensity of trampling and the loss of plant species;
2) Social Carrying Capacity: the collected individual preferences of the participants in the activity
- such as the frequency and size of groups encountered or the desired level of encounters
while hiking;
3) Physical Carrying Capacity: the space required for the recreational activity - for example,
physical space for sleeping or the space required on a lake for canoeing without physically
interfering with other canoes; and
4) Facility Carrying Capacity: the design load of the on-site constructions needed to facilitate the
activity - for example, the number of people that can use a cooking shelter (Shelby and
Heberlein, 1984, 1986; Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Heberlein, 1977; Lindsay, 1986;
Patmore, 1983). RCC Theory -19-
For this thesis, the case study will be divided into two main areas: ecological carrying capacity and social carrying capacity. Facility and physical carrying capacities have been excluded, primarily because these carrying capacities are largely controlled by managerial decisions. Physical carrying capacity is unlikely to be a limiting factor in dispersed outdoor recreation activities, but is a factor for related facilities such as parking lots and campsites.
Facility carrying capacity (e.g. parking lot and campsite capacity) is determined by the design of the facility and this is a management decision. Thus, facility and physical carrying capacity are of little importance in defining the RCC of dispersed recreation in areas like Garibaldi Park.
The economic infrastructure of the region is yet another aspect of carrying capacity which might be considered when estimating the recreational potential of an area (Mathieson and Wall,
1982; Patmore, 1983). This aspect is external to the study area and it will not be covered in this thesis.
2.2.1. ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY
There is no single, formal unifying theory underlying the investigation into ecological carrying capacity within the RCC literature. However, methodologies have been developed to investigate the impact or potential impact of recreational use, using scientific methods and ecological principles. From the literature on recreation, the direct and indirect impacts of dispersed recreation on the physical environment are classed into four main categories: soil degradation, vegetation changes, water quality and quantity changes, and wildlife impacts (Wall and Wright, 1977). While the effects of recreation on the ecological carrying capacity are not limited to these four categories, they are the main areas of concern in the literature. Of these four categories, soil degradation and vegetation changes are the main focus of the empirical research in ecological carrying capacity. RCC Theory -20-
Many of the findings from the current research are based on studying the effects of trampling (Dale and Weaver, 1973; Hart and Debyle, 1979; Bell and Bliss, 1973; Willard and
Marr, 1970; Burde and Renfroe,. 1985;.Cole and Marion, 1985; Kuss et al., 1985; Cole, 1985,
1986). These individual studies have investigated the effects of trampling on trail erosion, campsite degradation, plant species composition changes, physical degradation of plants, and more. Other studies have investigated the effects of recreation on wildlife and water quality, but these are infrequently or poorly related to RCC (Ream, 1978; Wall and Wright, 1977; Christensen et al., 1978, Boyle and Samson, 1985). A summary of these findings can be found in Chapter 5,
(see Figure 5-2).
Survey methods have been developed which study the parameters identified in research findings from a variety individual investigations. The method most widely used is campsite inventory (Parsons, 1985; Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Cole, 1983b). Campsite inventory methods assess the impacts of recreational use in dispersed settings. One approach to campsite inventories is based on rapid visual assessment and measurement, suitable for the large areas used in extensive recreation. This approach is of value, but relies on evidence of overuse and site deterioration. Rapid visual assessment is one of the two methods used to collect primary data for this thesis and will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 and in Appendix 3.
The second method used to collect primary data for the thesis is a soil capability survey.
Soil capability surveys are useful because they offer a more pro-active approach. These studies can be used to estimate the capability of the resource (e.g. recreational lands) to withstand future recreational use (Jarvis and Mackney, 1977; Coen et al., 1977; Leonard and Plumley, 1978; Klock and McColley, 1978). Soil capability surveys use a short term equilibrium approach and offer the advantage of creating baseline data for long-term studies.
Soil capability surveys are one approach to studying the complex interrelationships involved with the effects of recreational use on the soils and vegetation (Coen et al., 1977; Leonard RCC Theory -21- and Plumley, 1978; Jarvis and Mackney, 1979). However, these surveys lack any direct examination of water quality and wildlife impacts called for from the literature on recreational impact. Further,-capability .surveys have no explicit mechanism to resolve the value judgements called for in the RCC theory. While capability surveys are of valuable to resolve the direct and indirect impact on soils and vegetation, additional investigation is required to resolve these other issues. Refer to Chapter 5 and Appendix 3 for further details on soil capability surveys.
2.2.2. SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY
The following outlines the three main methodologies used to define social carrying capacity for extensive recreation. The order of presentation of these three methods was chosen to demonstrate the evolution of thinking in social carrying capacity.
2.2.2.1. Willingness-To-Pay
The earliest method for defining the social value of extensive recreational settings, where no fee was charged is based on a surrogate measure: Willingness-To-Pay (Shelby and Heberlein,
1986; Graefe et al., 1984b). This method is based on surveying either the general public or the recreational users to determine the dollar value they would pay for access to the recreational area
(Knetsch and Davis, 1966). This approach offers little assistance to defining social carrying capacity, because of the lack of evidence to support a link between changing use levels and changing willingness-to-pay (Graefe et al., 1984b; Shelby and Heberlein, 1986). Consequently, this method will not be discussed further in this thesis.
2.2.2.2. Perceived Crowding
Other early studies into social carrying capacity attempted to define social carrying capacity based on crowding (Stockdale, 1978; Heberlein, 1977). These studies tried to establish a relationship between the density of users and user satisfaction. These studies are based on a Neo-
Malthusian economic philosophy (Shelby, 1980). Neo-Malthusian philosophy assumes there will be a definable point where the addition of one more user would create an equilibrium. This RCC Theory -22- equilibrium is the point where the satisfaction gained by that additional individual and the satisfaction lost by all other users due to the addition of that individual would be equal. This equilibrium .would.define the sociallyroptimal. density of users (i.e. the point of maximum net user satisfaction). Empirical studies into the relationship between satisfaction and density have demonstrated there is little evidence to support the relationship of decreasing satisfaction with increasing density (Becker et al., 1980; Titre and Mills, 1982; Graefe et al., 1985; Stockdale,
1978). Further, these studies conclude that the relationship is much too complex for such a simple analysis. Simply, crowding is not synonymous with density, as was previously proposed
(Stockdale, 1978). Rather, participants in recreation use various methods to adapt to potentially undesirable situations, such as displacement to other areas, altering expectations, or altering behaviour (Becker et al., 1980; Hendee et al., 1978).
Due to the lack of empirical evidence to support crowding as the sole factor in defining satisfaction, researchers began examining factors other than user density. Crowding does exist; the problem is its definition. One important change in the definition of crowding is the shift from defining crowding as an objective value to that of a subjective value (Dorfman, 1979; Ditton et al.,
1983; Absher and Lee, 1981; Shelby 1980). As Stockdale (1978) describes it, an individual can feel crowded in remote wilderness by seeing only one other person, while the same individual would not feel crowded when attending a football match in a stadium with fifty thousand others.
The difference between the two situations is subjective and is based on preferences, not on the absolute number of people encountered. Therefore, rather than describing the idea of crowding as too many people, it would be more accurate to say too many people is perceived crowding.
Perceived crowding is most frequently measured through surveying the user population.
The objective is to identify the number of acceptable encounters for various activities. Figure 2-2 represents the generalized model for various recreation activities. In wilderness activities, there is a rapid decline in the preferred number of encounters (line A), while for more intensive recreation activities (e.g. backcountry) there might be a minimum number of preferred encounters before RCC Theory -23-
satisfaction is maximized and above this maximum level preferred encounters again declines (line
B). The use of this approach demonstrates some correlation between recreational satisfaction and
.perceived user density. The results .represent only a crude measure of social carrying capacity
(Graefe et al, 1984b; Shelby and Heberlein, 1986). In other words, measuring the users'
perception of crowding only partially accounts for satisfaction. Shelby and Heberlein (1986)
conclude that preferred encounters is not a fine enough measure; two thirds or more agreement
among the sampled population is required before any conclusions can be drawn about over
crowding. Preferred encounters is too gross a measure for practical purposes.
FIGURE 2-2: Idealized Preferred Encounters
Satisfaction * B - Backcountry *
* Favourable
* * Neutral * A - Wilderness *************
Unfavourable
Number of Encounters (from Shelby and Heberlein, 1986)
2.2.2.3. Preferences and Expectations
To obtain more accurate prediction of the relationships within social carrying capacity,
factors other than perceived crowding need to be examined. First, the terms preferences and
expectations need to be defined. Preferences refers to the type of recreational experience that the
users would like to encounter. Expectations refers to the type of recreational experience that the
users anticipates encountering. Further, there are two related levels of enquiry used to establish
social carrying capacity. At the more theoretical level, preferences and expectations can be RCC Theory -24-
examined to find the perceptual mechanisms behind sensory input and social interaction
(Stockdale, 1978). The second level does not seek an explanation of these perceptual mechanisms,
_ ~ rather it surveys the-user population to define the social norms for the preferred and expected
situation (Graefe et al., 1984b).
The first theoretical approach sub-divides preferences and expectations into sensory input
and social interaction (Stockdale, 1978; Dorfman, 1979). Sensory input examines the rate and
amount of stimulus received. In the recreational situation, sensory input would include the
frequency and timing of encounters with other recreationists, the amount of litter, condition of
campsites, the presence or absence of loud music, etc. Social interaction examines the social
behavior required by the situation compared with the preferred and expected behavior of the
users. Social interaction can lead to social interference, which would include situations where the
normal patterns of behavior are interfered with by the density and spacing of other users. For
example, social interference could be too many people at a campsite forcing users to camp in
otherwise unacceptable locations. This research concludes crowding is the subjective evaluation of
factors beyond the control of the "offended" user. This approach fits well into the concept of the
"limits to acceptable change" (see below), where the physical and social environment may lie
outside the predicted (i.e. expected) and/or acceptable (i.e. preferred) situation defined by the user.
The second theoretical approach to preferences and expectations, like the first, is based on
user survey. These surveys are intended to identify user tolerances based on the user's
predictions and acceptance for the specific recreational setting (Graefe, et al., 1984b; Shelby,
1981; Shelby et al., 1983; Ditton et al., 1983; Hammitt et al., 1984; Dorfman, 1979).
"Preferences", in this context means the ideal setting, the perfect outdoor recreation experience.
"Expectations," on the other hand, define the setting which the user anticipates. The user expects
to find "Situation A" and is willing to participate under the anticipated setting; therefore,
"Situation A" is, in the worst case, the least favourable acceptable setting. In this context, social
carrying capacity uses preferences and expectations to define the range of acceptable settings for RCC Theory -25- the recreationists. Preferences are the "upper limits" or ideal setting and expectations approximate the "lower limits" or the minimum acceptable setting within which the users will participate ._ . .. ,
Chapter 4, Social Carrying Capacity will compare preferences and expectations and to a lesser extent perceived crowding to establish the social carrying capacity for the case study. A comparison will be drawn between the general trends for recreation in North America and those trends identified by BC Parks. Much of this comparison is based on the Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum research which defines user expectations and preferences based on a typical or representative recreational experience.
2.3. DESCRIPTIVE AND EVALUATIVE COMPONENTS
Shelby and Heberlein (1986) have created a useful model to define discrete roles for descriptive information (empirical data) and evaluative judgement (subjective evaluation) when establishing recreational carrying capacity. The descriptive component is that group of parameters which can be systematically measured and complied to form an objective information base ("what is"). Descriptive information is the "scientifically" measurable parameters of the recreational environment and its users. Those parameters which require value judgements as to their relative worth ("what ought to be"), should be absent from the descriptive component. These other parameters are the evaluative component. In Shelby and Heberlein's model the evaluative and descriptive components are developed separately and later combined to build the definition for the RCC of the study area. When developed separately, changes in any aspects of the study can be more easily incorporated into the overall RCC study.
2.3.1. DESCRIPTIVE COMPONENT
The descriptive component of RCC involves the measurable aspects of the site and the experience. Examples such as the rate of erosion on trails subjected to known rates of rainfall or the number of encounters on a canoeing circuit with varying numbers of users entering the circuit RCC Theory -26-
per day illustrate the descriptive component. Included within this broad range of information are
virtually all the physical, ecological, social, and management parameters of any recreational
... setting...... _
There is yet another input into the empirical component: the influence of management.
The actions of management affect both the physical and recreational environment. While
management is not considered an aspect of RCC theory, it can be perceived as a reaction to the
impact of use on the recreational environment. Management action affects the recreational
environment and this can be empirically described. Management actions fall into three main
groups: user controls, environmental controls, and facility controls (Cole et al., 1987). These three
action groupings will be more fully described and their connection to RCC made clear in Chapter
3.
2.3.2. EVALUATIVE COMPONENT
Within the evaluative component are assessments and decisions as to the intended nature
of the recreational use, the acceptable limits of the changes to the environment caused by use, and
the desired or acceptable levels of user interaction (e.g. encounter rate). Within Shelby and
Heberlein's definition of the evaluative component there are two different types of evaluation. The
first is the evaluation of the empirical information (i.e. research-based evaluation). The second is
the situation as perceived by the recreationists and, for the purposes of this thesis, the term
perception will be used to describe the users individual or collective evaluation of the recreational
situation. The evaluative component includes both empirical and perceptual evaluations and also
includes the assumptions, goals or objectives of the agency supplying the recreational opportunity.
Central to both the empirical and perceptual evaluative components of RCC is the concept
of Limits to Acceptable Change. Implicit in phrases such as environmental deterioration or
environmental damage is the use of a value judgement or subjective evaluation that there is a
change to the environment which is inappropriate, for any use of a natural environment by man RCC Theory -27- will cause some change (Hendee et al. 1978). Out of this need for a value judgement, the concept of the Limits of Acceptable Change emerges (Hendee et al.. 1978; Stankey & McCool, 1984). The following illustrates this concept: walking across a well kept golf green causes some change or damage by flattening and crushing the grass. From the walker's viewpoint, the amount of damage is likely insignificant. The result is a change, but the effect does not detract from the walking experience; however, if there is a golfer waiting to make a putt on this same green the amount of change may be significant. The act of the walker may alter the putting surface enough to detract from the golfing experience or the necessity to wait for the walker may disrupt the continuity of the game. It can be seen that the Limits of Acceptable Change is not a fixed or objective change to the recreational environment; rather, it defines the point where the alteration to the recreational environment renders the experience subjectively less suitable or unsuitable for the intended recreational experience. The change may be physical (i.e. affect the ecological carrying capacity) or psychological (i.e. affect the social carrying capacity).
As previously stated, the evaluative component for defining the RCC is complex, and has two aspects: user perception and managerial evaluation. User perception of the condition of an area has been discussed above. The Limits of Acceptable Change is the acceptable variability or deviation between the expected condition and the preferred condition. The other aspect of the evaluative component involves the application of the objectives defined for the site or area by management or the carrying capacity researcher (i.e. managerial evaluation). Evaluation in this sense is based on an acceptable or unacceptable change to the environment under the assumption that the researcher or manager has defined the factors important to the typical or normal recreational experience. For the researcher or manager, the same interaction between the perception, expectations and preferences must occur to conduct the evaluation, but the evaluation must be conducted for the overall user group(s) - not on an individual basis. Further, the manager or researcher should conduct the evaluation in a systematic and empirically defensible manner, which is not necessary for the users. These two aspects (user perception and managerial evaluation) are interdependent, but not necessarily identical or reinforcing. The manager or RCC Theory -28- researcher must generalize the situation and may identify a carrying capacity which conflicts with the preferences and expectations of some individual users.
For the manager or planner, the evaluative component of RCC theory is dependent upon government's policies and objectives. By and large, government is responsible for the allocation
and delivery of outdoor recreation, either directly through supply (e.g. allocation of parks) or
indirectly through regulation of resources (e.g. length of stay permits).
The emphasis on governmental responsibility has evolved because of the special social and
economic nature of outdoor recreation (Clawson and Knetsch, 1966). While outdoor recreation is
in high demand, many of the resources required for outdoor recreation are widely dispersed and
collectively (Crown) owned. It is often economically unprofitable for private enterprise to deliver
the recreational opportunities. This is especially true in dispersed backcountry recreation, where
the area is large and the ability to control access is limited (Clawson and Knetsch, 1966; Krutilla
and Fisher, 1975; Ciriacy-Wantrup and Bishop, 1975). Further, in many cases, private resource
utilization is socially unacceptable, such as in the case of logging on South Moresby Island. Public
opinion results in a demand for direct governmental intervention. As a consequence of public
pressure, most outdoor recreation has evolved in Canada (and the United States) to be extensively
controlled by government agencies.
Government policy and objectives respond to the collective lobbying of individuals and
interest groups and the resulting policy documents are attempts to define the generalized opinions
and desires of society. Thus, legal mandate, policy, and objectives of the government must be
considered in any recreation site, when considering the evaluative component of RCC. Once these
are understood, site-specific objectives can be established. To accomplish this, the collective and
individual expressions of the desired recreational experience by the users and potential users, and
the demands by the private industry must be defined and placed within the governmental policy
and mandate framework. The results will define the evaluative objectives of the RCC. RCC Theory -29-
Once the site-specific evaluative objectives have been established then evaluative standards can be resolved. Resolution of the standards encompasses three main aspects: the nature of the recreational use, the acceptable limits to the environmental change caused by the recreational activity, and the acceptable limits to the frequency and type of user interaction. Like the descriptive component, these evaluative standards can and should be applied to all categories of factors involved in defining carrying capacity of the recreational setting to develop an overall
model for the site.
The entire process of establishing the objectives and the evaluative standards for RCC is
not well defined within RCC theory. The theory implies that the managers (planners) are
responsible for developing the objectives and standards in consultation with the public and elected
officials (see Figure 2-3: Evaluative Cycle). The final stage of establishing standards requires the
objectives and standards developed to pass the scrutiny of the public and politicians. The
reiterative approach implied by this process of consultation means the objectives and standards
will be subject to evolution and change. This, in turn, implies RCC is evolutionary in nature and
not a fixed value.
The RCC model, as so far defined, labels the various categories of RCC separately (e.g.
ecological and social), but these categories are not mutually exclusive. What should be apparent is
the overlap between the ecological and social carrying capacities and the influence of management.
Further, the selection of management actions can dramatically affect the carrying capacity of an
area. Therefore, managerial actions will be considered within this thesis to highlight the potential
for them to affect RCC.
In summary, RCC theory is intended to be used to identify the interrelationships and
limitations of factors influencing recreation activities, given explicit objectives and assumptions for
the study area. The relationships identified are specific to the type of recreation activity, and the RCC Theory -30- physical and temporal setting, but trends do exist. When identifying those factors influencing the recreation activities, the theory emphasizes the interdependence of the empirical data, evaluation
(both empirical and perceptual), ecological factors, social interaction and managerial influences.
Thus, the objective of RCC theory is to identify the critical conditions and processes involved in the recreation activities and the environment. This is done to ensure the optimal balance between the number of users, protection of the resources, and the quality of the experience.
FIGURE 2-3: Evaluative Cycle
Provincial Legal Policy Mandate
Elected Planner Officials or Manager
Site-Specific Public & Industry or Recreation (adjacent lands Evaluative Objectives User Groups or other users) J
Evaluative Standards
e.g.- type of use - level of use - limits of acceptable change RCC Theory -31-
2.4. THE MODEL
This section outlines the RCC model which will be used to estimate the capacity of
Garibaldi Park for recreation. First, the model will be reviewed as originally defined; then the modifications required for the Garibaldi Park case study will be discussed.
2.4.1. THE WAGTENDONK MODEL
The model is derived from Wagtendonk (1985) and was created to approximate the carrying capacity of Yosemite National Park wilderness. The model was developed as a planning tool to approximate the number of users the Yosemite wilderness could accommodate. The model developed for the Yosemite study was divided into three main sections: definition of the management units of the area, creation of activity standards for user density, and modification of the standards to adapt to local ecological limitations. The results of the study estimated what has proven to be a reasonable approximation of the RCC of the Yosemite wilderness.
The data required for the model include:
1) Management Units a) definition of the Management Units; b) identification of the type and nature of the activities within each Management Unit; c) size of each Management Unit; d) identification of Bio-climatic Zones;
2) Creation of Activity Standards a) creation or definition of the maximum social carrying capacity for each activity type (i.e. the maximum annual social user density); b) possible modification of Activity Standards by level of development (i.e. trail length in each management unit);
3) Modification of Activity Standard through biophysical Sensitivity and protection of special Socially Valued areas a) identification of Socially Valued areas or zones b) estimation of the size of each Bio-climatic Zone within each Management Unit c) creation of Sensitivity rating (i.e. impact evaluation)
Section 1: In the Wagtendonk model, the Management Units were created on the basis of watersheds. Watersheds are considered "closed" biophysical units. Within each management unit broad Bio-climatic Zones are identified for assessment on the basis of their ecological fragility. RCC Theory -32-
Section 2: The creation of Activity Standards defines the annual user population the management units can accommodate, measured by the number of people per season per unit area.
The Activity Standard is the social density (i.e. social carrying capacity) identified for the activity types carried out within that Management Unit. The Activity Standard is increased by the length of trails within each Management Unit. The presence of trails disperses the user population, reducing the perceived user density.
Section 3: The modification of the Activity Standards is the third and most complex section within the model and is based on the sensitivity of the Bio-climatic Zones identified. In the
Wagtendonk model, this sensitivity is based on four criteria: the rarity or uniqueness, specifically the relative size of each bio-climatic community within each management unit; vulnerability of each community to disturbance (i.e. period of use without disruption of community); ability of each community to recover naturally (i.e. number of years to full recovery after the impact of use), and ability of each community to be repaired by artificial means - rehabilitation or specifically, the number of frost-free days. Further, the capacity of a portion of any management unit can be altered by perceived social value. This step is done separately and replaces the sensitivity score, as described.
To create the overall RCC of the study area (RCCtot) the individual Bio-climatic Zone's
RCC (RCCbz) must be assessed (see Figure 2-4 for algebraic notation). The individual Bio- climatic Zones RCC's are derived by multiplying the activity standard by the area of each Bio- climatic Zone. This value (RCCmax) is then reduced by the sensitivity (S) of that zone. The
sensitivity rating is a decimal percentage of the sum of each of the four values under the
sensitivity (i.e. total score divided by the maximum score possible). Each of these individual
sensitivity ratings (e.g. Rarity) are then converted to a zero to nine point scale. To complete the
sensitivity rating, the four individual scores (Si, S2, S3, & S4) are totaled and then divided by 36 RCC Theory
(maximum possible score) to create the sensitivity rating. This rating is then used to reduce the
RCCmax for the Bio-climatic Zone to define the RCCbz of that Bio-climatic Zone.
Finally, the model derives the RCC of the study area (RCCtot) in a step-like manner. At the lowest level each Bio-climatic Zone is assessed a RCC individually (as described above). The second step is to sum the individual bio-climatic zones RCC's for each management unit. Finally, to derive the RCC of the entire study area the management units are summed.
FIGURE 2-4: Deriving the Recreational Carrying Capacity
RCCtot = RCCMU1 + RCCMU2 + ...
RCCMU = RCCbz1 + RCCbz2 + ...
RCCbz = RCCmax - [(Si + S2 + ...)/(max SI + S2 +...)] x RCCmax or = SV
RCCmax = AS x area BZ
MU Management Unit BZ Bio-climatic Zone AS Activity Standard S Sensitivity SI, S2,... Sensitivity Ratings (e.g. Rarity) SV Social Value RCCmax Maximum RCC RCCbz Bio-climatic RCC
(from Wagtendonk, 1985)
2.4.2. APPLICATION OF THE MODEL TO GARIBALDI PARK
The model as described has not been used for the Garibaldi Park case study due to the absence of the data required to directly address the vulnerability, recovery and repairability for the study area. The model format and mathematical methods remain unchanged but these three values are not used. To replace these values a soil capability survey and a visual impact assessment survey have been conducted. The Soil Capability survey evaluates the ability of the soils to withstand the impact of use, which is roughly equivalent to the Vulnerability rating. As RCC Theory -34- described above, soil capability assessments are potentially pro-active and can be used to assess an area's ability to withstand the impact of recreation prior to use. The Visual Impact
Assessment is better suited to evaluating the natural recoverability of a site, but is reactive, relying upon the evidence of use. These two surveys are felt to adequately assess the ecological fragility of the study area, as will be described further in Chapter 5.
The value of the Wagtendonk model is that it incorporates the various inputs called for by
RCC theory. The definition of Management Units and the creation of Activity Standards both allow for the influence of management. The creation of Activity Standards also allows for the creation of different user densities to reflect social carrying capacity associated with different user groups or activities. The modification of the Activity Standards is strongly oriented to biophysical limitations (i.e. ecological carrying capacity) within the model, but explicitly allows for modification of the RCC of areas on the basis of their special or unique value (i.e. socially-defined exclusions from recreational use).
The model allows for the incorporation of perceptual and empirical information and social and ecological data which is called for by RCC theory. It is simple enough to allow for modification or adaptation to a variety of situations. It explicitly accommodates value judgements and separates them from empirical data. Overall, the model separates the various inputs required by RCC theory; therefore, the various inputs can be modified as information becomes available without completely rebuilding the model.
The model as it is defined by Wagtendonk has three main problems for this case study.
First, the model was designed as if no winter use occurred in the area or as if there was no impact from winter use. Second, the Wagtendonk study area was designated for wilderness use only.
These first two assumptions are clearly not the situation in Garibaldi which receives year-round use and has both high use backcountry areas and remote wilderness. Third, empirical research into the vulnerability, recovery, and rehabilitation are absent for Garibaldi Park. As a RCC Theory -35- consequence of this problem, the Wagtendonk approach was "dovetailed" with a soil capability survey and visual impact assessment survey. This "dovetail" approach was chosen for two reasons: because the survey methods chosen can be used to rapidly survey the large areas used in extensive recreation, and because of the need to conserve primary data collection time. Management -36-
CHAPTER 3:
BC PARKS MANDATE AND POLICY, AND MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE
3.0. INTRODUCTION
This chapter will be divided into three main sections. The first section will examine various management strategies for extensive recreation and their influence on users. This will provide a background to the study of the interaction between management and use. The second section will review BC Parks policy and objectives for the study area. This review will begin with legal mandate, the foundation of BC Parks policy, and continue down through provincial policy, to the specific Garibaldi Master Plan. The third section will begin construction of the RCC model outlined in Chapter 2. Before beginning these reviews, a brief summary of the current situation within Garibaldi Park will be given. This summary will highlight information pertinent to
Garibaldi Provincial Park as a basis of understanding the following sections on management and policy, and as a general background for later chapters.
Garibaldi Provincial Park is designated as a Class 'A' provincial park with a large section designated as a Nature Conservancy. The park is extensive in size, being 194,000 hectares, and ranges from 200m to 2900m in elevation. The area is a pristine natural setting. The park is used primarily for year-round extensive or dispersed recreation, including hiking, backpacking, climbing, nordic skiing and ski mountaineering. These activities can be grouped into summer and winter use, and backcountry and wilderness recreation.
Garibaldi Park has been identified by BC Parks as the only major wilderness area within easy access of the Lower Mainland (Chin, 1989). Within Garibaldi Park, there are both developed backcountry areas and large areas of undeveloped wilderness. The backcountry facilities within
Garibaldi Park are listed in Table 3-1 (see Figure 3-1 for locations). The facilities are in the four Management -37- most heavily used areas within the park and the areas of heaviest development and most intense management.
TABLE 3-1: Inventory of Garibaldi Park Facilities, 1988
No. of Day Use Pit Toilets Shelters Campsites Tables Campsites Day Use
Black Tusk 110 16 6 3 4 Cheakamus Lake 50-2 12 Diamond Head 36 5 4 6 1 Fitzsimmons • - - 2
Parking Lots Trails (km) Nature Programme No. Capacity Hiking Ski Tour Outdoor Amphitheater Display
Black Tusk 2 90 20 12 1 1 Cheakamus 1 45 6 - - - Diamond Head 1 55 24 11 - - Fitzsimmons 1 10 12 _ -
(from Park Management Services, 1989)
These facilities and the access to the park lie near Highway 99, along the western boundary of the park. The remainder of the park is undeveloped wilderness with poor or difficult access. Those parameters associated with extensive backcountry and wilderness recreation are of interest to this study. For the purposes of this thesis, backcountry and wilderness are differentiated by the degree of development of recreational facilities and intensity of use: in backcountry areas development of facilities and use levels are higher than those in wilderness.
Conversely, in wilderness areas the perceived level of use is much lower and the development of facilities beyond trails and designation of campsites is considered undesirable by the user public. LEGEND Park Boundary Glacier Peak Campground 5 4 3 2 1 Okm
FIGURE 3-1: Garibaldi Park Topography and Place Names Management -39-
3.1. MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE
This section examines the options for managing a park area and the reactions of the public to management actions. Within this section, there will be a brief review of the literature on the influence of management on the recreational setting. The options for management actions include the methods for controlling and educating park users, and for modifying the park environment.
This review is necessary because successful management (e.g. identification and maintenance of
RCC) is required to ensure a continued supply of a high quality recreational experience under the impact of use.
3.1.1. MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The literature on park management uses two main approaches in categorizing management actions. One approach classifies management actions into several categories of common problems and lists potential solutions (Cole et al., 1987). While this is a useful approach for solving specific problems, it lacks a clear overview of potential management strategies for controlling the effects of outdoor recreation. The second approach categorizes management actions into common strategies which can be used to protect the environment and supply the socially desired experience (Brown et al., 1985; Lucus, 1982; Peterson and Lime, 1979; Bury and Fish,
1980; Jubenville et al., 1987). The advantage of identifying general management strategies is that this approach offers potential solutions to a wide array of management problems. This second approach uses three main categories: site modification (e.g. trail construction), direct use control (e.g. regulation), and indirect use control (e.g. education) (see Figure 3-2).
Site Modification includes site design, construction and maintenance of facilities, and vegetation management. These actions influence the physical features of the site. The purpose of these activities is to create a site which is useful for the intended recreational purpose, able to withstand the physical impacts of the users, and create the desired recreational setting for the users. Management -40-
Direct use control is the regulation of use. Under this category lies restrictive measures such as controlling party size and departure time of users, enforcement of regulations, specification of the intended use of the area (e.g. zoning), and other restrictive measures. Direct control is intended to prevent or reduce the users' impact on the recreational site and/or on each other.
FIGURE 3-2: Management Actions to Control the Impact of Recreation
Site Management Site Selection and Design Site Hardening Site Rehabilitation relocation closure rest and rotation Channelling Use Developing Facilities Direct Use Control Enforcement Zoning segregation of user types density Control Use Intensity control number of users control the size of the area of use Control Activity Control Length of Stay Indirect Use Control Control Nature of Access Alter Wildlife Population Information (advertising) altering use patterns (temporal and spatial) alternative sites Education and Interpretation teaching wilderness ethics teaching appreciation problem area identification Eligibility Requirements (licensing, fees knowledge/skills equipment
(modified from Brown et al., 1985)
Indirect use control employs education and advertising to redirect use and visitor behavior.
The key to indirect use control is the dissemination of information. Interpretive programs, display Management -41- booths and public information campaigns are all examples of this approach. The intent is to educate the users to the available recreation options, the problems and hazards associated with the site or activity, and to build an appropriate user "ethic." This approach relies upon individual decision-making to maintain or create the desired physical and social setting for the recreation area.
3.1.2. PUBLIC REACTION TO MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
The actions undertaken by management for resource protection may be difficult, if not impossible, without user support. Thus, public and user support of management strategies or approaches is paramount if the management of an area is to be successful.
3.1.2.1. Reaction to Management Actions
Overall, direct use control is not as well received as the other strategies. The main draw• back of direct use control is that it is often perceived to be negative - "thou shalt not."
Recreationists willingly accept direct visitor controls in situations where overuse is evident (i.e. obvious campsite or trail deterioration); otherwise, users prefer indirect management actions, such as information and education (Anderson and Manfredo, 1985). In the Anderson and Manfredo study it was found that:
visitors were likely to support management actions, direct or indirect, that retain the quality and character of the resource and recreational experience. (Anderson and Manfredo, pp. 318-319)
The key to successfully managing the impacts of use lie with ensuring the users understood the need for and objectives of the control method. This study observed the most critical component of public support for management was communication. Therefore, management must communicate the rationale behind the management strategy if it is to gain public support. In this same study, it was noted that within the general population there was wide a variation in user preferences for Management -42- management actions; however, within the various wilderness user groups there was little variation in these preferences.
In another study by Lucus (1985), different experience levels among users altered the likelihood and ease in communicating with them. The group most receptive to information and most likely seek information were experienced newcomers to an area. Those most difficult to inform and least likely to seek advice were experienced frequent users, usually local residents.
Less experienced groups lay between these two extremes, often seeking information, but not using it. Lucus concluded that these less experienced groups frequently did not understand the importance or perhaps the intent of the information given. Like the Anderson and Manfredo study, this study stresses the importance of communication between management and the users.
3.1.2.2. Reaction to Zoning
A study by Fedler and Kuss (1985), into the effects of altering the designation of a backcountry area to a wilderness area, noted several changes in the perceptions of the users.
While the level of use remained constant after the re-designation, the patterns of use and the tolerance to the evidence of use changed. After designating the area as wilderness, users were more dispersed within the area, less likely to camp in sites that showed evidence of previous heavy use, they perceived more litter, their tolerance to encounters became lower, and the number of encounters with "noisy" groups increased. The study concluded that while use levels and user groups did not change significantly, the user preferences and expectations changed to match the public perception of wilderness.
3.2. BC PARKS MANDATE AND POLICY
This section reviews the managerial or institutional context for the study area, as described by the legislation and policies guiding the management and planning of BC Parks. Management -43-
3.2.1. LEGAL MANDATE
The legal mandate defines the philosophical foundation and broadest aims of the provincial parks system. The Park Act states:
Duties and responsibilities 3. (1) ... the Parks Branch has jurisdiction over, and shall manage and administer, all matters concerning parks and recreation areas and public and private use and conduct in and on them, including ... (b) natural resources in and on parks and recreation areas; ... (c) wildlife and its habitats on and in parks and recreation areas; (d) the preservation, development, use and maintenance of parks and recreation areas and natural resources on and in them; (e) The regulation and control of the public and private individuals in the use or exploitation of parks ... and of the human activities, behaviour and conduct ... (Province of B.C., 1979, p. 1)
BC Parks is responsible for all the resources within a park and has a strong conservation mandate. The excerpt below defines the aims for the areas currently defined within Garibaldi
Park:
... parks of Class A, ... are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. (Province of B.C., 1979, p. 2)
'nature conservancy area' means a roadless area, in a park or recreation area, retained in a natural condition for the preservation of its ecological environment and scenic features,.... (Province of B.C., 1979, p. 1)
The BC Parks mandate can be interpreted to support the objective of RCC theory - to prevent the deterioration or destruction of recreational sites and maintain the quality of the recreational experience. The Park Act gives the dual mandate of conservation (preservation of natural environments) and recreation (use and enjoyment).
3.2.2. PROVINCIAL POLICY
The first complete public policy statement was issued in 1988 in Striking the Balance: BC
Parks Policy (Ministry of Environment and Parks, 1988). This document with minor up-dates represents the current official policy of BC Parks (Chin, 1989). The aim of BC Parks policy Management -44- reflects the dual mandate of the legislation - to conserve the natural resources and to supply outdoor recreation opportunities.
Following are the five main goals of the BC Parks system from the draft Master Plan for
Garibaldi Park (BC Parks, 1988):
Conservation Goals
Goal 1. Protection of Representative Natural Landscapes The provincial park system includes conserved areas that are representative of the natural landscape of British Columbia, thereby protecting and presenting, for posterity, the characteristic combinations of flora, fauna, landforms and waters associated with this diverse province. Goal 2. Protection of Outstanding Resources The park system contains a wide scenic selection of the best outdoor recreation features, natural features, wilderness areas, and historic resources of British Columbia.
Recreation Goals
Goal 1. Destination Opportunities The provincial park system includes appropriate outdoor recreation lands and facilities providing for use and enjoyment of major outdoor recreation destinations in British Columbia. Goal 2. Travel Corridor Opportunities The provincial park system includes, as a complement to other suppliers, outdoor recreation lands and facilities in association with major provincial travel corridors to ensure that travelling vacationers are supplied with a basic network of scenic stop-offs. Goal 3. Regional Recreation Opportunities The provincial park system includes, as a complement to other suppliers, land and facility-based opportunities for outdoor recreation distribution in association with British Columbia's different geographic regions in order that British Columbians are assured a basic supply of outdoor recreation services close to home. (BC Parks, 1988, p. 3)
The dual mandates of resource conservation and recreational opportunities are in keeping with the aims of the World Congress on National Parks, the IUCN and the WCED (see Chapter
1). These organizations support conservation linked to socially acceptable or desired use. The dual mandate lacks any clear mechanism to ensure conflicts between these two aspects of the
Park Act are resolved. It is unclear how much or how little alteration to the environment is permissible to facilitate recreation. Needed is a clear definition of the role of conservation for its own sake. Throughout the policy document conservation is linked to recreational use. Thus, it Management -45- appears that conservation is not an end in itself, but a means to ensure continued recreational use.
This represents a departure from the international perspective which sees conservation as a separate and equally valued goal.
BC Parks "employs a zoning system with five zones based upon the concept of an outdoor recreation - nature conservation spectrum" (Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, 1984, p. 7).
The following summarizes the six categories of park areas currently defined by BC Parks' policy:
1) Nature Conservancy Area, now called Wilderness Conservation Zone,
2) Wilderness Recreation Zone,
3) Special Feature Zone,
4) Natural Environment Zone,
5) Intensive Recreation Zone, and
6) Recreation Area (Ministry of Parks, 1990a).
The zoning system (the first five categories) is defined on the basis of the allowable intensity of use, access, type of use, facilities and impact on the natural environment. The sixth category,
Recreation Area, allows for resource extraction and utilization conducted in a manner compatible with recreational use (see Appendix 2). This sixth category is outside the zoning system and is a response to the historic resource claims within provincial parks. The zoning system defines a series or continuum, where at one end lies Nature Conservancy Area, the highest level of resource conservation and at the other the Intensive Recreation Zone, the highest level of recreation development. The exception within this continuum is the Special Features Zone. This zone is intended to protect significant natural or culture features from heavy use. As such, this zone could exist within any of the other zones.
Many of the criteria for differentiating between the zones are based on the nature of the acceptable recreational use (Ministry of Parks, 1990b). Thus, zoning is based on the intensity and type of outdoor recreation activities. This definition for the nature of the acceptable use is similar to the U.S. Forest Service's Recreation Opportunities Spectrum (Brown and Ross, 1981; Management -46-
Jubenville et al., 1987). This approach to zoning is anthropocentric, not biocentric, and is further evidence of a divergence from the international perspective on conservation. The international perspective (from the World Congress, see Appendix 1) promotes conservation to protect nature and natural processes whereas, for BC Parks, conservation supports recreational use.
BC Parks, like the World Congress, subscribes to a biogeographical system to define representative landscapes (Ministry of Parks, 1990b). Garibaldi Park has been identified by BC
Parks (1988) as a regional landscape for the Rugged Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains. The diverse landforms and vegetative zoning are important representative features required within the parks system to preserve the provincial biophysical diversity. Thus, zoning should place greater emphasis on protection of the naturalness of the area than on development of recreational facilities.
3.2.3. GARIBALDI PARK OBJECTIVES
BC Parks has recently completed the master planning process for the study area and the subsequent document is in press and unavailable. However, BC Parks has kindly supplied a summary of the public input into the process and information on the direction of management for the park. The park is "the singularly most significant protected wilderness in the Lower
Mainland" (BC Parks, 1988, p. 2). Without denying the importance of offering quality mountain recreation opportunities, the draft master plan places importance on protection of the biological integrity of the park. Therefore, while attention to the social carrying capacity is needed to protect the recreational quality of the park area, protection of the ecological integrity of the park should be given a higher priority. Far from excluding use, prioritizing the wilderness nature of the park should give management the imperative to direct or control use to minimize its impact on the physical environment. Management -47-
3.2.4. GARIBALDI PARK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The following observations are based on interviews with BC Parks personnel and excerpts from the current draft Master Plan for Garibaldi Park (Chin, 1990; BC Parks, 1990). The intent of this review is to identify the potential influence of management on the RCC of the study area.
The Garibaldi Park Master Plan proposes four zoning types (see Appendix 2 for complete definitions) and divides the park into the two main zones of Nature Conservancy and Natural
Environment. The Nature Conservancy Zone is the largest single zone and covers nearly 75% of the park area (Chin 1990). This demonstrates the strong conservation priority for a representative area and emphasis on the pristine wilderness character of the park. The developed sections of the park, along the western boundary, have been designated as Natural Environment
Zone with six small inclusions; five are Special Features Subzones and the sixth is a Development
Subzone (subzones are from the previous Zoning Policy, see Appendix 2). The Natural
Environment Zone is intended to support a more intensive backcountry use within the developed areas and complement the other developments in the Whistler area. The changes from the previous designations within the park (see Figure 3-3) include a much larger Nature Conservancy area. However, it should be noted that the area designated as Nature Conservancy has changed.
Most of the original area in the Nature Conservancy has been removed. Most notably, the areas deleted from the old Black Tusk Nature Conservancy are the areas of heavy use and recent (last
20 years) park development. The high use areas of Black Tusk Meadows, Mount Price, Red
Heather Ridge, the Cheakamus River, and Singing Pass areas have all been identified for designation as Special Features Subzones (see Appendix 2) to control development of park facilities and campgrounds. The Diamond Head road and parking lot have been identified as a development subzone (see Appendix 2) to permit road improvements. Another change is the introduction of explicit zoning for the entire park.
Because of the ecologically representative nature of the park, the author has reservations regarding the use of the Natural Environment Zone. This zone is strongly use-oriented, Management -48- minimizing the visible evidence of use. Potentially, this allows for considerable development and may not maintain the environmental integrity of the area. This appears to be a short-sighted
approach to protection of the recreational resources. To protect the pristine character greater priority should be placed on the naturalness, and a Wilderness Recreation or Special Features
Zoning would be preferable over the Natural Environment Zoning.
The proposed Master Plan zoning will have minimal impact on use or perceived use.
First, the redesignation of much of the old Black Tusk Nature Conservancy may increase users'
tolerance to the evidence of use, thereby increasing the social carrying capacity. However, the old
Conservancy was managed and used as if it lay outside a Nature Conservancy designation. Thus,
the redesignation will have little real effect on use or management. Secondly, the expansion of the
Nature Conservancy to cover 75% of the park implies decreased social density over much of this
area. In this case, the area was de facto wilderness and public perception will not change. It
appears that the intent of these proposed designations within the Master Plan is to adjust zoning
to match the existing uses and current demands for the park, rather than offer a long-range vision
on park use.
From the Master Plan excerpt, it is apparent that BC Parks is aware of the heavy and
increasing user pressures on the study area and the implications for the wilderness character of
the park. To assist in reducing these pressures or their impacts on the park, three main
strategies have been identified: cooperative management, increasing the trail network, and
reducing use conflicts. Within these strategies a mixture of all three management approaches
(site modification, direct use control, and indirect use control) are included.
The first strategy is cooperative management with adjacent land users. This strategy
includes site modification (e.g. facility development) and indirect use control. Facility development
will be done in conjunction with the Whistler ski operators, the Ministry of Forests, and the
Ministry of Lands. This includes possible development of a demonstration forest in the low Management -49- elevation forest and construction of an alpine hut network in the Whistler area. The indirect use control includes joint advertising and education campaign with the Whistler ski operators and the
Ministry of Forests. The purpose behind these strategies is promote complementary developments adjacent to the park to reduce use or to reduce the increase in use within the park. This is part of a larger scheme to develop, diversify and promote a year round destination resort in the Whistler area. The intent of this strategy is to develop experiences for those users seeking a roaded or non- roaded natural experience along the park periphery and protect the more pristine experience further from the road's edge.
The second strategy is site modification including the development of a more complex trail network. As previously discussed, a more complex trail network will disperse users to a greater extent, reducing the level of encounters, and the perceived user density. As part of this strategy there will be an increase in the number of trail-heads in the Whistler area, new trail construction to create circuits rather than linear routes, trail up-grading, and greater emphasis on lower elevation trails. All of these developments are directed toward the Natural Environment Zone,
where a greater level of use is permissible.
The third strategy is to reduce competitive uses and user conflicts. The main concerns
identified are mountain-bike use and aircraft over-flights. This strategy will use both direct and
indirect use controls. Direct control of mountain bikes through the designation of permissible areas
is the only direct intervention within this strategy. The indirect use control method of education
for both mountain bikers and aircraft operators will be used to attempt to eliminate the negative
influences these uses have on the recreational environment. The purpose of this strategy is to
increase social carrying capacity through reducing the negative impact of aircraft noise, reduce
confrontation between bikers and hikers on narrow trails, and to increase the ecological carrying
capacity through prevention of trail erosion by mountain bikes. Management -50-
As an aside, BC Parks is experimenting with campsite booking (direct use control) in some of its roadside campgrounds. This approach is not currently being considered for backcountry or wilderness areas. Booking is considered as a last resort in situations where demand is so great that there is no other alternative to protect the resources (Chin, 1990).
As will be discussed in Chapter 5: Ecological Carrying Capacity, the Garibaldi Park
Mountain Goat population is currently very low. No explanation for the recent decline is yet available but there are plans to conduct medical studies of the goat population to determine the cause (Chin, 1990). Further, there is a proposal to introduce a new goat population to the area to augment the number of individuals and ensure continued breeding success.
3.3. DEFINITION OF THE MANAGEMENT UNITS
The following will begin the application of the RCC model as defined in Chapter 2. This process will begin with a definition of the Management Units. Once the Units are defined then the nature of the recreational experience and the management priorities for the study area can be reviewed.
The management units have been defined on a basis of the current use: backcountry versus wilderness. While this approach is likely not the best on a bio-climatic basis, it is logical for management and operations. The first main division follows the Master Plan zoning boundary dividing the park into Nature Conservancy Area or wilderness, and Natural Environment Zone or backcountry. Due to the lack of information on wilderness use trends in B.C. (see Section 4.2.), it is felt that the Nature Conservancy Zone should be considered one Management Unit. The
Natural Environment Zone could also be considered one zone; however, for the model this zone was divided in two Management Units. The division approximates the natural divide between
Cheakamus and Garibaldi Lakes and corresponds to the old Black Tusk Nature Conservancy Area boundary. This boundary runs from the western park boundary to Empetrum, Helm, Corrie, and
Castle Tower Peaks (see Figure 3-3). This division was chosen because the Management Unit Management -51- north of this division is in close proximity to Whistler, an international destination resort, while the southern Management Unit is a regional destination for the Lower Mainland.
Variation in zoning implies different recreational experiences within the different zones.
The different experiences offered in the wilderness and backcountry areas would mean there is a different social carrying capacity in these two Management Units. The nature of these experiences will be discussed in Section 4.1.2.
The priorities for these two Management Units places emphasis on resource conservation in the Wilderness Conservancy Area, while placing emphasis on recreation opportunity for the
Natural Environment Zone. The author disagrees with this second priority: due to the uniqueness of the sub-alpine meadows of this representative landscape the protection of this regionally rare and ecologically fragile bio-climatic zone should be given greater importance (refer to Chapter 5:
Ecological Carrying Capacity for details). However, the model will be constructed using the BC
Parks priority, placing recreational opportunity ahead of resource conservation. Management -52- N
5 4 3 2 1 Okm __j_Mnt Weart
PARK BOUNARY- _|_Wedge Mnt „. Mnt James "7" Turner *1 PROPOSED NATURE CONSERVANCY | Backcountry - North / AREA BOUNDARY J^j* Management Unit / . /Naden ' Pass
,/f^heakamus "-+" Mnt
Wilderness Management Unit
_,' The Backcountry- South TBookworms Management •/ G Glaciel r Unit "•h' Pikes \':-, BLACK TUSK NATURE \ • CONSERVANCY BOUNDARY ramid Mnt A.. \
r • . i r i
FIGURE 3-3: Garibaldi Park Zoning S.C.C. -53-
CHAPTER 4:
SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY FOR DISPERSED RECREATION
4.0. INTRODUCTION
Social carrying capacity as it is presently defined is an examination of the preferences and expectations of the users in recreational settings. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the social carrying capacity of Garibaldi Park, for use in the RCC model defined in Chapter 2. In the model social carrying capacity is summarized as the activity standard(s) for the study area. To define the activity standards for Garibaldi Park the chapter will be divided into three main sections. The first section will identify the general trends within the U.S. literature on dispersed recreation. The second section will review the information available for dispersed recreation from
BC Parks and when possible give details from Garibaldi Park. Through a comparison of these two reviews, the third section will construct the activity standards for the study area.
Due to the shortage of information specific to social carrying capacity of Garibaldi Park, much of the information in this chapter is drawn from sources outside Garibaldi Park. Notably,
BC Parks has no activity standard similar to the U.S. standards discussed below. To develop a standard for the case study, a comparison between the user populations of existing standards and the population of Garibaldi is useful. From this comparison, the standards can be chosen to fit the situation for the current case study.
The U.S. standards, discussed below, comes from the same body of literature as does the general review on social carrying capacity. It is assumed that the standards and the generalized preferences and expectations from the review reflect the same social carrying capacity. It is further assumed that a comparison between the discussion on social carrying capacity and S.C.C. -54- information on dispersed recreation in B.C. and Garibaldi will lead to sound conclusions on the appropriate activity standard for the case study.
4.1. SOCIAL CARRYING CAPACITY
The following section summarizes a large body of previous research into the social characteristics of extensive recreation. The intent of this review is to describe the general characteristics of social carrying capacity in dispersed recreation. The review will rely upon research into perceived crowding, and preferences and expectations.
4.1.1. GENERAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
Experience and/or specialization in recreation activities is one predictor of the preferences and expectations of outdoor recreationists (Hammitt et al., 1985; Lucus, 1985; Graefe et al.,
1985). Experience and specialization are defined as follows: experience is the frequency of participation in an activity type (e.g. wilderness travel); specialization is the degree of effort directed towards one specific recreational activity or activity type (e.g. wilderness backpacking) to the exclusion of other activities. The influence of experience and specialization is summarized in
Figure 4-1. In general, increasing experience and specialization in outdoor recreation decreases the participant's preference for and expectation of encountering the evidence of other users within the area. Experience and specialization as predictors of preferences and expectation have been used to define different user groups.
There are three other motivators which contribute to user satisfaction: first, the opportunity to participate in outdoor activities (e.g. physical participation and challenge); second, the opportunity to experience the natural environment (e.g. scenic beauty, weather, and wildlife); and third, the desire to escape everyday life and seek solitude (Dorfman, 1979; Shelby, 1980;
Hendee et al., 1978). The relative importance of each of these three motivators is used to define various user groups (see Recreation Opportunity Spectrum below). S.C.C. -55-
FIGURE 4-1: Summary of Research Findings for Social Carrying Capacity
Expectations and Preferences - expectations are a better predictor than preferences --preferences gain weight as experience declines - unfavourable situations (encounter or conditions) are more acceptable if expected - expectations and preferences vary with activity and site (see ROS)
Experience and Specialization - experience tends to lead to specialization - experience contributes to increased sensitivity to crowding (i.e. number of encounters, noise level of others & party size) - experience leads to increased desire for solitude - experience increases "wilderness ethic" (i.e. reduced physical impact) - experience decreases party size
Perceived Crowding - higher education contributes to increased sensitivity to crowding - sensitivity changes with relative location of encounters; at trailheads or access points groups are most tolerant, while in campsites groups are least tolerant - sensitivity changes with timing of encounters (i.e. users are more sensitive while camped) - proximity to other campsites increases perception of crowding - increased complexity of trail network decreases chance of encounters and thus perceived user density declines - large groups (i.e. >10 people) more disruptive than small groups - multiple small groups preferred over even one large group
Site Degradation - unnatural objects (e.g. fire ring) more disruptive than site degradation (e.g. erosion, trampling) - users more sensitive to inappropriate use (e.g. litter) than to site degradation - evidence of some impact more acceptable than none (i.e. users prefer to use previously used site over a pristine site)
Wilderness - Backcountry - wilderness recreationists less tolerant than backcountry to perceived crowding (see ROS)
(Ditton et al., 1983; West, 1981; Heberlein and Dunwiddie, 1979; Anderson and Brown, 1984; Hammitt et al., 1985; Graefe et al., 1985; Lucus, 1985; Graefe et al., 1984b; Clark and Stankey, 1979; Hendee et al., 1978; Cole et al., 1987; Cole, 1983(b); Shelby and Harris, 1985; Schreyer and Beaulieu, 1986; Parsons, 1985; Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Thornbough, 1985)
Figure 4-1 summarizes the main research findings in social carrying capacity. Under the heading of Perceived Crowding, research by the U.S. Forest Service has found that party size, timing and location of encounters are critical factors in perceived crowding (Titre and Mills, 1982;
Hendee et al., 1978). These findings imply that users need to be dispersed in the backcountry and S.C.C. -56- wilderness areas to reduce the likelihood of encounter and thus, reduce perceived crowding. The most, critical area to disperse users would be in campsites where sensitivity to encounters is highest......
Other factors affecting social carrying capacity involve the perceived level of use, site degradation, and the activity type. Perceived level of use includes not only direct contacts with other users, but the evidence of use as a factor in defining the users perception of the recreational experience. Thus, the evidence of litter, site degradation, and constructed facilities (e.g. tables, fire rings) also fall within the expected and preferred range of acceptable encounters. Finally, the different activity types each have their own social norms.
4.1.2. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM
The influence of the various activity types upon users preferences and expectations is complex and warrants further review. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) from the
U.S. Forest Service is one method of categorizing the variety of recreational settings along the urban to pristine wilderness continuum. Each recreational setting is typically used for different activity types. User groups have different preferences and expectations for the different experiences offered by these settings and activities (Brown and Ross, 1981; Clark and Stankey,
1978; Brown et al., 1978). In Garibaldi Park, there are two types of recreational settings, as defined by the ROS: Primitive and Semi-primitive Non-roaded opportunities or wilderness and backcountry. These two areas offer different recreational opportunities: "... recreationists engage in activities specific settings to realize desired recreation experiences" (Brown and Ross, 1981, p.
105).
Figure 4-2 compares and contrasts the nature of the experience and some research findings for the Primitive and Semi-primitive Non-roaded recreation opportunity types. It is important to note that these findings represent the generalized situation. Clark and Stankey
(1979) have identified over 50 continuums under six management parameters which contribute to S.C.C. -57- the recreational experience: access, non-recreational resource use, on site management, social interaction, acceptability of visitor impacts, and acceptable regimentation. Within the ROS literature, there is general agreement on the trends demonstrated by these continuums; however, there is variation caused by the unique relationship between the users, the activity, and the individual setting. Thus, Figure 4-2 is only a general guide to the expected or preferred experience offered in Garibaldi.
4.1.3. U.S. ACTIVITY STANDARDS
The creation of an Activity Standard defines the maximum level of use or user density for a recreation area. This definition of the level of use is a summary of the social carrying capacity.
The following is a brief review of existing activity standards from the U.S. literature. From this body of literature there are two prominent standards: the U.S. National Park Service and U.S.
Forest Service. While the methods which derived these standards are unknown, they are, in the worst case, intuitive estimates of the acceptable user density which have been successfully applied.
The Wagtendonk model, discussed in Chapter 2, uses the National Park Service standard for wilderness of one person per acre per season, plus two persons per mile of trail. This standard equates to 0.4 persons per hectare per season, plus one person per 0.8 km of trail. Another standard devised by Brown et al. (1978) for the U.S. Forest Service ROS uses 6.4 persons per hectare per season in wilderness settings and 16 persons per hectare in backcountry areas.
The Park Service and Forest Service standards appear disparate because they reflect different philosophies and processes. The National Park Service standard represents a stronger preservation philosophy than the Forest Service standard which is use-oriented. The Park Service standard would preserve a more pristine and remote recreational opportunity than would the
Forest Service standard. Further reducing the difference between these standards, the National
Park Service standard is increased by the presence of trails. S.C.C. -58-
FIGURE 4-2: Primitive and Semi-primitive Non-roaded Recreation Opportunity (from ROS)
Experience Motivators: (listed in.order of importance)
Primitive (wilderness) 1) exercise and physical fitness 2) physical rest 2) escape personal-social pressure
Semi-primitive Non-roaded (backcountry) 1) physical rest 2) escape personal-social pressure 3) exercise and physical fitness
(Brown and Ross, 1981)
Site Attributes:
Primitive (wilderness) - isolated from sight and sound of man - part of nature - challenge and risk - requires outdoor skills Semi-primitive Non-roaded (backcountry) - some isolation - opportunity to interact with nature - moderate degree of risk or challenge - requires outdoor skills
Site Characteristics:
Primitive (wilderness) - unmodified natural setting - large area - low concentration of users - little or nil evidence of use - use dispersed - facilities minimal and of natural materials Semi-primitive Non-roaded (backcountry) - predominantly unmodified natural setting - low concentration of users - evidence of use acceptable - use dispersed, but few contacts acceptable - facilities minimized and blend with environment
(Brown et al., 1978; Clark and Stankey, 1978) S.C.C. -59-
4.2. DISPERSED RECREATION IN GARIBALDI PARK
This section highlights the information available on dispersed recreation for B.C. and
Garibaldi Park. ..By comparing this information to the general trends already discussed, activity standards can be defined that are suitable for the RCC model being constructed.
In 1986 and 1987, BC Parks conducted surveys of both backcountry and wilderness park use (Broome, 1987, 1988). For the first survey the analysis was done on a provincial basis while, for the second, the analysis was done on a park specific basis. For Garibaldi Park, a user survey was conducted for the backcountry areas only. The information on wilderness use comes from the province-wide study. The statistical reliability of these surveys is unknown and the results should be used as a guide only.
From the first survey conducted by BC Parks, an analysis of wilderness and backcountry user perception of the conditions of these areas was done (Broome, 1987). The following is a list of questions and responses:
a) "what things did you most enjoy during your stay?"
Backcountry Wilderness
1) "unspoiled country" "unspoiled country" 2) "good hiking" "peace and quiet and remoteness" 3) "peace and quiet" fishing 4) fishing wildlife 5) wildlife access to clean rivers and streams 6) access to clean rivers and streams. b) "what would keep you from using the park again?"
Backcountry Wilderness
1) "too many people" "too many people" 2) "poor location" "poor location" 3) "poor or too few trails" "poor or too few trails" 4) "motors" "motors".
In response to questions related to trip satisfaction, wilderness users were consistently less satisfied than were backcountry users. Further, both more experienced and more frequent park S.C.C. -60- users were less satisfied. Conversely, those users which made longer trips were more satisfied with the overall experience. The areas of least satisfaction concerned trail maintenance, signing and information, helpfulness: of staff, and enforcement of regulations.
Combining the results of both surveys the following observations about park use can be made:
1) Average party size:
Garibaldi backcountry areas 3.2 people Provincial backcountry areas 2.9 people Provincial wilderness areas 3.6 people
2) Average length of stay:
Garibaldi backcountry areas 2.0 nights per trip Provincial backcountry areas 3.5 nights per trip Provincial wilderness areas 5.1 nights per trip
3) Experience (average number nights backpacking last year):
Garibaldi backcountry areas 4.0 nights Provincial backcountry areas 11.5 nights Provincial wilderness areas 12.5 nights
(Broome 1987, 1988).
While working in the study area, the author observed one departure from the trends identified in the research. The layout of the developed campsites within the backcountry areas are similar to high-use roadside campgrounds (without roaded access). These sites (e.g. Garibaldi
Lake) are designed as clusters which concentrate camping into a small area. On preliminary examination, this would appear contrary to the usual users' preference to have campsites widely dispersed (i.e. camping is the least tolerant activity to the presence of other users). It must be concluded that in the backcountry areas of Garibaldi, the majority of users must expect and therefore tolerate higher user densities than might otherwise be considered desirable.
From the summary of the public input into the master planning process in Garibaldi, it is clear that there is strong public support for both the preservation of the wilderness character of S.C.C. -61-
the park and integration of tourist-related development in lands adjacent to the park (Chin, 1990;
BC Parks, 1990). This duality supports two recreation foci of the Park Act. The first focus is on
- the development of more "intensive" backcountry areas along Highway 99, to support tourism.
The second focus is on the protection of the wilderness areas of the park, to preserve the pristine
wilderness experience.
Overall, the Garibaldi trends fit the general trends from U.S. studies into wilderness use
(Figure 5-1). Roggenbuck and Lucus (1985) conducted a survey of previous studies and conclude
that average party size is 2-4, with lone individuals and parties greater than ten both equally
unlikely. Length of stay averages one or two nights, with strong weekend peak use especially
near population centers and during the winter.
From the BC Parks trends, some general observations can be made. First, users of
Garibaldi's backcountry are less experienced than either backcountry or wilderness users
throughout the province, having spent fewer nights backpacking in the previous year. Second, the
length of stay is shorter than average and the two night stay peak supports Roggenbuck and
Lucus's study (1985) which noted that proximity to a major population center (i.e. Vancouver)
dramatically increased weekend use. Third, party size is small both in Garibaldi and elsewhere in
the province which implies expectation of encountering only small groups. Party size is larger in
wilderness areas than in backcountry areas, which is contrary to the general research findings in
Section 4.1.1. This may be a result of the availability of shelters and other facilities in many BC
Parks backcountry areas. These facilities reduce the need to "spread the load" of communal
equipment (e.g. tents and stoves) which allows for smaller groups in backcountry areas.
From Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2, and the factors cited above, Figure 4-3 has been
constructed. This shows the observed and expected user trends for dispersed recreation in
Garibaldi Park. These trends imply that users become more demanding for a "pristine wilderness S.C.C. -62- experience" as their experience and specialization increases. They demand a greater sense of quiet and solitude, fewer people, and a better, more complex trail system.
FIGURE 4-3: Garibaldi Park Backcountry and Wilderness Trends
OBSERVED TRENDS
Wilderness Backcountry party size - 3.6 people - 3.2 people length of stay - 5.1 nights - 2.0 nights - very high (peak) weekend use experience - 12.5 nights previous year - 4.0 nights previous year encounters - few, to none - clustered camping accepted naturalness - unspoiled - unspoiled desired experience - peace, quiet, remote - peace and quiet
EXPECTED TRENDS
Wilde Backcountry specialization greater than backcountry - low motivation physical activity first - physical rest first escape social pressure - social interaction - physical activity environment - remote, isolated (pristine) - some isolation - close contact with nature - natural setting - physically challenging - lower level of challenge - minimal - no development - development to fit into nature desired experience - widely dispersed use - dispersed use (very low user density) (moderate-low user density) (very low encounter rate) (moderate-low encounter rate) - minimal evidence of use - evidence of use acceptable (site durability important) - higher weekend use - extreme weekend peak use
4.3. THE ACTIVITY STANDARDS FOR GARIBALDI PARK
In the Wagtendonk model discussed in Chapter 2 a single activity standard was used for the entire study area. The situation in Garibaldi is more complex with both wilderness and backcountry areas, and with both summer and winter use. Therefore, a single standard for the social density of Garibaldi may not be adequate, and possibly as many as four different standards may be required for this case study. It should be noted that the U.S. standards discussed were developed for extensive summer
activities. In the absence of an equivalent winter activity standard or research findings to either
- support of refute any standard, this study will not investigate winter use further.
The trends for Garibaldi Park are similar to the trends from U.S. research into extensive
recreation. Therefore, lacking any standard specific to the case study, the standards used by the
U.S. Park Service and U.S. Forest Service (ROS) have been adopted unmodified (Wagtendonk,
1985; Brown et al., 1978).
The U.S. Park Service standard of 0.4 persons per hectare per season plus one person per
0.8 kilometer of trail was used for the wilderness area. This standard was chosen for three main
reasons: first, the lower user density of this standard will help retain a low perceived user density
required by wilderness users; second, the low user density will conserve the remote pristine nature
of wilderness recreation; and third, low use levels will help preserve the resources of the
representative landscape of the park. Through maintenance of these three objectives BC Parks
could maintain its mandated role of resource conservation.
For the backcountry areas, the ROS standard of 16 persons per hectare was chosen. This
higher density of this standard would be acceptable considering three observations: first, the
higher accepted user density, as observed in the clustered campsites, in the developed areas of the
park; second, the lower experience and/or special of backcountry users from the provincial
surveys, observed in the 1986 and 1987 BC Parks surveys; and third, the reduced need for a
pristine natural setting under the Natural Environment Zoning, from the ROS research. These
observations indicated that the users would accept or perhaps expect a higher degree of user
interaction and impact on the environment. Thus, the higher user density of this standard would
be appropriate to assist in meeting the recreation opportunity objective of BC Parks for these
management units. S.C.C. -64-
4.3.1. FURTHER RESEARCH
This chapter has reviewed the literature on the social carrying capacity for dispersed
..recreation. No new, information has been collected for the study area. The conclusions drawn
from this review on social carrying capacity are generally applicable to dispersed recreation and
not specific to Garibaldi. These trends do represent a summary of preferences and expectations
under similar recreational settings and create a reasonable approximation of the summer Activity
Standard for the park. However, further research would be useful to improve our understanding
the social interactions within the study area.
To better define the social carrying capacity of the study area, further research needs to be
conducted to identify the specific preferences and expectations of the park users. Figure 4-4 lists
the factors which might be examined when conducting this study. The questions regarding the
study area need to address the current situation and type of development; for example, "Are the
clustered campsites in the backcountry areas preferred or are they merely accepted because that
is what is available and consequently expected?" An important aspect of Garibaldi Park which
needs to be examined is winter use. Currently, there is little research to assist in defining
acceptable user densities and no reliable data to indicate the Park's current level of use.
Ideally, a population larger than the users of Garibaldi needs to be surveyed to assist in
defining the park's social carrying capacity. This is required to identify the attributes of the
current users, those who have been displaced by the current situation, and those who would be
served, but are currently unaware of opportunities offered in Garibaldi. Seasonal variation in use
and user density should be addressed to ensure the socially correct densities are not exceeded.
After data collection, the preferred and expected rate and nature of encounters can be fed
into computer models which simulate encounters and can derive social carrying capacity for the
area (Smith and Krutilla, 1976). Many of the preferences and expectations identified would be S.C.C. -65- applicable to mitigating the negative social impacts of use and would be useful to identifying management strategies.
FIGURE 4-4: Data Requirements for Defining Social Carrying Capacity
1) Identify activities within study area
2) Identify user groups for activities Experience and Specialization - number and types of outdoor activities engaged in - number times of year engaged in activity - number of days per year engaged Motivation - how important is participation in the outdoor activities and what attributes of participation are most important (e.g. exercise, the natural environment, escape from daily routine, solitude, social interaction...)?
3) Define preferred (ideal) experience Encounters - number of encounters - location of encounter (trailhead, on trail, at campsite) - size of party encountered - mode of travel (foot, bicycle, horse) Nature of experience - degree of solitude (remoteness) - duration of trip - ideal party size - degree of development of facilities (trails, toilets, firewood, ?) - evidence of previous use (litter, site degradation, trail erosion)
4) Define expected (anticipated) experience (as above) including: - why choose Garibaldi or what does Garibaldi offer that draws recreational use? E.C.C.
CHAPTER 5:
ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY
5.0. INTRODUCTION
Ecological carrying capacity is the substantive focus of the thesis. As outlined in Chapter
1, this is the only component of the analysis for which new data has been collected. This chapter on ecological carrying capacity is divided into three main sections. The first discusses the findings from previous research into ecological carrying capacity. This research defines the general parameters of importance for estimating the ecological carrying capacity. The second section reviews the biophysical information available for Garibaldi Provincial Park. This information will be used to create a sensitivity rating for Garibaldi Park, as outlined in Chapter 2. To more accurately assess the sensitivity of the park, a soil survey and a visual assessment of the impact of recreation has been conducted for the designated campgrounds of the backcountry. These surveys are used to create a second and more specific assessment of the sensitivity of the park.
The third section of this chapter is a review of the methods used to gather this new data to create this more accurate assessment.
As stated in Chapter 3, the parameters of interest to this study are those for extensive backcountry and wilderness recreation. The differences between these two types of recreation and their impacts should be identified to estimate the ecological carrying capacity of the study area.
Previous research into the effects of recreation on natural areas is focused mainly on wilderness use and little attention is given to backcountry use. However, the research implies that the differences between these two uses are not in the nature of the impact but in the degree of impact.
Special attention will be given to the alpine and sub-alpine bio-climatic zones of Garibaldi which E.C.C. -67- represents greater than 65% of the study area and appears to be the main focus of current recreation (BC Parks, 1988).
5.1. BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH
This section will review the findings of previous research into the effects of dispersed recreation on natural areas. The purpose of this review is to identify the common ecological and biophysical limitations of dispersed recreation.
5.1.1. BACKGROUND
Steedman and Regier (1987) have identified several common symptoms associated with the overuse of any ecosystem.
A general stress syndrome typical of "abused ecosystems," consists of such symptoms as reduced efficiency of nutrient cycling, changes in productivity, reduced species diversity, reversed successional sequences, changes in the size distribution of species, increased incidence of disease, and increased amplitude of population fluctuations. (Steedman and Regier, p. 95)
These are the general symptoms of environmental degradation and disruption of existing plant and animal species associations. Savory (1988) defines ecosystems in terms of four interdependent processes: energy flow, water cycle, mineral or nutrient cycle, and community succession. Savory asserts that any use of an ecosystem will alter these four processes.
Therefore, some understanding of these processes is required to understand the effects of recreational use on areas like Garibaldi Park. Within this context, researchers need to identify the specific effects of dispersed recreation.
For practical reasons, research into ecological carrying capacity must be limited. A comprehensive approach would overwhelm the researcher by the sheer volume of the data required. As a starting point, the recreation researcher should identify those factors which are the best indicator of the capacity of a variety of ecosystems. Principles and traits need to be defined which will aid in the identification of the important relationships between the natural environment E.C.C. - and recreational use. Once the identification is completed, then a focused examination of a park like Garibaldi can be conducted.
Research into the effects of recreation fall into two main methods: long-term and short- term studies (Burden and Randerson, 1971; Verberg, 1977). Long-term studies investigate the change to a recreational site through the use of permanent plots or study areas over many years.
Short-term studies investigate the changes to a site using three different approaches: observations made immediately after the introduction of use or change in use level, observations after an equilibrium situation has been reached, and observations from field experiments.
Most of the previous research into the effects of extensive recreation has used the short- term equilibrium approach. There is a large body of data investigating the impact of recreation on existing wilderness campsites (Cole, 1983a, 1983b, 1985; Cole and Marion, 1985; Willard and
Marr, 1970; Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Burde and Renfroe, 1985; Dale and Weaver, 1973).
These studies have been reactive in their approach. They have studied the effects of recreation, after the fact, under the assumption that an equilibrium condition between use and impact has been reached. There are also studies which use other short-term approaches. One study investigated the effects of artificial trampling in the alpine wilderness of Olympic National Park in
Washington State, while another study observed the effects of trampling after the opening of a year round road into the alpine in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado (Bell and Bliss,
1973; Willard and Marr, 1970).
While the use of observed effects of recreational use on wilderness has value, this approach is reactive in nature and cannot prevent the deterioration of the recreational site in the first place. If we are to move toward a more "intensive management" approach as discussed in
Chapter 1, then we need a more pro-active approach to prevent the damage before it occurs. One method which can be applied prior to use or the impact of use is the soil capability survey. The purpose behind soil capability surveys is to identify limiting factors which would reduce the E.C.C. capacity of the area for recreation. Three survey methods have identified relationships and characteristics which are important to the recreational environment (Jarvis and Mackney, 1979;
Coen et al., 1977; Leonard and Plumley, 1978). These three survey methods have many criteria in common (see Figure 5-1). This commonality implies that these three methods have similar empirical and theoretical foundations and differ only in their specific focus on soils. All three investigate either directly or indirectly the four categories of impact identified in Section 5.1.2..
FIGURE 5-1: Soil Survey Criteria for Extensive Recreation
Jarvis and Mackney, 1979 Coen et al., 1977 Leonard and Plumley, 1978
Impacts Investigated:
1) Trails 1) Trails 1) Soil Drainage 2) Campsites 2) Campsites 2) Trafficability 3) Septic Fields 3) Septic Fields (resistance to erosion) 3) Ability to Support Plant Life 4) Decomposition of Human Wastes
Parameters Measured:
wetness class wetness - soil moisture dryness class retained water capacity permeability permeability infiltration capacity soil texture soil texture soil texture stoniness coarse fragment stoniness exposed bedrock rockiness flood hazard flood hazard slope slope slope percolation rate depth to bedrock depth to bedrock depth to water table organic content organic thickness bulk density soil acidity soil temperature surface cobble bedrock minerology vegetation cover precipitation pattern sub-surface drainage E.C.C. -70-
5.1.2. RESEARCH FINDINGS IN ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY
From the biophysical research into RCC, the.direct and indirect impacts of dispersed recreation on the physical environment are broadly classed into four main categories: soil degradation, vegetation changes, hydrologic changes, and disruption of wildlife. Soil degradation includes soil compaction, loss of plant nutrients and organic matter, and erosion of trails and campsites. Vegetation changes include loss of species diversity, loss of vegetation cover, and loss of habitat diversity. Water quality and quantity changes include decreases in available soil moisture and water contamination. Wildlife impacts include disruption of wildlife and loss of habitat (Wall and Wright, 1977).
There is a large body of literature which summarizes the effects of these impacts on the physical environment. The effects of backcountry and wilderness use initiates five major processes: first, the physical deterioration of the vegetation, through trampling, vandalism and other physical or mechanical wear and damage; second, a shift in the plant and animal species distribution through the elimination of species less resistant to human impact; third, the loss a vegetation cover as a result of mechanical degradation caused by foot traffic; fourth, the loss of organic material cover (e.g. vegetative litter) as a result of foot traffic; and fifth, the compaction and erosion of exposed mineral soil through foot traffic and natural processes (e.g. rainfall impact and water movement) (Lewis and Marsh, 1977; Kuss et al., 1985; Hendee et al., 1978; Dotzenko et al., 1967; Dale and Weaver, 1973; Cole and Marion, 1985; Marion and Merriam, 1985; Burde and Renfroe, 1985; Cole, 1983b; Cole 1986; Cole, 1985; Wall and Wright, 1977; Boyle and
Samson, 1985). These effects will create a new "equilibrium" situation which will reduce species diversity in favour of more tolerant species and will alter soil properties, through processes like the loss of organic content. These changes will in turn modify the hydrologic regime, changing the nature and timing of run-off and reducing water quality, and alter wildlife habitat. E.C.C. -71-
It must be recognized that each site, each species, and each community will respond to the physical effects of recreational use individually, but that the introduction of recreationists will alter the. nature and rate of natural change to the environment through "unnatural" selection pressures (Kuss et al., 1985). The rate of change and direction will vary with the type and timing of use, but will tend to create locally less diverse habitats (Kuss et al., 1985; Cole, 1986; Hendee et al., 1978).
It is important to recognize that these five processes (deterioration of vegetation, shift in species distribution, loss of vegetation cover, loss of organic material, and compaction of soil) are closely linked and mutually reinforcing. While these processes occur simultaneously, they tend to be sequential in their degree of impact and timing to the site degradation process, and each of these impacts continues even after the disturbance has ended (Cole, 1986; Marion & Merriam,
1985). Within these processes there exists a curvi-linear relationships between both use and soil compaction, and use and damage to vegetation. These relationships create a situation where lowest use levels do the greatest damage, while increasing use does proportionally less damage.
Further, those sites which receive only light use have the greatest likelihood of recovery, but are also most susceptible to further deterioration (Cole, 1986; Willard and Marr, 1970). Sites which received moderate or heavy use deteriorated slowly after the initial impacts, but if recovery does occur it will take much longer (Cole, 1986; Hendee et al., 1978; Kuss et al., 1985; Cole and
Marion, 1985; Cole, 1985; Willard and Marr, 1970). Another implication of this relationship is that although mineral soil exposure occurs only after much trampling, soil compaction and vegetation damage is immediate (Cole, 1985; Marion and Merriam, 1985).
The extreme environment of montane areas strongly influences the alpine and sub-alpine areas. These bio-climatic zones have a long recovery period from the impact of recreation and other associated disruptions, including garbage and litter and over-turned stones (Willard and
Marr, 1970). Over-turned stones have a three-fold effect: first, the original site the rock rested on is now totally exposed; second, the new resting place will exclude sunlight; and third, the stone E.C.C. -72- may crush any plant life under it. Garbage and litter take very long periods of time to decompose, and exclude sunlight from those plants beneath it.
There are few empirical studies into the effects of recreational use of wildlands on wildlife.
Recreational use of wildlands can have both a direct and indirect influence on wildlife. In general, recreation affects wildlife directly through the disruption of normal behavior (e.g. introduction of garbage as a food source, or the interruption of breeding by human presence in breeding grounds) and indirectly through the destruction of habitat (i.e. trampling) (Hendee et al., 1978; Boyle and
Samson, 1985; Wall and Wright, 1977; Ream, 1978). The direct effects of human disruption are thought to be relatively minor as many species become habituated to the presence of man (Boyle and Samson, 1985; Wall and Wright, 1977). However, there is evidence that human contact increases heart rate and stress in large ungulates (Ream, 1978). Further, many species seem to be more sensitive to disruption by human contact during the breeding season (Boyle and Samson,
1985). Finally, recreation can indirectly impact wildlife by altering habitat and displacing species.
This is caused by trampling and other site deterioration which affects the vegetative species composition and locally alters habitat.
Recreational use along trails and in campsites affects the soils, vegetation, water and wildlife in a complex and interdependent manner. Most of the effects on the environment are directly or indirectly due to trampling. Not only does trampling have an effect on the physical environment, but the environment itself influences the impact of recreational use. Figure 5-2 summarizes these influences. E.C.C. -73-
FIGURE 5-2: Generalizations from Previous Research into Extensive Recreation
The Impact of Recreation on the Environment
Erosion, Infiltration, and Plant Nutrients - recreational activities increase the natural rate of erosion - intensity of use increases erosion with both light use and heavy use on bare soils, causing higher rate of erosion - soil compaction reduces infiltration reducing available water and altering available nutrients Decomposition of Organic Wastes - disposal of human waste reduces water quality Type and Timing of Use - hiking is less damaging than cycling or horseback riding - hiking is less damaging than camping - large groups do proportionally more damage than do small groups - recreation on winter snowpack does less damage than does summer activities
The Influence of the Environment on the Impact
Erosion, Infiltration and Plant Nutrients - slope and aspect affect the rate of erosion: where shallow, southerly or westerly slopes have less erosion - impeded or imperfectly drained soils have a higher rate of erosion under recreational use - low bulk density and a thick organic layer reduce the rate of soil compaction Decomposition of Organic Wastes - soil temperature and moisture influence the rate of decomposition of organic wastes Vegetation Type - dense vegetation can reduce site degradation by restricting travel to narrow corridors grass species are the most resistant species association to trampling, while forest communities are less resilient and forb communities with a high proportion of erect leafy stems the least resistant - coniferous forest litter is more resistant to the effects of trampling than deciduous forest litter
(Burde and Renfroe, 1985; Christensen et al., 1978; Cole, 1983b, 1985, 1986; Dotzenko et al., 1967; Hendee et al., 1978; Kuss et al., 1985; Lewis and Marsh, 1977; Leonard and Plumley, 1978; Marion and Merriam, 1985; Wall and Wright, 1977) E.C.C. -74-
5.2. THE ECOLOGY OF GARIBALDI PARK
This section is a review of the available biophysical data for Garibaldi. Figure 5-3 is a summary of much of the following information.
5.2.1. CLIMATE
The climate of the region is temperate, marine, under a strong westerly flow - mild and wet (Valentine et al., 1978; Government of Canada, 1982). The orographic effect of the Coast
Mountains moderates the climate, producing short, cool, wet summers and mild snowy winters.
Within the study area, precipitation ranges from 3,600 mm to 5,000 mm annually (Bowers,
1972). The heavy snowpack of this mountainous region maintains the glaciers at higher elevations and contributes to the short summer season of approximately three months.
5.2.2. GEOLOGIC AND GEOMORPHIC FEATURES
The geology of the Coast Mountains is varied and complex, but is dominated by the
Coastal Plutonic Complex which consists of igneous intrusions into metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock (Holland, 1976; Roddick et al., 1977; Valentine et al., 1979). The dominant rock types are granitoids and the pre-dating metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of shallow marine origin (Roddick et al., 1977).
The region has undergone both continental and alpine glaciation (Holland, 1976). Within the study area, there is a portion of a relatively distinct band of recent volcanic extrusions
(Holland, 1976; Mathews, 1952). These extrusions coincide with the end of the Fraser Glaciation, which began approximately 15,000 years ago. The area encompassing Garibaldi Mountain,
Garibaldi Lake, and the Black Tusk Meadows is dominated by these volcanic extrusions, in association with the geology previously described (Mathews, 1952; 1958). Unlike most of the rest of the study area, these volcanic forms were generally unmodified by the continental glaciation. E.C.C. -75-
FIGURE 5-3: Summary of Biophysical Characteristics of Garibaldi Park
Climate: -mild, wet, heavy late melting snow pack especially at higher elevation Geology: - dominantly igneous (granitic) plutons and batholiths - associated with metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic bedrock - volcanic extrusions from Garibaldi and Black Tusk Mountains Surfical Material: - overburden of glacial till (unsorted stoney deposits) and outwash (layered gravelly deposits) except over recent volcanic extrusions Weathering: - mechanical process dominant; favouring silt sized particles - local tills and outwash tend to weather to coarse grained, acidic material - sedimentary rocks favour acidic, silty materials - volcanic rock favours basic, fertile, clayey material Soils: - cool to very cold cryoboreal temperatures - humid to prehumid moisture classes - lithic (shallow) - young or poorly developed - dominantly acidic (granitic, leaf litter, volcanic ash) - podzolization (leeched, acidic, well drained, coarse material, high organic content) and gleying (impeded or imperfect drainage) dominant processes - volcanic soils will be more basic Bio-climatic Zones: - Coastal Western Hemlock (low elevation): mild and wet, longest growing season, acidic vegetative material - Mountain Hemlock (closed canopy, intermediate elevations): mild and wet, acidic vegetative material, tree line corresponds to the snowpack maximum (12-14 ft) (Brink, 1959) - Mountain Hemlock (open canopy, high elevations) & Subalpine Transition Subzone: Heath Sub-zone: acidic vegetative material, latest melting areas of sub-zone Sedge Sub-zone: shallow water table, saturated soils, shallow slopes Forb Sub-zone: south or west facing, early melting, most diverse and most susceptible to trampling - Alpine-Tundra: most extreme environment; very limited subalpine on the Pacific slope of the Coast Mountains (Brink, 1959) - alluvial zones of the Mountain Hemlock Zone most diverse communities which require protection (Fortress Mountain Resources, 1978)
Wildlife: - Mountain Goat population on decline; cause unknown
Mechanical weathering, through frost shattering, is the dominant weathering agent within the study area (Valentine et al., 1978). The products of weathering from the granitic rocks are well drained, coarse grained sandy or gritty acidic materials (see Figure 5-4). The metamorphic conglomerates, from shallow marine deposition, weather into fine grain acidic materials. E.C.C. -
However, these rock types usually have an overburden of glacial till and/or outwash of granitic origins (Mathews, 1952). The till is unsorted stony materials of varied origins, while the outwash is sorted, layered, gravelly materials. The volcanic extrusions have weathered in situ and mineral composition favours mechanical weathering into basic, fertile material of fine particle size (i.e. clays) (Mathews, 1952; 1958). Volcanic ash from the extrusions is a common constituent in mountain soils and contributes to soil podzolization (Valentine and Lavkulich, 1978).
FIGURE 5-4: Soil Parent Material And Processes Summary
ORIGINAL MATERIAL PROCESSES CURRENT STATE EXPECTED SOIL PROPERTIES
Glaciation Mechanical Weathering
Granitoid-
orame unsorted well drained, gritty acidic material Sedimentary—1
1—glacial- sorted, impeded drainage, fluvial layered, gritty, acidic gravely
Vole in situ imperfect drainage, clayey, basic, fertile
5.2.3. VEGETATION
The bio-climatic zones of the study area range from low elevation coastal rainforest
(Coastal Western Hemlock Bio-climatic Zone), through Sub-Alpine (Mountain Hemlock Zone), to
Alpine (Alpine-Tundra Zone) (Rowe, 1972; Krajina, 1969; Jones and Annes, 1978; Government of
Canada, 1982). There are two vegetative zones within the park area which require special attention: first, the vegetative zoning of the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone which is regionally very rare; and second, the alluvial zones of the park which contain the greatest genetic diversity of both plants and animals (Brink, 1959; Fortress Mountain Resorts, 1978). E.C.C. -
5.2.3.1. Coastal Western Hemlock Zone
The Coastal Western Hemlock Zone occurs at the lowest elevations of the region, from sea level to 900 m (Rowe, 1972; Krajina, 1969; Jones and Annes, 1978, 1978; Government of
Canada, 1982). The forest floor tends to be open and the main species association is Western
Hemlock with a moss understory. Other species (e.g. Western Red Cedar, Sitka Spruce, Douglas
Fir) may dominate the association in response to variation in the available water. The Coastal
Western Hemlock Zone is the wettest, warmest vegetation zone in Canada with snowfall accounting for a maximum of 38% of annual precipitation (Krajina, 1969). The expected soils types are Humo-Ferric or Ferro-Humic Podzols with podzolization and gleization being the dominant soil forming processes.
5.2.3.2. Mountain Hemlock Zone
The Mountain Hemlock Zone is the next vegetation association in the elevational sequence, occurring from 800 m to 2,500 m (Rowe, 1972; Brooke et al., 1970; Krajina, 1969; Jones and
Annes, 1978; Government of Canada, 1982). The climate of this zone is cool and moist with a heavy snowpack. Mountain Hemlock is the dominant species, with Amabilis Fir and Yellow Cedar becoming more dominant in areas of water seepage or late snow melt associated with increasing elevation (Jones and Annes, 1978). There is a well-developed understory which contributes to overall forest density. In the warmer, drier lower elevations, the snowpack is shallower and melts earlier. This combination creates a longer growing season, reduces the rate of forest litter accumulation, and enables a closed forest canopy to develop. Humo-ferric Podzols are most highly developed within this bio-climatic zone (Jungen and Lewis, 1978).
The mild wet climate and snowpack reduce or eliminate soil freezing which maintains the prehumid soil conditions. Snowfall accounts for 20% to 70% of total precipitation, depending upon elevation (Krajina, 1969; Jones and Annes, 1978). The dominant soil processes are podzolization and gleization. E.C.C. -
Near the upper limit of the Mountain Hemlock Zone, between 1,500 m and 2,500 m depending upon slope and aspect, is a narrow band of sub-alpine transition (Brink, 1959; Krajina,
1969; Jones and Annes, 1978). This sub-zone is comprised of discontinuous open forest parkland and subalpine meadows and is dominated by the depth and duration of the snowpack (Brink,
1959). This transition zone is typified by a vegetation mosaic dominated by an open, clumped forest of Mountain Hemlock with a variety of sub-alpine meadows (Brink, 1959; Krajina, 1969;
Jones and Annes, 1978). The forest exists only in areas of earliest snow melt within this zone.
The sub-alpine meadows within the park are of three main types: heath, sedge and forb
(Brink, 1959; Krajina, 1969; Bowers, 1972). Heath meadow is the dominant meadow type. This vegetative association is best adapted to the heavy, late melting snowpack of the area. The sedge meadow occurs on gently sloping terrain, in earlier melting areas and in locations where the water table is very high. This sub-zone is an indicator of the development of an indurate pan or the presence of bedrock near the surface. The presence of these impermeable layers forces water from up-slope towards the surface. The forb or herb meadow occurs only on the earliest snow-free sites of the area, those with southerly aspect on moderate to steeply sloping sites.
The complex of different meadow types within this Sub-Alpine Transition Zone is an important attractor for hikers, photographers, and tourists (Government of Canada, 1982). For recreational purposes this Sub-Alpine Transition Zone is the most important bio-climatic zone within the park, serving as both a visual backdrop and as a destination.
5.2.3.3. Alpine Zone
True alpine exists only at the highest elevations (2,200 m plus) of the study area (Brinks,
1959; Krajina, 1969; Jones and Annes, 1978; Government of Canada, 1982). Plant species become more diminutive, recumbent, and drought-resistant to adapt to the drier, windier conditions and the shorter summer growing season. The species within this zone are the least resistant to the impacts of trampling associated with recreation. E.C.C.
5.2.4. SOILS
While there has been no extensive, detailed soil survey conducted for the study area, a
"reasonable, informed" extrapolation has been produced by Agriculture Canada (1987) and the
B.C. Ministry of Environment. These reports are supported by other small scale investigations
(Sneddon et al., 1972a, 1972b; Valentine, 1976; Valentine, et al., 1978). This area has not been surveyed, consequently the following information is only of general applicability and considerable variation around these generalizations is probable.
The soil climate of the area is a cool to very cold cryoboreal temperature regime and a humid to prehumid moisture regime (see Figure 5-5) (Lavkulich and Valentine, 1978). The soil climate becomes cooler with increasing elevation, roughly corresponding to bio-climatic zoning.
The soils types expected in this area are lithic Podzols, with Folisols, and alpine soils (lithic soils develop where depth to bedrock is shallow) (Valentine et al., 1978; Barker et al., 1982).
FIGURE 5-5: Soil Climates of Garibaldi Park
Soil Temperature Classes:
Very Cold Cryoboreal - mean annual temperature 7-2 degree C - discontinuous permafrost may occur - growing season < 120 days @ >5 degree C
Cold Cryoboreal - mean annual temperature 2-8 degree C - soil freezes during dormant period - growing season 140-220 days @ > 5 degree C
Cool Cryoboreal - mean annual temperature 5-8 degree C - soil may freeze during dormant period - growing season 170-220 days @ > 5 degree C
Soil Moisture Classes:
Prehumid - no significant water deficit during growing season - water deficit < 2.5 cm
Humid - very slight deficits during growing season - water deficits 2.5-6.5 cm
(Valentine et al., 1978; Agriculture Canada, 1987) E.C.C.
The area has a thin mantle of soil over glacial till or bedrock (Barker et al., 1982; Jungen and Lewis, 1978).-The presence of acidic parent materials, coniferous forest or heath vegetation cover, volcanic ash, and high precipitation all favour Podzols (Mathews, 1952, 1958; Valentine et al., 1978; Agriculture Canada, 1987). Folisols develop at higher elevations under a coniferous forest canopy as a minor association with Humo-ferric Podzols. Alpine soils develop at still higher elevations where growing season is short and soil temperature is very low. Alpine soils are usually weakly developed organic soils.
The maximum snowpack is at the treeline of the sub-alpine zone (Brink, 1959; Jungen and
Lewis, 1978). Above or below this elevation the snowpack is reduced. This change is reflected in the accumulation of organic material and in the reduction of soil moisture above and below this maximum. Above this maximum the climate is too severe for accumulation of organic material and vegetative productivity declines. Below the maximum, the longer summer season assists in organic decomposition. The depth and duration of the snowpack declines above and below the treeline, reducing the available moisture supply.
5.2.5. WILDLIFE
There is a wide variety of both large and small game within the study area. Most large game in the region occur only infrequently within the park area and much of the small game is secretive (Government of Canada, 1982). These characteristics do not encourage wildlife observation within the park. One exception is the resident Mountain Goat population. This species is receiving attention due to a recent survey in which it was noted that their numbers have declined dramatically. The cause of this decline is currently unknown (Chin, 1989).
5.3. BIO-CLIMATIC SENSITIVITY FOR THE MODEL
To establish the relative sensitivity of the study area, the first step is to define the bio- climatic zones. From the data available, the entire study area has six main zones and sub-zones: E.C.C. -
Coastal Western Hemlock, Closed Canopy Mountain Hemlock, Open Canopy Mountain Hemlock,
Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Transition (Heath, Sedge, and Forb sub-zones), and Alpine-Tundra
_(see Figure 5-3).. The relative sensitivity.ofleach bio.-climatic-zone needs to be evaluated for the
RCC model. For the case study, this evaluation has been conducted at two levels of precision.
The least precise level of evaluation is based on the descriptive information in Section 5-2,
summarized in Figure 5-3. This level of precision is applicable to the entire study area. A more
accurate level of evaluation comes from visual impact assessment and soil capability surveys.
These two surveys were conducted for the backcountry campgrounds of Garibaldi where use is
more intense. While the evaluation of these sites for both capability and the impact of current use
was conducted in the backcountry area, most of the campgrounds surveyed are in or near the Sub-
Alpine Transition Zone. This transition zone is the focus of much of the recreation within the park
and consequently, the surveys have implications throughout Garibaldi Park.
5.3.1 SOIL CAPABILITY
The Coen et al. (1977) soil capability survey method has been chosen as the most explicit
and applicable to the situation in Garibaldi (see Appendix 3 for details on this method). This
method was developed by Agriculture Canada and the University of Alberta to evaluate the soil
capability of Yoho National Park. The method investigates the limitations of a variety
recreational activities, and uses different criteria sets for each activity type.
Of special interest to the Garibaldi case study are the campsite, trail, and septic field
guidelines. A total of eleven parameters are investigated within these three guidelines:
1) Wetness: water retained in the soil (e.g. ponding, ground water seepage, late snow melt);
2) Flooding: frequency of flooding;
3) Permeability: ease of movement of gasses and water within the soil;
4) Slope: surface angle;
5) Surface Soil Texture: the proportion of the soil mineral particles; E.C.C. -
6) Surface Coarse Fragment: content of the mineral soil in excess of 2mm;
7) Stoniness: number and spacing of stones greater than 25cm diameter;
8) Rockiness: amount of bedrock exposed at the surface;
9) Percolation Rate: the downward movement of water in excess of field capacity;
10) Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Layer; and
11) Depth to Water Table.
These three guidelines study the four general areas of concern described in Section 5.1.2.: directly studying soil degradation and the hydrologic regime, and indirectly studying vegetation changes and wildlife disruption.
The process of identifying site limitations within these guidelines is simple. The parameters investigated in the soil capability survey are all initially given equal importance.
However, those factors receiving the lowest rating are those factors which define the limitations of the area. In other words, those parameters which do not limit the area's ability to support recreational use are considered unimportant or uninteresting. Conversely, those factors which do limit the area are highlighted for consideration by management.
5.3.2. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
To assist in defining the RCC of the study area, the visual impact assessment method developed by Parsons and MacLeod (1985) was used (see Appendix 3). The Parsons and
MacLeod method is similar to other methods used to estimate the impact of recreation in dispersed camping (Cole, 1983; U.S.D.A., 1986; Fissel, 1978; Cole and Marion, 1985; Parsons, 1985). This method was chosen because it was designed and intended for rapid inventory of recreational impact. The other methods assess more factors and require greater time and effort. The increased detail of these other methods is unnecessary when combined with the soil capability survey. E.C.C. -83-
A visual inventory can establish the current level of degradation for the campsites investigated. The Parsons and MacLeod method assesses eight main factors: total area of the campsites, area~of barren ground,-loss of vegetative litter and duff due to trampling, degree of campsite development, development of "social trails", changes in the density of vegetation, changes in the vegetation composition, and mutilation of the vegetation (see Appendix 3). In this investigation, the effects of use will be studied in the designated and constructed campgrounds.
Visual impact assessment is directly applicable to studying vegetation changes and soil degradation, and has indirect implications for the water regime and wildlife disruption. This method, combined with the soil capability survey, will create a more balanced representation of the RCC of Garibaldi Park.
Since the Parsons and MacLeod criteria is designed for undesignated wilderness sites some modification of the method is required for constructed sites. The total area of the campsite
(area effected by trampling), barren core (total loss of vegetation due to trampling) and loss of vegetation duff and litter were measured for the area around the constructed site, not the entire site. The other five factors (vegetation density, vegetation composition, campsite development, social trails, and mutilations) were evaluated as described in the Parsons and MacLeod methodology.
The evaluation of the data is also handled differently than the Parson and MacLeod method. The Parsons and MacLeod method is designed to evaluate the impact of use on individual sites. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the entire campground and create a impact rating for the bio-climatic zone it is within. Therefore, the individual ratings for the campsites within each campground will be summed and averaged to create a rating for the campground and consequently its bio-climatic zone. E.C.C. -84-
5.3.3. RARITY
The RCC model requires an estimate of the relative area of each bio-climatic zone within each Management-Unit.. _This.estimate is. termed Rarity. in_the model. This is a.measure of the relative uniqueness of each bio-climatic zone under the assumptions that the more unique, the more attractive an area is to recreation and the more valued it is to preserve. This measure is estimated from air-photo interpretation and mapping followed by a grid over-lay. From this mapping the percent area of each zone was calculated.
The data collected through these two surveys and air-photo interpretation are presented and analyzed in Chapter 6: Analysis.
5.3.4. FURTHER FIELD RESEARCH
Most of the information available for Garibaldi Park is descriptive. The resulting analysis
(Chapter 6) is preliminary and more field work is required to more accurately define the sensitivity of the bio-climatic zones of the park. The preceding discussion on the sensitivity of the park would serve as a basis for the field work which should be conducted for the entire study area.
In the wilderness areas of the park, it is recommended that the Parsons and MacLeod
(1980) method be used as originally designed. This method is based on a visual survey of the effects of trampling on the vegetation and soils. In the original method, the parameters are of two types: the first are non-quantified, descriptive information to place the site into context (e.g. bio- climatic zone, rough sketch map of site); and the second type are more empirical impact parameters (as described). Further, Willard and Marr (1970) have developed an alternative
r descriptive summary of the impact of recreation on the vegetation and soils of wilderness areas
(see Figure 5-6). This method could also be of assistance in evaluating the current level of impact within the study area and should be examined prior to further field research in the wilderness areas of Garibaldi Park. E.C.C.
FIGURE 5-6: Summary of the Impact of Recreation
Degree 0 - no known impact; total vegetation cover = 100 per cent of natural Degree 1 - receiving visitor impact, but no alteration visible; total vegetation cover = 100 per_eent-of ..natural •.. Degree 2 - ecosystem obviously affected by visitor impact, but vegetation cover - 85-90 per cent of natural Degree 3 - ecosystem-definitely altered by visitor impact; plants show reduced vitality; attrition effects on normal growth great; normal growth persists in protected sites; soil exposed and eroding; total vegetation cover = 25-85 per cent of natural Degree 4 - ecosystem radically altered by visitor impact; vegetation gone except in very protected sites; A horizon exposed over most of area and eroding; vegetation cover = 5-25 per cent of natural Degree 5 - ecosystem virtually destroyed by visitor impact; plants existing only in very protected sites, if at all, and not growing normally; B and C horizons exposed by erosion; total vegetation cover = 0-5 per cent of natural
(Willard and Marr, 1970, pp. 257-258)
Any future investigation in the study area should sub-divide the bio-climatic zones. Sub• dividing the broad bio-climatic zones would offer greater detail. The increased detail would be useful for identifying and directing more specific management actions within the study area. This sub-division would shift the investigation to a sub-zone or micro-zone level. An example of this finer level of investigation can be seen in the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone described in Section
5.2.3.2. and in Figure 5-3. The B.C. Ministry of Forests has developed indicator species for various forest types which would be useful for this process. These indicator species identify variations in the local hydrologic regime; which would be valuable to this type of investigation. Analysis -86-
CHAPTER 6:
ANALYSIS OF THE RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY
OF GARIBALDI PARK
6.0. INTRODUCTION
The substantive focus of the case study is the ecological carrying capacity of
Garibaldi Park. This chapter reviews the Wagtendonk model as it is applied to the case study, summarizes the information relevant to the model, analyzes the data collected, and offers observations concerning the ecological limitations of Garibaldi Park.
Because of the limited information available and the degree of generalization required to complete the model, this analysis is applicable only at the most general level of investigation. The investigation has been conducted on a bio-climatic zone basis, not on a sub-zone or micro-zone basis. The resulting analysis and observations on limitations apply only to the broad bio-climatic zones. The degree of specificity at this level of investigation is not suitable for site management. While there are management implications at this level of investigation, this document is intended to assist planning, not park operations.
6.1. REVIEW OF THE MODEL
The Wagtendonk model, which was modified for use in this case study, has three main components: managerial objectives, social carrying capacity, and ecological carrying capacity. Managerial objectives define the evaluative component from RCC theory; the social carrying capacity is described by the activity standards (user density); and the ecological carrying capacity by the ecological sensitivity or fragility of the bio-climatic zones of the study area. Analysis -87-
Further, the model has three steps which utilize each of these three components
(see Figure 6-1). The first step is the definition of the management units. As part of this
_ first.step a..definition.of_the.recreationaL activities,foreach„management unit is required.
The second step is identification of the user density and the subsequent calculation of the
maximum number of users the area can socially accommodate. These calculations are
done for each bio-climatic zone within each management unit. The final and most complex
step is the assessment of the ecological sensitivity. The ecological sensitivity reduces the
maximum social density to create the RCC for the study area. The ecological sensitivity is
a product of the interaction of the Rarity, Soil Capability and Visual Impact Assessment of
the bio-climatic zones within each management unit.
It is important to note Step 3b, in Figure 6-1. The model assumes maximum
social density or maximum social carrying capacity, unless ecological factors lower this
value. The subsequent formula is maximum social density minus the affect of ecological
sensitivity.
The overall RCC for the study area is the sum of the RCCs of the all the
management units. The RCC for each management unit is the sum of the RCCs of the
individual bio-climatic zones within each management unit. By maintaining separate
calculations for each bio-climatic zone and each management unit, problems at these levels
of inquiry can be identified and actions targeted to protect bio-climatic or recreational
resources at these levels. Analysis -88-
FIGURE 6-1: RCC Model Outline
1) Definition of Study Units
Bio= climatic .Zones Management Units
1 1A, IB, 1C,
2 2A, 2B, 2C,
3 3A, 3B, 3C,
2) Maximum Seasonal Population
(calculated for each bio-climatic zone within each management unit)
Pop. Max. = Activity Standard x Area of Bio-climatic Zone
3) a) Sensitivity Rating
(calculated for each bio-climatic zone within each management unit)
Sensitivity = Rarity + Soil Capability 4 Visual Impact Assessment
b) Recreational Carrying; Capacity (calculated for each bio-climatic zone within each management unit) RCC = Maximum Seasonal Population - (Maximum Seasonal Population x Sensitivity)
From the previous chapters it should be apparent that the information gathered for the analysis comes from two main sources: literature review and field data. To construct the ecological sensitivity of Garibaldi Park for recreation, neither of these sources alone can dependably estimate the RCC of Garibaldi Park within the model used. Most of the literature reviewed comes from U.S Forest Service research or from B.C. provincial surveys and reports, not from detailed study of Garibaldi Park. The field data comes from a rapid survey of the backcountry campgrounds and is not a complete investigation of all the bio-climatic zones of the study area. Because of the unreliability or incompleteness of these two data sources the analysis will be conducted three ways. The first method will use the general information collected from the literature review. This first approach does not use the visual impact assessment component because there is no information available for this component from the literature review. The second method of analysis will use part Analysis -89- of the field data to conduct an analysis identical to the literature review. The third method will use all the field data including the visual impact assessment. Because of the additional information this .third_analysis-will be similar but not identical to the first two.
Using these three analyses allows for comparisons between the results which will lead to a better overall estimation of the RCC of the park.
6.2. SUMMARY OF DATA AND OBJECTIVES FOR INPUT
The following section presents a summary of the information gathered for the case study. It should be apparent that while the model explicitly places management input at the level of defining the activities and management units, management priorities have impact throughout the model. Decisions regarding the definition of the management units, the choice of the activity standards, identification and definition of any areas requiring special protection, and the choice of parameters measured are all affected by the objectives and priorities of management.
According to BC Parks, the two main priorities for the study area are the provision of recreational opportunity and the protection of the natural features and processes of the park. Greater emphasis is placed upon recreational opportunity in the backcountry, while protection of the natural resources is given higher priority within the wilderness. Section
3.2.3. and Appendix 2 define the specific emphases of BC Parks zoning.
6.2.1. MANAGEMENT UNITS
As described in Chapter 3, there are three Management Units. The largest unit has been identified for wilderness recreation while the other two units are for more intensive backcountry recreation. The backcountry area is divided into two units to differentiate between the more southerly regional destination area of the Lower Mainland and the northerly international destination resort of Whistler. Analysis -90-
6.2.2. ACTIVITY STANDARDS
The wilderness and backcountry areas of this study are given different Activity
Standards,.as,reviewed.in,Section 4.3— In the .wilderness area a lower, density of 0.4 persons per season per hectare has been applied, while in the backcountry areas 16 persons per season per hectare is used. It should be reiterated that the densities applied are calculated on a seasonal basis and that no information is available for determining the density of winter use. Consequently, these densities apply to the summer season only.
6.2.3. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW
This sub-section is a summary of the information used in the first analysis. This sub-section, based on the literature review, is divided into three areas: identification of the bio-climatic zones, identification of special or unique areas, and the biophysical assessment of the sensitivity of the study area. The bio-climatic zones are the ecological units used to divide up Garibaldi Park for all three analyses. Special or unique areas are areas which because of their ecological features may require exclusion from or assessment outside the model. The biophysical assessment is the rationale behind the values chosen for the model for the first analysis.
1) Bio-climatic Zones: Within Garibaldi Park, five main bio-climatic zones can be identified through literature review and air-photo interpretation: Coastal Western Hemlock
(CWH), Closed-Canopy Mountain Hemlock (CCMH), Open-Canopy Mountain Hemlock
(OCMH), Sub-alpine Transition (Meadow), and Alpine (see Figure 5-3). The Alpine Zone includes the Alpine Bio-climatic Zone, barren rock, and glaciers. A sample of the bio- climatic zones of the study area is displayed in Figure 6-2.
2) Special Areas: Review of the literature reveals two bio-climatic areas within the park which should receive special consideration. Fortress Mountain Resorts (1978), as part of a biophysical assessment for the Blackcomb Ski Area development, has identified LEGEND
FIGURE 6-2: Sample Bio-climatic Zones of Garibaldi Park (from Whistler, 92/J2 fc Mamquam Mountain, 92/G15, Dept. of Energy. iMines and Resources, 1980) Analysis -92- the alluvial valley bottoms and creek corridors as important reservoirs for genetic diversity. Brink (1959) has identified meadows in the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone as regionally-very rare. Protection.and conservation measures are appropriate under the pressures of recreation given the emphasis that the international parks community places on conservation of genetic diversity and considering that BC Park's mandate includes managing and administering the natural resources, wildlife and habitats of this representative landscape (McNeely and Miller, 1984; Province of B.C., 1979; BC Parks,
1988).
3) Biophysical Assessment: To fit into the model, the biophysical assessment from the literature review has been structured identically to the soil capability survey. Table 6-
1 is a numeric summary of this information for Garibaldi Park. This information was presented in Chapter 5: Ecological Carrying Capacity. Because of the origin of the information and the broadness of the bio-climatic zones, the data presented in Table 6-1 is a broad generalization of the expected field conditions. Further, this information does not represent a soil capability survey; rather, it is a presentation of the relationship between the various bio-climatic zones. Thus, the numbers are relative, not absolute.
The following are the rationales for the numeric values given in Table 6-1.
Wetness: due to the heavy and prolonged snowpack, the soils are humid to pre-humid at treeline. This makes the Meadow Zone the least favourable bio-climatic zone and it is given a rating of four. The wetness decreases away from this maxima. The Alpine Zone is given a rating of three to reflect the heavy snowpack and presence of saturated organic
Alpine-Tundra soils, while the forest zones are rated more favourably to correspond with their decreasing elevations.
Flooding: throughout the study area the hazard of flooding is low. The greatest risk exists along the main valley floors. Consequently, the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone has been given a rating of two and all others a one. Analysis -93-
TABLE 6-1: Relative Soil Capability from Literature Review
Guideline. _.Trails .....Campsites ...Septic .Fields..
Bio-climatic Zone A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
Wetness 12 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 Flooding 2 1111 2 1 1 1 1 3 1111 Permeability - 1 1 2 3 2 113 4 3 Slope 13 3 13 1 3 3 2 4 1 3 3 2 4 Surf. Soil Texture 11114 1 1 1 1 4 Surf. Coarse Frag. 12 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 Stoniness 12 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 Rockiness 12 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 Percolation Rate - 2 113 4 Depth - Water Tab. - - - - - 2 3 3 4 4 Depth - Bedrock ----- 2 3 4 4 4
Total: 8 13 14 13 20 9 14 16 17 23 11 12 15 18 20
Maximum Score: 28 28 28 28 28 32 32 32 32 32 24 24 24 24 24
Percent of Maximum:29 46 50 46 71 28 44 50 53 72 46 50 63 75 83
Scaled: 13 4 3 6 1 3 4 4 6 3 4 5 7 7
A - Coastal Western Hemlock Rating Scale: B - Closed Canopy Mountain Hemlock 1 - none to slight limitation C - Open Canopy Mountain Hemlock 2 - moderate limitation D - Sub-alpine Transition 3 - severe limitation E - Alpine 4 - very severe limitation
Permeability: permeability follows a similar pattern and rationale as the Wetness rating.
Slope: while the specific slope is a local phenomenon there are trends due to the geologic and geomorphic history. The deep U-shaped glacial valleys create a generally level
Coastal Western Hemlock Zone in the valley bottoms and steep Closed-Canopy Mountain
Hemlock and Open-Canopy Mountain Hemlock Zones along the valley sides. The Alpine
Zone is on the steep and rugged ridge tops and mountain crests. The Meadow Zone is the transition between the steep valley walls and the rugged ridge tops and are considered as gently sloping. Analysis -94-
Surface Soil Texture: the heavy rainfall and associated translocation of clay particles
within Podzols will increase the relative percentage of sand and silt. This will create
... ^.._ ... loamier soils-with a higher capability.. .Theexceptionto this-trend are the organic Alpine
soils which are permanently saturated and do not sustain foot traffic.
Surface Coarse Fragment: both the youth of these soils and the short growing season of
the region favour mechanical weathering to coarse grained mineral soils. Consequently,
increasing elevation will increase the average soil particle size.
Stoniness: the presence of soil stones (bedrock fragments greater than 25mm diameter)
will be more frequent with increasing elevation. Due to down slope movement of these
materials, they will tend to accumulate in the valley bottoms. The pattern is similar to
Surface Coarse Fragment.
Rockiness: this will be similar to Stoniness.
Percolation Rate: Podzols have a high rate of percolation. The presence of an impervious
layer (i.e. Sub-Alpine Transition - Forb Sub-zone or Alpine organic soils) will prevent
natural percolation, increasing the numeric rating.
Depth to Water Table: Due to the lithic nature of these mountain soils it should be
expected that the water table will be held closer to the surface as the depth to bedrock
decreases with increasing elevation. In the Meadow Zone the presence of impervious
layers will create perched water tables.
Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Layer: As per Stoniness and Depth to Water Table.
To convert the data into a form usable within the model, the data (literature review
and surveys) must be summarized and presented on a numeric scale, as in Table 6-1.
These numeric evaluations or ratings are first summed and then a percentage of the ideal
or maximum possible score is calculated, for each bio-climatic zone. The percentages are
then converted to a second common numeric scale to accommodate all the inputs into the
model. From this second numeric scale, the overall sensitivity (Step 3a, Figure 6-1) is
calculated. Analysis -95-
For the Soil Capability, Visual Impact Assessment, and Rarity a 1-9 point scale
.has been .devised to convert the .percentage, ratings. The Soil Capability ratings convert to
a percentage range from 25 to 100 percent of the maximum possible score. Converting the
percentage to a nine point scale creates a break point every 8.3% beginning at 25% (25%,
33.3%, 41.6%,...). For the Visual Impact Assessment the summary values run from 20 to
100 percent. This means the nine point scale has break points every 8.9% starting at
20%. The Rarity scale has been previously described in Section 5.3.3. This conversion is
presented as the "Scaled" values in Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-6, and 6-7.
6.2.4. SOIL CAPABILITY
For the Soil Capability Survey, data was collected from the designated campsites
within the backcountry. This data comes from Red Heather Meadows, Elfin Lakes, and
Taylor Meadows campgrounds in the Sub-Alpine Transition Bio-climatic Zone; from
Garibaldi Lake campground in the Open-Canopy Mountain Hemlock Bio-climatic Zone; and
from Cheakamus Lake campground in the Coastal Western Hemlock Bio-climatic Zone (see
Figure 3-1 for locations). There is no direct survey information for the other bio-climatic
zones. These other zones will use only the literature review to establish their RCC.
Table 6-2 is a summary of the Soil Capability data in Appendix 4 and because it
is a summary, the table represents a generalization of expected field conditions, not actual
conditions. The columns in Table 6-2 are defined as follows: the "Total" represents the
sum of the individual scores under each of the guidelines; "Max." is the maximum possible
score; the "%" is the Total divided by the Max.; and "Scale" is the % converted to the 1-9
point scale for inclusion later in the RCC model. Analysis -96-
TABLE 6-2: Soil Capability Summary from Field Survey Data
Trail Campsit e Septic Field
- - Total. -Max. -.-7..-Scale - Total Max. ... .7. Scale . Total . Max. 7. Scale
CWH Cheakamus 11 28 39 3 13 32 41 2 12 24 50 4 CCMH ------OCMH Garibaldi 37 84 44 3 45 96 47 3 50 72 69 6 Meadow (Total) 59 140 42 3 76 160 48 3 55 96 57 4 Red Heather 12 28 43 3 13 32 41 2 - - - - Elfin Lakes 11 28 39 2 16 32 50 4 18 24 75 7 Taylor Meadows 36 84 43 3 47 96 50 4 37 72 57 4 Alpine ------
CWH - Coastal Western Hemlock Zone CCMH - Closed Canopy Mountain Hemlock Zone OCMH - Open Canopy Mountain Hemlock Zone Meadow - Sub-Alpine Transition Zone Alpine - Alpine Zone, glacier, and barren rock
6.2.5. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The same campgrounds as in the Soil Capability Survey were surveyed for the visual impact of recreation. An additional site was surveyed along the road to Elfin Lakes.
This site is in the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone.
Table 6-3 presents a summary of the Visual Impact Assessment data in
Appendix 4. Like the summary for the Soil Capability data, the need to generalize the data makes Table 6-3 represent expected field conditions, not actual conditions. The following defines the columns in Table 6-3: the "Total Score" is the sum of the individual scores for each campground presented in Appendix 4; "Maximum" is the maximum possible score; the "%" is the Total Score divided by the Maximum; and "Scaled" is the % converted for later use in the RCC model. Analysis
TABLE 6-3: Visual Impact Assessment Summary from Field Survey Data
Total Score Maximum 7. Scaled
CWH (Cheakamus) 115 200 58 .5 CCMH - - - - OCMH (Garibaldi Lk.) 159 270 59 5 Meadow Total 438 615 71 6 (Red Heather) 129 175 74 7 (Road to Elfin) 16 35 46 3 (Elfin Lakes) 138 220 63 5 (Taylor Meadows) 155 185 84 8 Alpine - - - -
6.2.6. RARITY
Air-photo interpretation was used to generate the rarity scores. Air-photo interpretation was used to map the Bio-climatic Zones of the study area (see Figure 6-2).
The map was then divided into management units. The area of each Bio-climatic Zone within each management unit was estimated using a grid overlay. Table 6-4 is the numeric product of this process.
TABLE 6-4: Rarity Summary from Air-photo Interpretation
Backcountry - North Backcountry - South Wilderness
Area (ha.) 7. 1/r Area (ha ) 7. 1/r Area (ha.) 7. 1/r
CWH 416 1.8 9 664 2.9 9 14,393 9.7 9 CCMH 9,429 41.7 2 6,573 29.1 3 36,052 25.6 4 OCMH 3,922 17.3 6 5,944 26.3 4 25,540 17.2 6 Meadow 319 1.4 9 1,110 4.9 9 2,819 1.9 9 Alpine 8,184 36.2 3 7,253 32.1 3 66,933 45.0 2
Total Area: 22,613 hectares : 22,623 hectares : 148,760 hectares Analysis -98-
6.3. ANALYSIS
Following is the numeric conclusion to the second and third steps of the model, as described.in Figure...6-1... Table.6?5 is the conversion of the Activity Standard to maximum seasonal user population for the three management units. Tables 6-6 and 6-7 are summaries of the sensitivity ratings from the literature review and field research. The output from these three tables are combined in Table 6-8 to generate the RCC of each of the bio-climatic zones in each of the management units in Garibaldi Park.
Within these tables are three separate sets of calculations used to generate the
RCC of Garibaldi Park. The first set (Lit.) is base upon the literature review and begins with Table 6-6. The second set (Field #1) uses only the Soil Capability Survey. This second set uses the same method of calculating the RCC as the literature review. The third set (Field #2) includes both the Soil Capability and Visual Impact Assessment surveys and represents the complete model. Field #1 and Field #2 begin on Table 6-7.
The results from three sets of calculations are presented on Table 6-8.
TABLE 6-5: Maximum Seasonal User Population
Backcountry - North Backcountry - South Wilderness
Area Maximum RCC Area Maximum RCC Area Maximum RCC
CWH 416 6,656 " 664 10,624 14393 2,879 CCMH 9429 150,864 6573 105,168 36052 7,211 OCMH 3922 62,752 5944 95,104 25540 5,108 Meadow 314 5,024 1110 17,760 2819 564 Alpine 8184 130,944 7253 116,048 66933 13,387
Activity Standard : 16 persons/ha/season : 16 persons/ha/season : 0.4 persons/ha/season TABLE 6-6: Sensitivity Ratings from Literature Review
Backcountry - North
Trail. Camp..Septi c Rarity Total. Sensitivity
CWH 1 1 3 9 14 0.39 CCMH 3 3 4 2 12 0.33 OCMH 4 4 5 6 19 0.53 Meadow 3 4 7 9 23 0.64 Alpine 6 6 7 3 22 0.61
Maximum Score: 36
Backcountry - South
Trail Camp Septic Rarity Total Sensitivity
CWH 1 1 3 9 14 0.39 CCMH 3 3 4 3 13 0.36 OCMH 4 4 5 4 17 0.47 Meadow 3 4 7 9 13 0.64 Alpine 6 6 7 3 22 0.61
Maximum Score: 36
Wilderness
Trail Camp Septic Rarity Total Sensitivity
CWH 1 1 3 9 14 0.39 CCMH 3 3 4 4 14 0.39 OCMH 4 4 5 6 19 0.53 Meadow 3 4 7 9 23 0.64 Alpine 6 6 7 2 21 0.58
Maximum Score: 36 TABLE 6-7: Sensitivity Ratings from Field Survey
Backcountry - North
. _^ .Trail Camp Septic. Rarity. .Total . -Visual Total Sensitivity #1 Impact #2 #1 #2
CWH 3 2 4 9 18 5 23 0.50 0.51 CCMH ------OCMH 3 3 6 6 18 5 23 0.50 0.51 Meadow 3 3 4 9 19 6 25 0.53 0.56 Alpine ------
Maximum Score: 36 : 45 Backcountry - South
Trail Camp Septic Rarity Total Visual Total Sensitivity #1 Impact #2 #1 #2
CWH 3 2 4 9 18 5 23 0.50 0.51 CCMH ------OCMH 3 3 6 4 16 • 5 21 0.44 0.47 Meadow 3 3 4 9 19 6 25 0.53 0.56 Alpine ------
Maximum Score: 36 : 45
Wilderness
Trail Camp Septic Rarity Total Visual Total Sensitivity #1 Impact #2 #1 #2
CWH 3 2 4 9 18 5 23 0.50 0.51 CCMH ------OCMH 3 3 6 6 18 5 23 0.50 0.51 Meadow 3 3 4 9 19 6 25 0.53 0.56 Alpine ------
Maximum Score: 36 : 45 Analysis -101-
TABLE 6-8: Recreational Carrying Capacity of Garibaldi Park (see Section 6.1. for explanation of formula)
RCC - Max. Seasonal Pop. - (Max. Seasonal Pop. x Sensitivity^
#1 r #2
#1: Max. Seasonal Pop, x Sensitivity
Backcountry - North
Max. Seasonal Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Lit. Field Field Population (Literature) Field #1 Field #2 " #1 #2
CWH 6,656 0.39 0.50 0.51 2,596 3,328 3,395 CCMH 150,864 0.33 - - 49,785 - - OCMH 62,752 0.53 0.50 0.51 33,259 31,376 32,004 Meadow 5,024 0.64 0.53 0.56 3,215 2,663 2,813 Alpine 130,944 0.61 - - 79,876 - -
Backcountry - South
Max. Seasonal Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Lit. Field Field Population (Literature) Field #1 Field #2 #1 #2
CWH 10,624 0.39 0.50 0.51 4,143 5,312 5,418 CCMH 105,168 0.36 - - 37,860 - - OCMH 95,104 0.47 0.44 0.47 44,699 41,846 44,699 Meadow 17,760 0.64 0.53 0.56 11,366 9,413 9,946 Alpine 116,048 0.61 - - 70,789 - -
Wilderness
Max. Seasonal Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Lit. Field Field Population (Literature) Field #1 Field #2 #1 #2
CWH 2,879 0.39 0.50 0.51 1,123 1,440 1,469 CCMH 7,211 0.39 - - 2,812 - - OCMH 5,108 0.53 0.50 0.51 2,707 2,554 2,605 Meadow 564 0.64 0.53 0.56 361 299 316 Alpine 13,387 0.58 - - 7,764 - - •
(over) TABLE 6-8: Recreational Carrying Capacity of Garibaldi (continued)
#2: RCC = Max. Seasonal Pop. - #1
Backcountry - North
Max. Lit. Field Field RCC Pop. #1 #2 Lit. Field #1 #2
CWH 6,656 2,596 3,328 3,395 4,060 3,328 3,261 CCMH 150,864 49,785 - - 101,079 - - OCMH 62,752 33,259 31,376 32,004 29,493 31,376 30,748 Meadow 5,024 3,215 2,663 2,813 1,809 2,361 2,211 Alpine 130,944 78,876 - - 51,068 - -
Total: 187,509 users/summer
Backcountry - South
Max. Lit. Field Field RCC Pop. #1 #2 Lit. Field #1 #2
CWH 10,624 4,143 5,312 5,418 6,481 5,312 5,206 CCMH 105,168 37,860 - - 67,308 - - OCMH 95,104 44,699 41,846 44,699 50,405 53,258 50,405 Meadow 17,760 11,366 9,413 9,946 6,394 8,347 7,814 Alpine 116,048 70,789 - - 45,259 - -
Total: 175,847 users/summer Wilderness
Max. Lit. Field Field RCC Pop. #1 #2 Lit. Field #1 #2
CWH 2,879 1,123 1,440 1,469 1,756 1,439 1,410 CCMH 7,211 2,812 - - 4,399 - - OCMH 5,108 2,707 2,554 2,605 2,401 2,554 2,504 Meadow 564 361 299 316 203 265 248 Alpine 13,387 7,764 - - 5,623 - -
Total: 14,382 users/summer Analysis -103-
6.4. LIMITATIONS OF GARIBALDI PARK FOR RECREATION
RCC theory highlights the necessity to identify the limitations of a site for recreational use. The limitations identified for Garibaldi Park come from the literature review and the field data. Site, in this case, is the bio-climatic zones.
From the literature review it is apparent that the dominant soil process of the study area is podzolization. Podzols are well drained, acidic, infertile soils. The soils of the area are young or poorly developed lithic soils under humid to pre-humid conditions.
Podzols accumulate a thick mat of organic material which would increase the carrying capacity through cushioning the effects of trampling and reduce the rate of soil compaction.
The acidic conditions leach the available soil nutrients reducing fertility. The youth and lithic nature of the soils decrease the resilience of the soils to trampling because of the lack of a well developed organic horizon. Further, the lithic soils create a shallow water table.
The humid or pre-humid moisture regime, caused by the prolonged snowpack, promotes wet soil conditions through most of the summer season. Wet soils are subject to soil compaction and erosion.
Limitations for the park can be drawn directly from the field data for the soil capability survey assessing trail, campsite, and septic field capability. With the exception of the Cheakamus Lake campsite all of the field data was collected at or near treeline in either the Sub-Alpine Transition or the Open-Canopy Mountain Hemlock Zones. From the soil capability survey assessing trail capability, for all of the sites near treeline, wetness is a severe limitation. The severe rating is given because of evidence of seepage, ponding and shallow water table. For example, in Red Heather Meadows, one undesignated site is located in a natural depression with evidence of both ponding and permanent seepage. In
Taylor Meadows and Red Heather Meadows the glacial origin of the surface materials contribute to a severe rating for stoniness. Analysis -104-
Wetness is given a severe rating throughout the study area, for campsite capability. Stoniness is another problem common in the area, with Taylor Meadows,
Garibaldi Xake and Red. Heather Meadows sites all rated severe. Two other, limitations noted are a pocket of wet, high organic content soil between two streams within Taylor
Meadows campsite, and the lithic soils over volcanic rubble in Garibaldi Lake campsite.
Permeability is given a very severe rating in Elfin Lakes, and a severe rating in Taylor
Meadows and Garibaldi Lake. For example, while survey was being undertaken at the
Elfin Lakes campsite a series of rain showers moved across the site causing a continuous sheet of run-off to flow over the entire campsite.
The septic field limitations are depth to water table, depth to bedrock or impervious layer, permeability, and percolation rate. Depth to water table and bedrock or impervious layer are consistently shallow throughout the survey with a rating of severe or very severe. Finally, permeability and percolation rate is also severe or very severe in all the campgrounds.
In the Cheakamus Lake campground stoniness is a severe limitation for both trails and campsites. Flood hazard and percolation rate are given a rating of severe or very severe for septic fields.
From the Visual Impact Assessment Survey all the designated campgrounds have a barren core area; further, in the Garibaldi Lake campsite the barren core area has expanded beyond the constructed sites. There is evidence of both a thinning of the vegetation and a shift in species composition throughout all the campgrounds surveyed.
These all indicate that the current and historic level of use in these campsites is beyond the ability of the vegetation to withstand it. Conclusions -105-
CHAPTER 7:
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.0. INTRODUCTION
This chapter will examine the analysis and limitations from Chapter 6 and present conclusions and recommendations for Garibaldi Provincial Park. Following this examination will be a review of the model used for the analysis and of RCC theory. This review will identify the strengths, weaknesses, and usefulness of the model and the theory.
7.1. IMPLICATIONS FOR GARIBALDI PARK
This section offers observations from the case study and is divided into two sub• sections. The first of these sub-sections covers the RCC of Garibaldi Park. To summarize the following discussion:
1) The numeric values offered by this case study offer only a crude estimate of the RCC of
Garibaldi Park.
2) The field work further refines the estimates from the literature review, but is
incomplete, and cannot be used to improve the estimates from the literature.
3) Much of the variation in the RCC estimates is driven by the relative size (Rarity) and
the maximum social density (Activity Standards), with the Activity Standards
being the single most influential factor in the RCC estimate.
4) The backcountry campsites surveyed for this case study are all being over-used and site
degradation is occurring. Conclusions -106-
The second sub-section offers conclusions concerning the implication for managing
Garibaldi Park. To summarize the observations and recommendations from this sub• section: - ..
1) This thesis offers a first approximation of the RCC, and social and ecological limitations
for the case study. Further research is required to make recommendations suitable
for park operations.
2) The most ecologically sensitive areas are those areas receiving the most use.
3) Use is highly concentrated within the ecologically sensitive areas.
4) The evaluative component is critical to the model and must be clearly articulated to
create a defensible model.
i) The Activity Standards must be carefully chosen to reflect user needs. Current
knowledge is inadequate to identify Activity Standards for the study area with any
certainty.
ii) The balance between recreational use and protection of the resources must be
discussed and defined explicitly outside the model.
iii) Special or unique areas require special treatment outside the model.
5) There are a number of biophysical limitations identified by the surveys conducted that
have site planning and management implications.
7.1.1. RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY OF GARIBALDI PARK
The entire study area can accommodate in excess of 350,000 users per summer season. This is the total offered by Table 6-8, Section 6.3. This number alone is potentially misleading. First, the number is only a gross estimate from the data gathered through the literature review. Second, the three management units and each of the various bio-climatic zones need to be examined independently. Third, the areas which are considered most attractive for recreation and important to preserve the representative nature of the park are not evaluated explicitly within the model. Conclusions -107-
As stated, the information in the literature review is only a crude estimate of the
recreational influences on Garibaldi Park. Consequently, the values presented in Table 6-
.... 8 are-only a .crude estimate of the RCC of the study area. The field work is intended to
improve the accuracy and relevance of the information available for the park. The values
calculated from the field data for the Coastal Western Hemlock, Open-Canopy Mountain
Hemlock and Sub-Alpine Transition Zones refine this RCC estimate. One conclusion which
can be drawn from the field work estimates is that the capacity of the Coastal Western
Hemlock and Open-Canopy Mountain Hemlock Zones is higher than the estimate from the
literature review. Conversely, the field work estimates for the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone
reduces the RCC estimate below that of the literature. Further, by comparing the two
field estimates (Field #1 and Field #2) it can be inferred that the designated campsites in
the study area are being consistently over-used. The RCC estimates from the Visual
Impact Assessment data included in Field #2 (Table 6-8) consistently reduce the RCC
estimates of the three bio-climatic zones surveyed. However, these refinements do not
cover all the bio-climatic zones within the park. Consequently, the overall RCC estimate
for the park is not an improvement on the estimate from the literature review. It is
important to note that the RCC estimates from the field data and the literature review are
all relatively similar. The variation in the estimates range to a maximum of plus or minus
fifteen percent of their mean values. While the absolute values are dissimilar, the numeric
RCC estimates are intended as a guide, rather than an absolute number. Thus, these
values are complementary.
The variation in the relative size of the bio-climatic zones of the study area is
responsible for much of the variation in the RCC of each bio-climatic zone within each
management unit. The size of each of the bio-climatic zones within each management
units can be seen in Table 6-4. Implicit within this model is the assumption that the large
bio-climatic zones are expected to carry the largest portion of recreational use. This is
supported by the maximum seasonal population calculations from which the sensitivity Conclusions -108- rating calculations are removed. Thus, the size of each bio-climatic zone influences the entire model and affects the RCC estimates of Table 6-8.
By examining the three management units of the study area, the importance of the activity standard becomes evident. The wilderness management unit is more than three times larger than either backcountry unit (see Table 6-4), but contributes less than a tenth of the carrying capacity of either backcountry area. Conversely, the two backcountry areas are nearly identical in size and have similar total RCC estimates. The
RCC estimates in Table 6-8 vary in proportion to the size of the bio-climatic zones within each management unit. In this case study, while the relative size of each bio-climatic zone is important, the activity standard chosen far outweighs the importance of size.
Recreational use in Garibaldi Park is centered around the visually attractive areas of the park. These are the areas which offer vistas and scenic variety. The bulk of use within Garibaldi's backcountry goes to the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone in the Black Tusk-
Garibaldi Lake and Diamond Head areas. Both of these areas are in the Backcountry-
South management unit and use is 3,531 campers and 15,447 day-users during the summer of 1987 for Taylor Meadows, Elfin Lakes and Red Heather Meadows campgrounds (from Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1988). The RCC estimated for the Sub-Alpine Transition (Meadow from Table 6-8) is 7,814 users, using the Visual
Impact Assessment data (Field #2). Overnight use is below the RCC estimate, implying that the area can sustain more use. However, if day-use is added then the area is at or beyond the RCC estimate. Even if it is assumed that day use has only one-third the physical impact, the total use would be equivalent to 8,680 users for the summer season
(Cole, 1985). Numerically, the difference between the estimate and use is not a conclusive evidence of overuse, but the evidence of the Visual Impact Assessment and Soil Capability
Surveys indicate that use is beyond the area's capability. Further, the Sub-Alpine
Transitions Zone is both the most attractive destination area in the park and critical to the Conclusions -1 un• representative nature of the park. As noted in Chapter 5, the Sub-Alpine Transition is the most attractive area for recreation, offering both scenic vistas and a wide variety of flowering plants (Government of Canada, 1982). The large areas of mixed meadow and
Mountain Hemlock of the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone are regionally very rare (Brink
1959). Thus, the management of this zone is critical to preservation of the quality of the park for both recreational use and conservation.
7.1.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGING GARIBALDI PARK
The following implications for managing Garibaldi Park can be seen from the above observations on the RCC of the park, the limitations described in Chapter 6, Figure 7-1:
Sample Ecological Sensitivity Rating, and Chapter 3. First, the available information for
Garibaldi Park is very limited. Absent are any detailed inventory of the park's biophysical resources, accurate estimates of the amount of the year-round use, and information specific to the nature of the backcountry, wilderness, summer, or winter experiences sought in the park. This makes accurate estimation of the RCC and identification of the biophysical and social limitations of the park difficult. More information specific to
Garibaldi Park is required to assist in identifying these limitations. Even without the requirements of a RCC exercise, park planning should examine use, user demands, and resource capabilities to effectively manage current and future use.
Second, most of the current use is in the Sub-Alpine Transition and Alpine Bio- climatic Zones of the park. These bio-climatic zones are the most ecologically sensitive to use and most easily degraded, as shown in Figure 7-1. These zones have a long recovery time after degradation, likely measured in tens of decades. While these zones offer the scenic vistas and wildflower variety which attracts many of the park users, they need to be used in a less direct manner. BC Parks is moving towards this by the up-grade of
Garibaldi Lake Campground, focusing overnight use below treeline and by the construction of high-use trails in the Alpine and Sub-Alpine. These measures have improved the
o
Conclusions -Ill- durability of the area to intense recreational use. To further reduce the direct impacts of use, other measures are required. Another method of managing use would be to change park visitors from occupants to spectators in these sensitive bio-climatic zones. Within the current Master Plan for Garibaldi there is a proposal to expand the trail network. Care must be taken in selecting sites and routes for this expansion; the data collected indicates that use is beyond capability, and site selection based on Soil Capability Survey is required to find the most durable locations. Further, these new trails should cross these sensitive zones as little as possible. Route selection should utilize the scenic beauty of the meadows through viewpoints physically removed from these zones and/or through skimming along the edge of these zones, offering contact but minimal intrusion. Any new campsites must be below treeline, in well drained sites (see discussion below on limitations). New campsites, like trails, could be located to offer a vista to improve their desirability. To further reduce the impacts of recreation an aggressive pubic awareness and education program is required.
Third, use is concentrated into a few areas. For the Backcountry-South
Management Unit, surveyed use is concentrated around the Black Tusk-Garibaldi Lake and Diamond Head areas. For the park and its backcountry areas, the current level of use is beyond the level indicated by the RCC estimate. Overuse is limited to a relatively small area. One approach to increasing the area's ability to withstand further use would be to redirect use to other bio-climatic zones. Further use should be directed toward the extensive areas of Closed Canopy Mountain Hemlock and Open Canopy Mountain
Hemlock. The extensive area of true Alpine is also a candidate for increased use, however because of the sensitive nature of this bio-climatic zone great care should be exercised in site and route selection. Using these other zones would disperse use over a larger area and potentially allow for a considerable increase in the number of park visitors.
Expanding use into these other zones creates a danger of degrading large areas of the Conclusions -112- park, but if high use facilities (e.g. trails and campsites) are constructed this danger is minimal.
Fourth, the area of greatest uncertainty in the RCC estimation lies with the
Activity Standards. The uncertainty in the activity standard arises because of the lack of information specific to Garibaldi. Resource protection is required, even with this uncertainty. To protect the resources of an area, mitigation of the impact of use helps; however, the choice of an activity standard creates an upper limit to the number of people an area can sustain. It can be assumed that once this upper limit is reached it would be necessary to redirect use to other areas. Currently BC Parks has no activity standards.
This implies that there is no upper limit on the number of visitors the park system can support. However, both the ecological and social carrying capacity literature state there is an upper limit to the number of users any area can sustain; beyond that limit either the physical environment degrades or the nature of the experience degrades. Another way of looking at activity standards is that they identify where degradation exceeds the limits of acceptable change. In the absence of activity standards the limits of acceptable change need to be explicitly defined to protect the quality of the experience and/or the resources.
Thus, the construction of activity standards or limits of acceptable change could be used to support an argument for expansion of the provincial parks system based on the ability of the park areas within it to support recreation.
As has been discussed in Chapter 2, using RCC solely as a rationale to limit use is inappropriate. RCC theory highlights the need to identify the limitations of a site and to seek mitigative measures. Using RCC as a rationale to limit use opens the door to creating an elitist system. If use of a specific area is limited without adequate alternatives those most financially capable or most persistent will be those most likely to gain access. This may not adequately represent the user population. Thus, the identification of activity standards and subsequent calculation of the RCC of an area like Conclusions -113-
Garibaldi creates the danger of reserving the provincial parks system to a select group of users.
Fifth, the model as it is currently defined lacks any direct mechanism to include information on the attractiveness of various bio-climatic zones or the necessary balance between the recreation and preservation goals of BC Parks. The attractiveness of the
Alpine and Sub-Alpine Bio-climatic Zones is one of the main reasons for the high use of these areas. This RCC model could be interpreted as differentiating between recreation and preservation priorities based on the activity standard. Examining the backcountry and wilderness RCCs, the use of a lower activity standard reduces the acceptable number of users. Other things being equal, less users means less impact. Thus, the use of a lower activity standard is one approach to assist in the preservation of a more pristine environment. However, the literature on ecological carrying capacity indicates that fewer visitors might not reduce the physical impact of recreational use. One of the observations from the literature is that even widely dispersed, light use can have a severe impact.
Consequently, it is important to control or direct use to protect the environment.
Finally, the most acceptable approach to controlling or directing use is through information and education (see Chapter 3). For managing and protecting Garibaldi Park,
BC Parks must develop a highly visible public education campaign to direct and support visitors in backcountry and wilderness use. Education would reduce visitor impact on the physical and social environment.
The limitations of the study area are another important component of RCC theory.
The general biophysical limitations of the area result from the cool to cold, wet conditions.
Low temperatures reduce the growing season and limit the rate of natural organic decomposition. The reduced growing season restricts vegetative vigor and recovery from Conclusions -114- the impact of recreation. The slower rate and shorter period for decomposition slow the natural rate of disposal of human wastes and litter.
The wetness, stoniness, permeability, and the lithic nature of the soils, identified in the field data, all require special attention to reduce their influence on the recreational environment. Through route and site selection, and through construction techniques for trails and campsites, these limitations can be mitigated. For example, elevation of the trail or campsite and ditching are both well known and frequently used methods to reduce the negative influences of these limitations. The limitations for septic fields are more difficult to overcome. The depth to water table, depth to bedrock or impervious layer, permeability and percolation rate all severely restrict the area's capability to sustain recreation. Again, mitigation is possible through site selection and management. Due to the low temperatures and short season the selection of permanent pit latrines is less desirable than management programs which remove human waste for disposal elsewhere.
Further, solar-powered digesters exist which may prove to be a better solution. Simply, techniques do exist to mitigate this problem.
Explicitly removed from the model is any recommendation regarding the rarity of large expanses of meadow in the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone or the biotic diversity of the
Alluvial Sub-zones in the two Mountain Hemlock Bio-climatic Zones. These areas require special protection. The meadows should be excluded from use, as representative landscapes and as a regionally rare or unique bio-climatic zone. The alluvial sub-zones should suffer minimal impact. This is necessary to protect the regional genetic diversity.
7.2. THE USEFULNESS OF RECREATIONAL CARRYING CAPACITY
This section evaluates or critiques the RCC model and RCC theory as a tool for assisting in the management of a recreational area. Many of the advantages and Conclusions -115- disadvantages have already been discussed in the previous section of the chapter and will not be discussed further.
To summarize the conclusions regarding the utility of the model:
1) The model is divided into three main sections: definition of management units, definition
of activity standards, and evaluation of the ecological sensitivity. These three
areas correspond with the three main areas required by RCC Theory.
2) The main advantage of the model is that different recreational uses can be evaluated
with different assumptions.
3) Under the definition of management units the study area accounts for both social
(backcountry and wilderness use) and biophysical influences (bio-climatic zoning).
4) The evaluation of the ecological sensitivity can be conducted at different levels of
specificity to give varying degrees of precision from broad recommendations
through to site management.
5) The use of Soil Capability and Visual Impact Assessment offers both pro-active and
reactive approaches which can be adapted to various situations.
6) The numeric calculations are conceptually simple and easily conducted.
7) Weighting can be easily incorporated, if desired.
8) The values and calculations are explicit.
To summarize the conclusions concerning the utility of RCC Theory:
1) The theory is comprehensive in its scope, requiring an examination of a broad range of
inputs and reduces the need for research through examining the limiting factors in
the recreational environment.
2) The major problem with the theory is it calls for a numeric RCC conclusion. This
number is easily confused with a fixed maximum number of users, which it is not
intended to represent. Conclusions -116-
7.2.1. THE UTILITY OF THE MODEL
There are three main inputs into the model: definition of boundaries, definition of the maximum density of users, and estimation of the ecological sensitivity. Each of these inputs are interdependent in the overall model. Each of these three main inputs and the overall model has both strengths and weaknesses.
The study area was divided two different ways for the RCC estimation. The first way is based upon recreational use. This type of division is applicable to parks planning and operations. In the case study, the park was divided into wilderness and backcountry.
The backcountry was sub-divided into the destination resort area associated with the
Whistler-Blackcomb ski area and the regional destination for the lower mainland. This approach is justifiable only if supported by different patterns of use. The Garibaldi Park
Master Plan suggests there is a strong split in demand between backcountry development and preservation of the wilderness. This supports the wilderness-backcountry division.
Data does not exist to adequately support the backcountry sub-division. This division is an artifact of the author's interpretation of the current political climate. This climate divides the use of Garibaldi between the more southerly use by residents from the Lower
Mainland and the more northerly use by international tourists to Whistler area.
The second method of dividing the study area is based on bio-climatic zoning. This approach is supported by the literature. To improve the usefulness of the model zoning should be further sub-divided beyond the broad bio-climatic zones used. Sub-zones and micro-zones are required to transpose this study from a planning document to an operations document. For example, the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone contains three sub- zones: sedge, forb, and heath meadows (see Section 5.2.3.2.). Each of these three sub- zones respond differently to the impact of recreational use and would have different RCCs. Conclusions -117-
The model is strongly influenced by the selection of the appropriate activity standard and the relative size of the bio-climatic zones. In the model, little effort is directed toward the accurate selection and modification of the social density. The acceptable social density varies both spatially and temporally, while the model assumes a constant density. Because of this simplification, the selection of the appropriate activity standard becomes very important. If the standard is too high, there will be degradation of the area and/or the experience. If the standard is too low, society will not gain the full benefit from the area.
The second main influence on the model is the definition of the ecological sensitivity or ecological carrying capacity. The sensitivity is based on the bio-climatic zoning. When defining the sensitivity the size of the bio-climatic zones contributes twice to the RCC of the study area. The first contribution is in the calculation of the maximum number of users
(Table 6-5). The second contribution is in calculation of the Rarity (Table 6-4). In one sense, this is double counting of the influence of the relative size of each bio-climatic zone.
However, the use of the Rarity within the model prioritizes the importance of the zone over its size. Absent from the model is an explicit measure of the relative attractiveness of each bio-climatic zone and Rarity implicitly fills this gap. In the case study, the Sub-
Alpine and Alpine Zones are the destinations for many of the visitors to the area. Within the model, the calculation for the Rarity must account for the physical impact on this preferred destination. The model assumes that the smaller the bio-climatic zone, the greater the potential for impact from use. Rather than double counting, size becomes a surrogate measure for disparate impact caused by attractiveness. This assumption holds for the Sub-Alpine Transition but, unfortunately, the model breaks down because of the extensive area of Alpine in Garibaldi.
The use of the Soil Capability and Visual Impact Assessment Surveys more explicitly identify the biophysical limitations and site degradation than in the model used Conclusions -118- by Wagtendonk. The Wagtendonk model uses a more general information base relying on indicators like the number of frost-free days, while in this case study site specific data is used. The use of field data, in this case study, lends greater accuracy and confidence in the results, at the expense of greater effort in field work. Another potential advantage of field work is that it can create site specific indicators and limitations for use. These
limitations can be used to direct management actions to the areas of concern and mitigate
perceived problems. However, if site specific conclusions and recommendations are
required then the zoning in the model needs to be more precise. At the current level of
investigation, detailed recommendations outside the sites surveyed are not possible. The
current investigation is at the level of bio-climatic zones. Bio-climatic zones are too broad
to make site specific recommendations. To increase precision, zoning must be further
disaggregated to sub-zones and micro-zones.
The strength of using a Soil Capability Survey lies in the creation of biophysical
limitations and in the potentially pro-active nature of this type of survey. The biophysical
capabilities and limitations are useful for facility design and impact mitigation. The pro•
active nature makes it possible to protect the bio-physical resources before degradation
occurs. The disadvantage of Soil Capability Surveys is the time and expense required to
inventory extensive areas like Garibaldi Park.
Visual Impact Assessment Surveys are useful to identify the impact of recreational
use. They are reactive, in that they rely upon the evidence of degradation before
mitigation is possible.
When the Soil Capability and Visual Impact Assessment Surveys are combined,
they offer the opportunity to compare recreational use with resource capability, as
discussed in Section 7.1.1. The combination of pro-active and reactive surveys may be
considered redundant; the soil capability measures the resilience of the area to use, while Conclusions -119- the impact assessment measures the effect of recreational use. Conversely, the combination of these surveys can be interpreted as evaluating different, though related properties: Soil Capability measures the natural resilience of an area to the impact of use while, Visual Impact Assessment measures the rate of natural recovery.
The mathematical model used for this case study is the same as that used by
Wagtendonk. This model is based on reducing the maximum user density through calculating the sensitivity (RCC = Max. Density - [Max. Density x Sensitivity]). To obtain the same results and remove one calculation the RCC could be equal to the sensitivity times the maximum density (RCC = Sensitivity x Max. Density). To use this alternative approach requires inverting the rating scales for the Rarity, Soil Capability and Visual
Impact Assessment. This change alters the perception that the Sensitivity Rating as a factor that reduces RCC, to the Sensitivity Rating as a factor that works with the Social
Density to create the RCC.
Implicit in the model is the equal weighting given to the Rarity, Soil Capability and
Visual Impact Assessment. One method to alter the model to accommodate the evaluative decisions is to weight these inputs. For example, to account for the regional uniqueness, the Rarity rating for the Sub-Alpine Transition Zone (Meadow, Table 6-8) could be given twice the importance of other bio-climatic zones by doubling its score. This would reduce the current RCC of this zone by 15 to 19 percent.
One of the strengths of the model is its explicitness. The model allows scrutiny of the various steps and inputs into the RCC estimate. Each of the various inputs can be independently examined and changed as information becomes available or objectives change. The explicitness is important considering the number of value laden decisions required to define the inputs into the model. Conclusions -120-
To assist in identifying the variation in social density and the bio-climatic capability, computer modeling would be an asset. A travel encounter model would greatly improve our understanding of the social interactions in the area and assist in designing trail networks and locating campsites. Further, the author understands that BC Parks is not currently utilizing any Geographic Informations System. Such a computer software system could store the type of information needed to create a RCC or identify durable sites which offer vistas of the rugged mountains and diverse alpine meadows. Finally, the model has potential for use in both site and area management and for use in facilitating public involvement and education. The author would recommend use of this model for future investigation of Garibaldi Park or other extensive recreational areas.
7.2.2. THE UTILITY OF RCC THEORY
Recreational carrying capacity theory is a comprehensive approach to planning the use of recreational lands. Comprehensive planning is data intensive; presenting the challenge of the collection of a large volume of data, and the synthesis of that data into a meaningful whole. RCC theory recognizes the need to identify limiting factors in the recreational environment, which reduces the need for data collection and analysis.
One of the real problems of RCC is that it generates a number: the carrying capacity. This number is easily confused with a fixed maximum number of users. Those discussing RCC theory emphasize that the numeric output is only valid within the context of all its associated assumptions. As soon as the assumptions change, the number is no longer meaningful. Further, our current level of understanding of many of the biophysical and social interactions in recreation makes accurate prediction impossible. Thus, the numeric output can only be considered a guide to the maximum or socially optimum level of use. Conclusions -121-
RCC theory requires an examination of a wide range of influences on the recreational environment. The planner needs to examine the desires of the users, the nature of interaction between users, the interaction of users with their physical environment, and the ability of the physical environment to support use. This examination is intended to identify the limitations of the recreational environment. The identification of the limitations is as least as important as the RCC calculation. The RCC number is a guide to the acceptable number of users, while the limitations are a guide to protection and mitigation of damage to the recreational environment. Further, the theory emphasizes the need to maintain both the correct social environment and a healthy physical environment.
This requires a balancing of the social and ecological carrying capacities to create an optimum situation.
Finally there is a need for a guiding theory in park management and planning.
Past planning and facility development within BC Parks has occurred on an incremental basis with little overall direction. RCC theory requires that planners and managers define objectives and examine social and ecological factors to accomplish these stated objectives.
RCC is not the only theory available, but it does serve as a useful guide to ensure the important variables are examined. Bibliography -121-
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
REFERENCES CITED:
Absher, James D., and Robert G. Lee, 1981, "Density as an Incomplete Cause of Crowding in Backcountry Settings", in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987, The Canadian System of Soil Classification, 2nd Edition, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada Publication 1646, Ottawa, Canada.
Anderson, Dorothy H., and Perry J. Brown, 1984, "The Displacement Process in Recreation", in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Anderson, Dorothy H. and Michael J. Manfredo, 1985, "Visitor Preferences for Management Actions", in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings • National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, INT- 212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 314-319.
Barker, Mary L. et al., 1982, Developing Summer Recreation Potential in the Whistler Corridor, Natural Resources Management Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada.
Basford, Richard and Joanna Juba, 1986, Summary of First Time Visitors Study, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
BC Parks, 1988, Garibaldi Park Management Plan: Background Information, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, Ministry of Enviornment and Parks, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada, [no date given]
BC Parks, 1990, Summary/Analysis of Public Comments on the Garibaldi Park Draft Management Plan, South Coast Region, Ministry of Parks, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Becker, R.H., Alan Jubenville, and G.W. Burnett, 1984, "Fact and Judgement in the Search for a Social Carrying Capacity", in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 475-486.
Becker, R.H., B.J. Niemann and W.A. Gates, 1980, "Displacement of Users Within a River System: Social and Environmental Trade-offs," in Lime, David W. and Donald R. Field (ed), Some Recent Products of River Recreation Research - 2nd Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, 1979, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, NC-63, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Bell, Katherine L. and Lawrence C. Bliss, 1973, "Alpine Disturbance Studies: Olympic National Park, U.S.A.," in Biological Conservation, Vol. 5, pp. 25-32.
Bowers, Dan, 1972, Exploring Garibaldi Park, Vol. 2, J.J. Douglas Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Boyle, Stephen A, and Fred B. Samson, 1985, "Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife: A Review", in Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 110-116. Bibliography -122-
Brink, V.C., 1959, "A Directional Change in the Subalpine Forest-Heath Ecotone in Garibaldi Park, British Columbia", in Ecology, Vol 40, pp. 10-16.
Brooke, Robert C, E.B. Petersen and V.J. Krajina, 1970, "The Subalpine Mountain Hemlock Zone", in Krajina, V.J., and R.C. Brooke (ed), 1969-1970, Ecology of Western North America, Vol. 2, No. 2, Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Broome, George, 1987, 1986 Customer Satisfaction Survey, Visitor Services Section, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Broome, George, 1988, 1987 Customer Satisfaction Survey, Visitor Services Section, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Brown, P.J., B.L. Driver, and C. McConnell, 1978, "The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information in Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Inventories: Background and Application", in Lund, H. Gyde, Vernon J. LaBau, Peter F. Ffalliott and David W. Robinson, 1978, Integrated Invertories of Renewable Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-55, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S.A.
Brown, Perry J., Stephen F. McCool, and Michael J. Manfredo, 1985, "Evolving Concepts and Tools for Recreation User Management in Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review", in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1987, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-220, pp. 320-345.
Brown, Perry J. and David M. Ross, 1981, "Using Desired Recreation Experience to Predict Setting Preferences", in Lime, David W. (project leader), 1981, Forest and River Recreation: Resource Update, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Burde, John H., and James R. Renfroe, 1985, "Use Impacts on the Appalachin Trail", in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 138.
Burden, R.F. and P.F. Randerson, 1971, "Quantitative Studies of the Effects of Human Trampling on Vegetation as an Aid to Management of Semi-Natural Areas," in Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 9, pp. 439-457.
Bury, Richard L., and C. Ben Fish, 1980, "Controlling Wilderness Recreation: What Managers Think and Do", in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 90-93.
Canadian Government Office of Tourism, 1982, Tourism in Canada: Past, Present, Future, Policy Formation, Policy Planning and Coordination, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Outdoor Recreation Research Committee, 1976, Parks and Recreation Futures in Canada: Issues and Options, Federal-Provincial Parks Conference 1976, Ontario Research Council on Leisure, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chin, Greg (Regional Planner, South Coast Region, BC Parks), 1989, personal communications.
Chin, Greg (Regional Planner, South Coast Region, BC Parks), 1988, personal communication. Bibliography -123-
Christensen, Harriet H., Robert E. Pacha, Kevin J. Varness and Robert F. Lapen, 1978, "Human Use in a Dispersed Recreation Area and its Effects on Water Quality", in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001-1979,.pp. 107-119.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., Richard C. Bishop, 1975, " 'Common Property' as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy," in Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 713-727.
Clark, Roger N., and George H. Stankey, 1978, "Determining the Acceptability of Recreation Impacts: An Application of the Outdoor Recreation Opportunity Spectrum", in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee and Susie Anschell, 1978, Conference Proceedings: Recreation Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report No. R-6-001-1979, U.S.A.
Clark, Roger N., and George H. Stankey, 1979, The Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-98, Pacific Northwest Experiment Stantion, U.S.A.
Clawson, Marion, 1985, "Outdoor Recreation: Twenty-five Years of History, Twenty-five Years of Projection," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 73-99.
Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch, 1966, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, John Hopkins University Press, for Resources for the Future, Maryland, U.S.A.
Coen, Gerald M., Phillip F. Epp, Josef Tajek, and Leonard Knapik, 1977, Soil Survey of Yoho National Park, Canada, Alberta Soil Survey Report No. 37, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Cole, David N., 1981, "Managing Ecological Impacts at Wilderness Campsites: An Evaluation of Techniques," in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 87-89.
Cole, David N., 1982, "Controlling the Spread of Campsites at Popular Wilderness Destination," in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 291-294.
Cole, David N., 1983(a), Monitoring the Condition of Wilderness Campsites, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-302, Utah, U.S.A.
Cole, David N., 1983(b), Assessing and Monitoring Backcountry Trail Conditions, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-303, Utah, U.S.A.
Cole, David N., 1985, Recreational Trampling Effects On Six Habitat Types in Western Montana, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-350, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Cole, David N., 1986, Ecological Changes on Campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, 1979 to 1984, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station Research Paper INT-368, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Cole, David N. and Jeffrey L. Marion, 1985, "Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Changes Over Time," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 144.
Cole, David N., Margret E. Petersen, and Robert C. Lucus, 1987, Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions, U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Bibliography -124-
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-230, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Dale D. and T. Weaver, 1973, "Trampling Efects on Vegetation on the Trail Corridors of North Rocky Mountain Forests" in The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 11, pp. 767-772.
Ditton, Robert B., Anthony J. Fedler and Alan R. Graefe, 1983, "Factors Contributing to Perceptions of Recreational Crowding," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 273-288.
Dorfman, Peter W., 1979, "Management and Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction: A Case Study in Camping," in Environment and Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 483-510.
Dotzenko, A.D., N.T. Papamichos and D.S. Romine, 1967, "Effects of Recreational Use on Soil Moisture Conditions in Rocky Mountain National Park," in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 196-197.
Fedler, Anthony J. and Fred R. Kuss, 1985, "An Examination of the Effects of Wilderness Designation on Hiking Attitudes," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. SOS- SIS.
Fissel, Sidney S., 1978, "Judging Recreation Impacts on Wilderness Campsites," in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 76, No. 8, pp. 481-483.
Fortress Mountain Resorts Limited, 1978, Blackcomb Mountain Development Proposal: Vol 1, Fortress Mountain Resorts Limited, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Government of Canada, 1982, Province of British Columbia Tourism Development Strategy: Southwestern British Columbia Regional Tourism Plan, Department of Regional Economic Expansion Office of Tourism, Government of Canada, and Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, and Ministry of Tourism, Province of B.C., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Graefe Alan R., Maureen P. Donnelly, and Jerry J. Vaske, 1985, "Crowding and Specialization: A Reexamination of the Crowding Model," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 333- 338.
Graefe, Alan R., Jerry J. Vaske, and Fred R. Kuss, 1984(a), "Resolved Issues and Remaining Questions about Social Carrying Capacity," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 497- 507.
Graefe, Alan R., Jerry J. Vaske, and Fred R. Kuss, 1984(b), "Social Carrying Capacity: An Integration and Synthesis of Twenty Years of Research," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 395-431.
Hammitt, William E., Cary D. McDonald, and Janet L. Hughes, 1985, "Experience Level and Participation Motives of Winter Wilderness Users," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 269-277. Bibliography -125-
Hammitt, William E., Cary D. McDonald and Frank P. Noe, 1984, "Use Levels and Encounters: Important Variables of Perceived Crowding Among Non-specialized Recreationalists," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Hart, George E., and Norbert V. DeByle, 1979, "Environmental Impacts of Dispersed Recreation on Vegetation, Soils, and Water," in Shaw, Joan (ed), 1979, Dispersed Recreation and Natural Resource Management: A Focus on Issues, Opportunities and Priorities, Dept. of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 42-46.
Heberlein, Thomas A., 1977, "Density, Crowding and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacity," in Proceedings of River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station, Minnesota, U.S.A., pp. 67-76.
Heberlein, Thomas A., and Peter Dunwiddie, 1979, "Systematic Observation of Use Levels, Campsite Selection, and Visitor Characteristics at a High Mountain Lake," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 307-316.
Hendee, John C, George H. Stankey and Robert C. Lucus, 1978, Wilderness Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Misc. Publication 1365, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Holland, Stewart S., 1976, Landforms of British Columbia: A Physiographic Outline, Bulletin 48, British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1980, World Conservation Strategy, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jarvis, M.G. and D. Mackney (ed), 1979, Soil Survey Applications, Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 13, Adlard and Sons Ltd., Harpenden, England.
Jones, R.K. and R. Annes, 1978, "Vegetation," in Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Laukulich (ed), 1978, The Soil Landscape of British Columbia, Agriculture Canada, Ministry of Environment, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Jubenville, Alan, Ben W. Twight, and Robert H. Becker, 1987, Outdoor Recreation Management: Theory and Application, Venture Publishing, State College, PA, U.S.A.
Jungen, J.R. and T Lewis, 1978, "The Coast Mountains and Islands," in Valinetine, W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Laukulich (ed), 1978, The Soil Landscape of British Columbia, Agriculture Canada, Ministry of Environment, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Klock, Glen O., and P.D. McColley, 1978, "Soil Factors Influencing the Quality of Wilderness Recreation Impact," in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 66-69.
Knetsch, Jack L., and Robert K. Davis, 1966, "Comparison of Methods for Recreation Evaluation," in Dorfman, Robert and Nancy S. Dorfman (ed), 1977, Economics of the Environment, WW Norton & Company, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Bibliography -126-
Krajina, V.J., 1969, "Ecology of Forest Trees in British Columbia," in Krajina, V.J., and R.C. Brooke (ed), 1969-1970, Ecology of Western North America, Vol. 1, No. 1, Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Krutilla, John V. and Anthony C. Fisher, 1975, The Economics of Natural Environments, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Kuss, Fred R., Alan R. Graefe and Laura Loomis, 1985, "Plant and Soil Reponses to Wilderness Recreation: A Synthesis of Previous Research," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 129-137.
Lavkulich, L.M. and K.W.G. Valentine, 1978, "Soil and Soil Processes," in Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Laukulich (ed.), 1978, The Soil Landscape of British Columbia, Agriculture Canada, Ministry of Environment, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Leonard, R.E. and H.J. Plumley, 1978, "The Use of Soils Information for Dispersed Recreation Planning," in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001- 1979, pp. 50-63.
Lewis, Darrell E. and Gary G. Marsh, 1977, "Problems Resulting from the Increased Recreational Use of Rivers in the West," in Proceedings River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experimental Station, Minnesota, U.S.A., pp. 27-31.
Lindsay, John J., 1986, "Carrying Capacity for Tourism in National Parks of the United States," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Lucus, Robert C, 1982, "Recreation Regulations - When are They Neededm," in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 148-151.
Lucus, Robert C, 1985, "Influence of Visitor Experience on Wilderness Recreation Trends," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 261-268.
Marktrend Marketing Research Inc., 1985, Summary of the British Columbia Residence Travel Attitudes and Motivation Study, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Tourism, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Mathews, W.H., 1952, "Mount Garibaldi, A Supraglacial Pleistocene Volcano in South-Western British Columbia," in American Journal of Science, Vol. 250, pp. 81-103.
Mathews, W.H., 1958, "Geology of the Mount Garibaldi Map-Area, Southwestern, British Columbia, Canada," Bulletin of the Geological Survey of America, Vol. 69, pp. 179-198.
Mathieson, Alister and Geoffrey Wall, 1982, Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts, Longman Press, London, England.
Marion, Jeff L. and L.C. Merrian, 1985, "Predictability of Recreation Impact on Soils," in Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 751-753. Bibliography -127-
Merritt, Clifton R., 1985, "Pitfalls in Wilderness Management - Let's Avoid Them," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1987, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, LNT-220, pp. 355-356.
McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed.), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Ministry of Environment and Parks, 1988, Striking the Balance: B.C. Parks Policy, Province of B.C., Ministry of Environment and Parks, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1984, Park Act Regulations, Interpretation, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C.
Ministry of Parks, 1989, Striking the Balance: B.C. Parks Policy, Ministry of State for Vancouver Island/Coast and North Coast, responsible for Parks, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada. J Ministry of Parks, 1990a, up-date of Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, 1984, Policy for Master Plans: Amendment, Policy No. 2.1D1, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Ministry of Parks, 1990b, Striking the Balance: B.C. Parks Policy, Ministry of Parks, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Nelson, J. G, (ed), 1970, Canadian Parks in Perspective, Harvest House, Que., Canada.
Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988a, Adventure Travel in British Columbia: Summary, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988b, Adventure Travel in British Columbia: Volume 1, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., 1988c, Adventure Travel in British Columbia: Volume 2, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Park Management Services, 1989, Park Data Handbook 1988, Province of B.C., Ministry of Parks, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parsons, David J., 1985, "Campsite Impact Data as a Basis for Determining Wilderness Use Capabilities," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 449-455.
Parsons, David J. and Susan A. MacLeod, 1980, "Measuring Impacts of Wilderness Use," in Parks, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 8-12.
Patmore, J. Allan, 1983, Recreation and Resources, Blackwell, Oxford, England.
Peterson, George L., and David W. Lime, 1979, "People and Their Behavior: A Challenge for Recreation Management," in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 343-346. Bibliography -128-
Popma, Anne and Ann Pollock (ed), 1987, Tourism as a Generator for Regional Economic Development, proceedings of the First Annual Advanced Policy Forum on Tourism, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada.
Prince Rupert and Vancouver Forest Regions, 1989, Inside Passage Strategic Plan: A Draft for Public Review, Ministry of Forest, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Province of British Columbia, 1979, Park Act: RSBC Chapter 309, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Ream, Catherine H., 1978, "Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Backcountry: Possible Solutions," in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 153-163.
Roddick, J.A., W.H. Mathews and J.G. Woodsworth, 1977, Southern End of the South Coast Plutonic Complex, Field Trip Guidbook, Trip 9, Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Roggenbuck, Joseph W. and Robert C. Lucus, 1985, "Wilderness Use and User Characteristics: A State-of-Knowledge Review," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1987, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-220.
Rowe, J.S., 1972, Forest Regions of Canada, Department of the Environment, Canadian Forest Service, Publication No. 1300, Ministry of the Environemt, Ottawa, Canada.
Savory, Allan, 1988, Holistic Resource Management, Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Schreyer, Richard and Jean T. Beaulieu, 1986, "Attribute Preferences for Wildland Recreation Settings," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 231-247.
Shelby, Bo, 1980, "Crowding Models for Backcountry Recreation," in Land Economics, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 43-55.
Shelby, Bo, 1981, "Encounter Norms in Backcountry Settings: Studies of Three Rivers," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 129-138.
Shelby, Bo and Rick Haris, 1985, "User Standards for Ecological Impacts at Wilderness Campsites," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 166-175.
Shelby, Bo, Thomas A. Heberlein, 1984, "A Conceptual Framework for Carrying Capacity Determination," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 433-451.
Shelby, Bo, Thomas A. Heberlein, 1986, Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings, Oregon State University Press, Oregon, U.S.A.
Shelby, Bo, Thomas A. Heberlein, Jerry J. Vaske, and Geraldine Alfano, 1983, "Expectations, Preferences, and Feeling Crowded in Recreation Activities," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-14. Bibliography -129-
Smith, V. Kerry and John V. Krutilla, 1976, Structure and Properties of a Wilderness Travel Simulator: An Application to the Spanish Peaks Area, for Resources of the Future, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, U.SA.
Sneddon, J.I., L.M. Lavkulich and L. Farstad, 1972(a), "The Morphology and Genesis of Some Alpine Soils in British Columbia, Canada: I. Morphology, Classification and Genesis," in Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 36, pp. 100-104.
Sneddon, J.I., L.M. Lavkulich and L. Farstad, 1972(b), "The Morphology and Genesis of Some Alpine Soils in British Columbia, Canada: II. Physical, Chemical and Mineralogical Determinants and Genesis," in Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 36, pp. 104-110.
Stankey, George H. and Stephen F. McCool, 1984,"Carrying Capacity in Recreational Settings: Evolution, Appraisal and Application," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 453-473.
Steedman, R.J. and H.A. Regier, 1987, "Ecosystem Science for the Great Lakes: Perspectives on Degradative and Rehabilitative Transformations," in Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science, Vol. 44, pp. 95-103.
Stockdale, Janet E., 1978, "Crowding: Determinants and Effects," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 197-247.
Taylor, Gordon, 1983, "Canada's Tourism Trends for the 1980's," in Murphy, Peter E. (ed.), 1983, Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, Western Geographical Series, Vol. 21, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Thornburgh, Dale A., 1985, "Responces of Vegetation to Different Wilderness Management Systems," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Reseach, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Titre, John and Allan S. Mills, 1982, Effect of Encounters on Perceived Crowding and Satisfaction in Forest and River Recreation: Research Update, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1986, Wilderness Management Handbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S.A.
Valentine, K.W.G., 1976, "Alpine and Subalpine Soils in British Columbia - A Review," in Luttmerding, H.A. and J.A. Sheilds. 1976, Proceedings of the Workshop on Alpine and Subalpine Environments, Province of B.C., Ministry of Environment, Resource Analysis Branch, Victoria, B.C. Canada.
Valentine, K.W.G., and L.M. Laukulich, 1978, "The Soil Orders of British Columbia," in Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Laukulich (ed.), 1978, The Soil Landscape of British Columbia, Agriculture Canada, Ministry of Environment, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Laukulich (ed), 1978, The Soil Landscape of British Columbia, Agriculture Canada, Ministry of Environment, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada. Bibliography -130-
Velay, C. J., 1975, British Columbia's Park System: A Graphic Presentation, Research Section, Planning Division, Parks Branch, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Victoria, B.C.
Verburg, K., 1977, The Carrying Capacity for Recreational Lands: A Review, Parks Canada, Prairie Regional Office, Planning, Ottawa, Canada.
Wagar, J.A. 1964, The Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation, Society of American Foresters, Forest Science Monograph No. 7, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Wagtendonk, Jan W., 1985, "The Determination of Carrying Capacity for Yosemiti Wilderness," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Reseach, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 456-461.
Wall, Geoffrey and Cynthia Wright, 1977, The Environmental Impact of Outdoor Recreation, Department of Geography, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Washburne, Randel F., and David N. Cole, 1983, Problems and Practices in Wilderness Management: A Survey Of Managers, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-304, Utah, U.S.A.
West, Patrick C, 1981, "Perceived Crowding and Attitudes Toward Limiting Use in Backcountry Areas," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 419.
Wilderness Advisory Committee, 1986, The Wilderness Mosaic: The Report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Willard, Beatrice E. and John W. Marr, 1970, "Effects of Human Activities on Alpine Tundra Ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado," in Biological Conservation, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 257-265.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
World Tourism Organization, 1984, "Tourism Carrying Capacity," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 30-36.
Wright Pamela, 1988, Tourism in Alberta, Environmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Bibliography -131-
OTHER REFERENCES:
Anderson, D.M., 1983, "Packaging of Outdoor/Wilderness Experience," in Park News, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 5-7.
Armour, Audrey, 1986, "Issue Management in Resource Planning," in Lang, Reg (ed), 1986, Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management, Banff School for Continuing Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Batisse, Michel, 1986, "Developing and Focusing the Biosphere Reserve Concept," in Nature and Resources, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 2-11.
BC Parks, 1986, Provincial Parks in the 80's, Ministry of Environment and Parks, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
BC Parks, 1989, Garibaldi Park Management Plan: Draft, South Coast Regional Office, Minstry of Parks, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada, [no date given]
Beatty, Marvin J., Gary W. Petersen, and Leslie D. Swindale (ed), 1979, Planning the Uses and Management of Land, Agronomy No. 21, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Buchanan, Thomas, James E. Christensen, and Rabel J. Burdge, 1981, "Social Groups and the Meanings of Outdoor Recreation Activities," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 254-266.
Bultena, Gordon, Don Albrecht and Peter Womble, 1981, "Freedom Versus Control: A Study of Backpackers' Preferences for Wilderness Management," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 297-310.
Burch, William R. Jr., 1984, "Much Ado About Nothing - Some Reflections on the Wider and Wilder Implications of Social Carrying Capacity," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 487-496.
Burke, James E., 1977, Recreation Planning in the Coastal Zone: Analytical Techniques, Information and Policies, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkley, California, U.S.A.
Bury, Richard L., Stephen M. Holland, and Douglas N. McEwen, 1983, "Analyzing Recreation Conflict," in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 401-403.
Cesario, Frank J., 1975, "A New Method for Analyzing Outdoor Recreation Trip Data," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 200-215.
Chadwick, Douglas H., 1983, A Beast the Color of Winter, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
Cheung, Hym K., 1972, "A Day-use Park Visistation Model," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 4, pp. 139-156.
Chilman, Kenneth C, Leo F. Marnell, and David Foster, 1980, "Putting River Research to Work: a Carrying Capacity Strategy," in Lime, David W. and Donald R. Field (ed), Some Recent Products of River Recreationa Research - 2nd Conference on Scientific Research in National Parks, 1979, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, NC-63, Minnesota, U.S.A., pp. 56-61. Bibliography -132-
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., 1985, Natural Resource Economics: Selected Papers, Bishop, Richard C, and Stephen O. Andersen (ed), Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., U.S.A.
Clark, Roger N., 1982, "Promises and Pitfalls of the ROS in Resource Management," in Australian Parks & Recreation, May 1982, pp. 9-13.
Coen, Gerald M., and W.D. Holland, 1976, Soils of Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, Alberta Institute of Pedology, Information Report NOR-X-65, Agriculture Canada, Environment Canada, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
The Conservation Foundation, 1985, Risk Assessment and Risk Control, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Cooke, R.U., and J.C. Doorkamp, 1974, Geomorphology in Environmental Management, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.
Cox, Roger H. and Leonard R. Askhan, 1986, "Maintaining an Exclusive Resource: A Case Study of Wild and Scenic River Management," in Recreation Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 26-35.
D'Amore, L.J., 1983, "Guidelines to Planning in Harmony with the Host Community," in Murphy, Peter E. (ed), 1983, Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, Western Geographical Series, Vol. 21, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Dooling, Peter, J. (ed), 1985, Parks in British Columbia: Emerging Realities, proceedings of the Symposium on Parks in British Columbia, 1984, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Driver, B.L. and Perry J. Brown, 1978, "The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information in Outdoor Resource Supply Inventories," in Lund, H. Gyde, Vernon J. LaBau, Peter F. Ffalliott, and David W. Robinson, 1978, Integrated Invertories of Renewable Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-55, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S.A.
Dumanski, J. (ed), 1978, The Canada Soil Information System (CanSIS) Manual for Describing Soils in the Field, Canadian Soil Survey Committee, Land Resource Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Easter, K. William, John A. Dixon, and Maynard M. Hufschmidt, 1986, Watershed Resources Management, Westview Press, Colorado, U.S.A.
Edington, John M. and M. Ann Edington, 1986, Ecology, Recreation and Tourism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Eyre, S.R., 1968, Vegetation and Soils, 2nd Edition, Edward Arnold Ltd., Great Britain.
Foster, Bryan Richard, 1979, Observability and Habitat Characteristics of the Mountain Goat in West-Central British Columbia, Masters Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Garratt Keith, 1984, "The Relationships Between Adjacent Lands and Protected Areas: Issue of Concern for the Protected Area Manager," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas Bibliography -133-
in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Hammon, Gordon A., et al., 1974, Capacity of Water-based Recreation Systems, Part I: The State of the Art - A Literature Review, Report No. 90, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Heberlein, Thomas A., Geraldine E. Alfano, and Laurie H. Ervin, 1986, "Using a Social Carrying Capacity Model to Estimate the Effects of Marina Development at the Apostle Islands Nation Lakeshore," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 257-274.
Hendee, John C, R.N. Clark, M.L. Hogans, D. Wood, and R.W. Koch, 1976, Code-A-Site: A System for Inventory of Dispersed Recreation Sites in Roaded Areas, Boackcountry, and Wilderness, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-209, Pacific North-Western Research Station, U.S.A.
Hiranyakit, Somchai, 1984, "Tourism Planning and Environment," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 2-3.
Hockin, Richard, Brian Goodall and John Whittow, 1977, The Site Requirements and Planning of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Geographical Paper No. 54, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, England.
Hof, John G., and H. Fred Kaiser, 1983, "Long-term Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections for Public Land Management Agencies," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Holling, C.S., 1986, "The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change," in Clark, W.C. and R.E. Munn (ed), 1986, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
International Union for Conservation of Natural Resources, 1981, Environmental Planning Guidelines for Strategies and Plans, Preliminary Version, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
(International Union for Conservation of Natural Resources) IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, 1984, "Categories, Objective, and Criteria for Protected Areas," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001-1979.
Jacobs, Peter, 1981, Environmental Strategy and Action: The Challenge of the World Conservation Strategy, Human Settlement Issues No. 6, The Center Arctic and Alpine Environmentsfor Human Settlements, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Kaegi, David Andrew, 1987, Managing Wildlands for Social Carrying Capacity: Is It Possible?, University of British Columbia Masters Essay, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Bibliography -134-
Kania, Michael R., 1985, "A Site Analysis Approach for Determining Wilderness Carrying Capacity," in Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 462-470.
Kellman, Martin C, 1978, Plant Geography, 2nd Edition, Methuen, London, England.
Kuss, Fred R. and John M Morgan III, 1984, "Using the USLE to Estimate the Physical Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas for Outdoor Recreation Planning," in Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 383-387.
Leeson, Bruce F., 1979, "Low-Intensity Recreation Use for Wildland Environments," in Beatty, Marvin T., Gary W. Petersen, and Leslie D. Swindale (ed), 1979, Planning the Uses and Management of Land, Agronomy No. 21, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Leet, L. Don, Sheldon Judson, and Martin E. Kauffman, 1982, Physical Geography, 6th Edition, Prentice-Hall of Canada, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
Liddle, M.J., 1975, "A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems," in Biological Conservation, Vol. 7, pp. 17-36.
Lucus, P.H.C., 1984, "How Protected Areas Can Help Meet Society's Evolving Needs," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, INT-212, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1987, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-220, U.S.A.
Marr-Terr Enviro Research Ltd., 1981, Relationships Between Mountain Goat Ecology and Proposed Hydroelectric Development on the Stikine River, B.C., Field Studies Report No. MT-1, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Mathews, William H., 1975, Garibaldi Geology, Geologic Association of Canada, Cordilleran Section, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
McAvory, Leo H., Rabel J. Burdge, James Absher and James Gramman, 1986, "The Importance of Visual Environmental Quality in Site Selection for Water-based and Water-enhanced Recreation Activities," in Recreation Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 41-48.
McCool, Stephen, 1985, "Does Wilderness Designation Lead to Increased Recreational Use?," in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 39-41.
McFetridge, Robert J., 1977, "Strategy of Resource Use by Mountain Goat Nursery Groups," in Samuel, William and W.G. Macgregor (ed), 1977, Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B-C., Canada, pp. 169-173. Bibliography -135-
Mcgregor, W.G., 1977, "Status of Mountain Goats in British Columbia," in Samuel, William and W.G. Macgregor (ed), 1977, Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada, pp. 24-28.
McNeely, Jeffrey A., 1984, "Introduction: Protected Areas Are Adapting to New Realities," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Ministry of Environment, 1975, Recreation Capability Inventory: A Preliminary Description for Reconnaissance, Province of B.C., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Ministry of Forests, 1981, Forest Landscape Handbook, Information Services Branch, Minstry of Forests, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Canada.
Ministry of Forests and Lands, 1988, Managing Wilderness in Provincial Forests: A Proposed Policy Framework, Ministry of Forests and Lands, Integrated Resources Branch, Recreation Section, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Murphy, Peter E. (ed), 1983, Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, Western Geographical Series, Vol. 21, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Odum, Eugene P., 1975, Ecology: The Link Between the Natural and Social Sciences, 2nd Edition, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, U.S.A.
Parks Canada, 1979, Parks Canada Policy, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1980, Park Data Handbook 1979, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1981, Park Data Handbook 1980, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1982, Park Data Handbook 1981, Province of B.C., / Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1983, Park Data Handbook 1982, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1984, Park Data Handbook 1983, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1985, Park Data Handbook 1984, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1986, Park Data Handbook 1985, Province of B.C., Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1987, Park Data Handbook 1986, Province of B.C., Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, B.C., Canada. Bibliography -136-
Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division, 1988, Park Data Handbook 1987, Province of B.C., Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Phillipson, John, 1966, Ecological Energetics, Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., London, England.
Pitty, A.F., 1978, Geography and Soil Properties, Methuen and Company, London, England.
Samra, Gamal H., 1984, "Health and Tourism," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 7-11.
Samuel, William and W.G. Macgregor (ed), 1977, Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Saremba, John, 1989, Evaluating Public Involvement in Provincial Park Planning: A Case Study of Garibaldi Park, Simon Fraser University, Natural Resources Management Program, Report No. 73, Burnaby, B.C., Canada.
Schneider, Devon M., David R. Godschalk, and Norman Axler, 1978, The Carrying Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool, American Planning Association, Illinois, U.S.A.
Schreinner, Edward and Bruce B. Moorhead, 1978, "Human Impact Inventory and Management in the Olympic National Park Backcountry," in Ittner, Ruth, Dale R. Potter, James K. Agee, and Susie Anschell (ed), 1979, Recreational Impact on Wildlands, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, No. R-6-001-1979, pp. 203-212.
Schreyer, Richard, 1984, "Social Dimensions of Carrying Capacity: An Overview," in Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 387-393.
Shaw, Joan (ed), 1979, Dispersed Recreation and Natural Resource Management: A Focus on Issues, Opportunities and Priorities, Dept. of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, U.S.A.
Shelby, Bo and Rick Colvin, 1982, "Encounter Measures in Carrying Capacity Contacts," in Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 350-360.
Singer, Francis J., 1975, Behavior of Mountain Goats, Elk and Other Wildlife in Relation to U.S. Highway 2, Glacier National Park, Federal Highway Administration, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana, U.S.A.
Singh, Tej Vir and Jagdish Kaur, 1986, "The Paradox of Mountain Tourism: Case References from the Himalaya," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 21-26.
Smith, Bruce L., 1977, "Influence of Snow Conditions on Winter Distribution, Habitat Use and Group Size of Montana Groups," in Samuel, William and W.G. Macgregor (ed), 1977, Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., Canada, pp. 174-189.
Stankey, George H., 1973, Visitor Preception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forrest Service, Research Paper, INT-142, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A.
Stankey, George H., Stephen F. McCool and Gerald L. Stokes, 1985, "Limits of Acceptable Change: A New Framework for Managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex," in Bibliography -137-
Lucus, Robert C. (compiler), 1985, Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Reseach, U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-212, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, U.S.A., pp. 526-530.
Talbot, Lee M., 1984, "The Role of Protected Areas in the Implementation of the World Conservation Strategy," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed.), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Trachuk, George, 1985, "Provincial Parks in British Columbia," in Dooling, Peter, J. (ed), 1985, Parks in British Columbia: Emerging Realities, proceedings of the Symposium on Parks in British Columbia, 1984, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Travis, Anthony S., 1984, "Social and Cultural Aspects of Tourism," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 22-24.
Udvardy, Miklos D.F., 1984, "A Biogeographical Classification System for Terrestrial Environments," in McNeely, Jeffrey A., and Kenton R. Miller (ed), 1984, National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
United Nations Environment Programme, 1984, "Tourism and the Environment," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-2.
United Nations Environment Programme, 1986, "Carrying Capacity for Tourism Activities," in Industry and Environment, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Wardle, P., 1964, "A Comparison of Timber Lines in New Zealand ans North America," in New Zealand Journal of Botany, Vol. 3, pp. 113-135.
Webb, Calvin, 1987, Reserves for Nature, Environment Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Willard, Beatrice E. and John W. Marr, 1971, "Recovery of Alpine Tundra Under Protection After Damage by Human Activities in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado," in Biological Conservation, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 181-190.
Wolf, Edward C, 1987, On the Brink of Extinction: Conserving the Diversity of Life, World Watch Paper 78, World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. Appendix 1 -138-
APPENDIX 1; Declaration of the World National Parks Congress, 1982 Appendix 1 -139- Declaration of the World National Parks Congress Bali, Indonesia, 11-22 October 1982
We, the participants in the World National Parks Congress, BELIEVE that: People are a part of nature. Their spiritual and material well-being depends upon the wisdom applied to the protection and use of living resources. Development needed for the betterment of the human condition requires conservation of living resources for it to be sustainable. Earth is the only place in the universe known to sustain life, yet as species are lost and ecosystems degraded, its capacity to do so is rapidly reduced, because of rising population, excessive consumption and mis-use of natural resources, pollution, careless development, and failure to establish an appropriate economic order" among people and among States. The benefits of nature and living resources that will be enjoyed by future generations will be determined by the decisions of today. Ours may be the last generation able to choose large natural areas to protect. Experience has shown that protected areas are an indispensable element of living resource conservation because: they maintain those essential ecological process that depend on natural ecosystems; they preserve the diversity of species and the genetic variation within them, thereby preventing irreversible damage to our natural heritage; they maintain the productive capabilities of ecosystems and safeguard habitats critical for the sustainable use of species; they provide opportunities for scientific research and for education and training. By so doing, and by providing places for recreation and tourism, protected areas serve the spiritual and cultural needs of people by securing the wilderness and sacred areas on which so many draw for aesthetic, emotional, and religious nourishment. They provide a vital link between us, our past, and our future, confirming the oneness of humanity and nature. To these needs, therefore, WE DECLARE the following actions as fundamental: 1. Expand and strengthen the global and regional networks of national parks and other protected areas to give lasting security to: representative and unique ecosystems; as full a range as possible of Earth's biotic diversity including wild genetic resources; natural areas important for scientific research; natural areas of spiritual and cultural value. 2. Support the establishment and management of protected areas through national commitment and international development assistance. 3. Provide permanent status for protected areas in legislation securing their objectives against compromise. 4. Plan and manage protected areas using the best available scientific information; increase scientific knowledge through research and monitoring programmes; and make it readily available to scientists, managers, and the general public throughout the world. 5. Recognize the economic, cultural, and political contexts of protected areas; increase local support for protected areas through such measures as education, revenue sharing, participation in decisions, complementary development schemes adjacent to the protected area, and, where compatible with the protected areas objectives, access to resources. 6. Implement fully the existing international conventions concerning protected areas, and adopt such new conventions as may be required. WE PLEDGE ourselves to these actions as a contribution to sustainable development and hence to the spiritual and material welfare of all people; and CALL UPON all governments, singly and collectively, to take these actions with due despatch, bearing in mind their responsibility for the whole of life and their account• ability to present and future generations. - p. xi, McNeely & Miller (ed), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks Bali, Indonesia, 1982 Appendix 2 -140-
APPENDIX 2; BC Parks Zoning
The following are excerpts from Park and Outdoor Recreation Division policy statement on BC Parks Zoning (Ministry of Lands Parks and Housing, 1990a, pp. 6-11). Appendix 2 -141-
B.C. Parks Zoning System
The Zoning System
The Parks and Outdoor Recreation Division of the Ministry of Parks employs a zoning system based upon the concept of an outdoor recreation-nature conservation spectrum. The spectrum of mixtures of these two fundamental concepts of the park system runs from "maximum emphasis upon recreation" to "maximum emphasis upon conservation."
From this approach, five broad zones are defined: intensive recreation, natural environment, special features, wilderness recreation and wilderness conservation. These five zones identify the general level of intended use and development of the park or recreation area lands. The objectives of these zones are:
a) Intensive Recreation: to provide for a variety of high-use, readily-accessible, facility-oriented outdoor recreation opportunities. b) Natural Environment: to provide backcountyr recreation opportunities in a largely undisturbed natural environment. c) Special Features: to preserve significant natural or cultural resources, features, or processes because of their special character, fragility and heritage value. d) Wilderness Recreation: to provide remote undisturbed natural landscape and to provide backcountry recreation opportunities dependent on a pristine environment where air access may be permitted to designated sites. d) Wilderness Conservation: to protect a remote, undisturbed natural landscape and provide unassisted backcountry recreation opportunities dependent on a pristine environment where no motorized activities will be allowed.
A sixth category of park land use, which only applies in Recreation Areas, is Integrated Resource Use. This category provides for non-recreational extractive uses within a Recreation Areas. Such uses will be regulated to protect existing outdoor recreation resources.
In the previous Master Plan Policy document each particular park or recreation area could contain both the main zones, described above and sub-zones. The subzones are more explicit in terms of area, objectives and management guidelines than are the zones. These sub-zones do not exist in the current policy document and their role likely represents an evolution in thinking with the ministry.
i) Special Features Subzones: to preserve significant natural or cultural resources, features or processes because of their special character, fragility and heritage value.
ii) Development Subzone: to provide concentrations of high use visitor services and facilities (e.g. campgrounds, day use areas, access roads).
iii) Service Subzone: to provide for park operations facilities which expedite efficient management of the park or recreation area (e.g. service yards, wood lots, gravel pits).
iv) Parkway/Corridor Subzones: to preserve scenic, natural or historic resources within a corridor situation such as a trail, road or river.
v) Restricted Use Subzone: to identify areas or sites close to the public because of private alienations (e.g. private cabin permits in a Recreation Area) or extreme sensitivity (e.g. domestic water supply).
[The following are excerpts from summary tables within the policy document.] Appendix 2 -142-
Objectives:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: to provide for a variety of readily accessible facility- oriented outdoor recreation opportunities.
b) Natural Environment Zone: to protect scenic values and to provide for backcountry recreation opportunities in a largely undisturbed natural environment.
c) Special Features Zone: to protect and present significant natural or cultural resources, features, or processes because of their special character, fragility, and heritage values.
d) Wilderness Recreation Zone: to protect a remote, undisturbed natural landscape and to provide backcountry recreation opportunities dependent upon a pristine environment where air access may be permitted to designated sites.
e) Wilderness Conservation Zone: to protect a remote undisturbed natural landscape and to provide unassisted backcountry recreation opportunities dependent on a pristine environment where no motorized activities will be allowed.
i) Special Feature Subzone: to preserve and present significant natural or cultural resources, features, or processes because of their special character, fragility and high heritage value.
ii) Development Subzone: to provide concentrations of high use visitor services and facilities.
iii) Service Subzone: to provide for park operations facilities which expedite efficient management of the park or recreation area.
iv) Parkway/Corridor Subzone: to preserve scenic, natural or historic resources within a corridor such as a trail, road or river.
v) Restricted Use Subzone: to close to public use an alienated or extremely sensitive
area.
Use Level:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: relatively high density and long duration types of use. b) Natural Environment Zone: relatively low use but high levels in association with nodes of activity of access.
c) Special Features Zone: generally low.
d) Wilderness Recreation Zone: very low use, to provide solitary experiences and a wilderness atmosphere; use may be controlled to protect the environment.
e) Wilderness Conservation Zone: very low use, to provide solitary experiences and a wilderness atmosphere; use may be controlled to protect the environment. Appendix 2 -143- Boundary Definition:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: includes areas of high facility development in concentrated areas of a park.
b) Natural Environment Zone: boundaries should consider limits of activity/facility areas relative to ecosystem characteristics and features.
c) Special Features Zone: area required by biophysical characteristics or the nature and extent of cultural resources (adequate to aafford protection).
d) Wilderness Recreation Zone: defined by ecosystem limits and geographic features; boundaries will encompass areas of vistitor interest for specific activities supported by air access; will be designated under the Park Act.
e) Wilderness Conservation Zone: defined by ecosystem limits and geographic features; will be designated under the Park Act.
Recreation Opportunities:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: vehicle camping, picnicking, beach activities, power- boating, canoeing, kayaking, strolling, historic and nature appreciation, fishing, snowplay, downhill and cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and specialized activities.
b) Natural Environment Zone: walk-in/boat-in camping, power-boating, hunting, canoeing, kayaking, backpacking, historic and nature appreciation, fishing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, river rafting, horseback riding, heli-skiing, heli-biking, and specialized activities.
c) Special Features Zone: sight-seeing, historic and nature appreciation; may be subject to temporary closures or permanently restricted access.
c) Wilderness Recreation Zone: backpacking, canoeing, kayaking, river rafting, nature and historic appreciation, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, horseback riding, and specialized activities (e.g. caving, climbing).
d) Wilderness Conservation Zone: as per Wilderness Recreation Zone, but no hunting permitted.
Facilities:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: may be intensively developed for user convenience....
b) Natural Environment Zone: moderate development for user convenience....
c) Special Features Zone: interpretive facilities only, respources are to be protected.
d) Wilderness Recreation Zone: minimal facility development for user convenience, and safety and protection of the environment....
e) Nature Conservancy Zone: no facilities will be provided. Appendix 2 -144- Impacts on Natural Environment:
a) Intensive Recreation Zone: includes natural resource features and phenomena in a primarily natural state but where human presence may be readily visible both through the existence of recreation facilities and of people using the zone: includes areas of high facility development with significant impact on concentrated areas.
b) Natural Environment Zone: area where human presence on the land is not normally visible, facility development limited to small areas; facilities are visually compatible with natural setting.
c) Special Features Zone: none; resources to be maintained unimpaired.
d) Wilderness Recreation Zone: natural area generally free of evidence of modern human beings; evidence of human presence is confined to specific facility sites; facilities are visually compatible with natural setting.
e) Nature Conservancy Zone: natural area is free of evidence of modern human beings. Appendix 3 -145-
APPENDIX 3: Soil Capability and Visual Inventory Methodologies
The following are outlines of the methods used to conducted the recreational soil capability assessment and the rapid visual inventory. These two methods are from Coen et al. (1977) and Parsons and MacLeod (1980) respectively. The following is the numeric scale as applied to the Soil Capability method from Coen et al.: 1 - none or slight limitation 2 - moderate limitation 3 - severe limitation 4 - very severe limitation Appendix 3 -146- Soil Capability for Recreation
Table 59: Guidelines for assessing soil limitations for camp areas.
Items Degree of Limitation Affecting Use None to Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe
Very rapidly, rapidly, Moderately well drained Imperfectly drained Permanently Wetness well and moderately soils subject to soils subject to wet soils well drained soils occasional seepage or seepage or ponding with no seepage or ponding and imperfectly and poorly and very ponding. Water table drained soils with no poorly drained soils. below 75cm during seepage or ponding. Water table above 50 season of use. Water table below 50cm cm during season of during season of use. use.
Very occasional Occasional flooding Flooding Flooding None flooding during season during season of during of use. Once in 5 - 10 use. Once in 2-4 every years years. season of use.
Very rapid to Moderately slow and Very slow. Permeability moderate inclusive slow.
Slope 0 - 97. 9 - 157. 15 - 307. Greater than 307.
SiL, SCL, SiCL, LS, Surface SL, FSL, VFSL, L and sand other than SC, SiC, C, Si subject to Soil Texture loose sand. severe blowing.
Surface Coarse 0 - 207. 20 - 507. greater than 507. Fragment
Stones > 10m apart Stones 2 to 10m apart. Stones 0.1 - 2m Stones < Stoniness (Class 0 to 1) (Class 2) apart. (Class 3 0.1m apart and 4) (Class 5)
Rock exposed >10m Rock exposed <10m Rock ex• Rockiness No rock exposed apart and cover <257. apart and cover posure too of the area. (Class >257. of the area. frequent to 1 to 2) (Class 3 and 4) permit campgrounds (Class 5) Appendix 3 -147- Table 61: Guidelines for assessing soil limitations for trails.
Items Degree of Limitation Affecting Use None to Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe
Loose sand Texture SL, FSL, VFSL, L SiL, CL, SiCL, LS, SC, SiC, C, subject to Class SCL Sand Si severe blowing and organic soil
Coarse Fragment 0 to 207. 20 to 507. >507.
Stones >2m apart. Stones 1 to 2 m Stones 0.1 to lm Stones <0.lm Stoniness (Class 0 to 2) apart. (Class 3) apart. (Class 4) apart. (Class 5)
Very rapidly, rapidly Moderately well drained Poorly and very Permanently Wetness well, and moderately soils subject to poorly drained soil wet soils, well drained soils. occasional seepage and Water table above Water table below 50cm ponding and imperfectly 50cm and often near during season of use. drained soils. Water surface for a month table may rise above or more during 50cm briefly. season of use.
Rock exposures >30m Rock exposures 10 to Rock exposures <10m Exposures Rockiness apart and cover <107. 30m apart and cover 10 apart and cover too close of the surface. to 257. of the surface. > 257. of the surface to allow (Class 0 to 1) (Class 2) (Class 3 to 4) for trail placement.
Slope 0 - 157. 15 - 307. 30 - 607. >607.
Not subject to Floods 1 to 2 times Floods >2 times Subject to Flooding floooding during during the season of during the season prolonged season of use. use. flooding. Appendix 3 -148- Table 62: Guidelines for assessing soil limitations for septic tank absorption fields.
Items Degree of Limitation Affecting Use None to Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe
Permeability Moderately rapid Moderate Slow Very slow
Percolation About 8 to 18 min/cm3 18 to 24 min/cm3 >24 min/cm3 Rate (Auger)
Depth to Seasonal Water >180cm 120 to 180cm 60 to 120cm <60cm Table
Subject to Every Flood Hazard Not subject Not subject occasional flooding year (once in 5 years).
Slope 0 to 97. 9 to 157. 15 to 307. >307.
Depth to Bedrock or >180cm 120 to 180cm 60 to 120cm <60cm Impervious Layer
(Coen et al., 1977, pp. 155 - 158) Appendix 3 -149- Rapid Visual Inventory
Rating Factors and Criteria Used for Campsite Inventory:
a) Density of Vegetation: A relative measure of the extent of vegetative ground cover within the campsite as compared with similar unimpacted areas.
1 - Same as surroundings 3 - moderately less dense than surroundings 5 - considerable less dense than surroundings
b) Composition of Vegetation: A measure comparing the species composition and relative abundance in the campsite to surrounding unimpacted areas.
1 - same as surrounding 3 - moderately dissimilar 5 - significantly dissimilar
c) Total Area of the Campsite: An estimate of the total area affected by trampling directly associated with use in and about the campsite.
1 - less than or equal to 2m2 (20 feet") 2 - 2 to 9.3m2 (21 to 100 feet2) 3 - 9.4 to 46m2 (101 to 500 feet2) 4- 46.1 to 93m2 (501 to 1000 feet2) 5 - greater than 93m2 (1000 feet2)
d) Barren Core Area: An estimate of the total area w.hich due to trampling has been completely denuded of vegetation. This usually corresponds to the central activity area of the site.
1 - absent 2 - 0.50 to 4.6m2 (5 to 50 feet2) 3 - 4.7m2 to 18.6m2 (51 to 200 feet2) 4 - 18.7 to 46m2 (201 to 500 feet2) 5 - greater than 46m2 (500 feet2)
e) Litter and Duff: Applied only to forested areas, this measure indicated the relative amount of pulverization and removal of organic debris (needles, cones, and twigs) as a result of trampling and other use.
1 - trampling discernable; some needles broken, scattered cones 2 - moderately trampled; needle broken; compacted; few cones 3 - heavily trampled; clumped; pulverized; cones absent 4 - litter more or less absent; pulverized; ground into soil 5 - litter and cones and duff completely absent
f) Social Trails: A measure indicating the amount of concentrated trampling of surrounding vegetation as reflected by the formation of access trails to nearby destinations such as water sources, other campsites, main trails, etc.
1 - none 2- 1 trail discernible 3- 2 trails discernible 4 - 1 to 2 trails well developed, or 3 or more trails more or less discernible 5- 3 plus trails well developed Appendix 3 -150- g) Mutilations: A measure to document the number of permanent marks on the campsite such as carvings, ax marks, and nails in surrounding trees.
1 - none 2 - 1 to 2 3 - 3 to 5 4 - 6 to 10 or 1 to 2 highly obtrusive 5-11 plus or 3 plus high obtrusive
h) Campsite Development: A descriptive rating reflecting the amount of man-made "improvements" in the campsite. (This rating is often disproportionately low in areas where rangers are actively managing or maintaining these sites.)
1 - windbreaks and paraphernalia absent; trash and seats minimal; fire rings absent or scarce 2 - trash, windbreaks, seats and fire rings minimal; paraphernalia absent 3 - trash, windbreaks, seats mostly moderate; fire rings mostly minimal; paraphernalia minimal 4 - trash, windbreaks, seats, fire rings, and paraphernalia mostly moderate, some heavy 5 - trash, windbreaks, seats, fire rings, and paraphernalia mostly heavily developed
i) Other Information: In addition to the campsite impact class, descriptive information on the overstory and understory vegetation, including percent of cover, is recorded for each site. The distance to the water and the number of Class 3, 4 or 5 sites [see below] within 30.5 m (100 feet), a measure of campsite crowding, are also recorded.... All sites are located on a freehand map showing major geographic features, potential camping areas, and a compass direction.
Campsite class: the mean value of the site's Rating Factors. This value calculated by summing all the factors scored and dividing by this number of factors. A "Class 1" site would usually be no more than a small sleep site and possibly a fire ring with little or no vegetative change. A "Class 5" site would be large, heavily used, barren area. Appendix 4 -151-
APPENDIX 4: Field Data
The following information was collected in Garibaldi Provincial Park during August of 1990. The sites of investigation were the campgrounds of the Black Tusk and Diamond Head backcountry areas and their access routes. The campsites were inventoried by the methods outlined in Appendix 3. The specific campsites were Red Heather. Meadows and Elfin Lakes Campgrounds in the Diamond Head area and Taylor Meadows and Garibaldi Lake Campgrounds in the Black Tusk area. The rating scales are defined in Appendix 3. The scale scale for the Soil Capability Assessment runs from 1 to 4 with 1 being none or slight limitation and 4 being very severe limitation. The scale for the Visual Impact Assessment run from 1 to 5 with 1 describing an unimpacted site and 5 describing a severely impacted site. Appendix 4 -152- Site: Diamond Head Road
Date Inventoried: 08/23/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: Trails Campsites Septic
3 n/a Wetness evidence of heavy water erosion
1 1 n/a n/a Flooding 1 n/a n/a Permeability
2 n/a n/a| Slope variable range 3-1; road grade to 107.
In/a n/a Surface Soil all soil removed from road; see below Texture 2 n/a Surface Coarse Fragment 13 1 n/a Stoniness road surface a mosaic of stones 1 n/a Rockiness variable 4-1; occasional scree or bedrock
n/a Percolation Rate n/a| Depth to Water Table n/a| Depth to Bedrock or Impervious
Comments: This trail assesment is a generalization of the overall conditions along the Diamond Head access road from the parking lot through to the campsite at Elfin Lakes. The road surface is generally in good condition with one section below Red Heather Meadows where a section has been washed out by spring thaw. The road is generally a very hard stoney surface which is unpleasant to walk upon. Appendix 4 -153-
Site: Red Heather Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/23/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #1 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of currently a sedge meadow Vegetation 4 Total Area of Campsite 4 Barren Core 238 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
4 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
5 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Area surrounding is a. mixed red heather and low-bush blueberry (dwarf huckleberry) meadow in a sub-alpine Mountain Hemlock community. There is evidence of ponding and seasonal flooding indicating a shallow water table or impeded drainage. Distance to water over 100 feet.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #2 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of see Site #1 Vegetation 5 Total Area of Campsite 4 Barren Core 224 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
4 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
5 Campsite Development
Other Comments: as with Site #1. Distance to water 75 feet. Appendix 4 -154-
Site: Red Heather Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/23/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #3 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of Campsite 2 Barren Core 48 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
4 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
5 Campsite Development
Other Comments: see Site #1. Distance to water 20 feet.
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: Trails Campsites Septic
Wetness water table within 75cm of surface, some ponding
n/a Flooding some evidence of seasonal ponding
n/a Permeability
n/a Slope nearly level in campsite; slopes to 107.
Surface Soil silty, gritty, loam (SiL) Texture Surface Coarse Fragment Stoniness areas where stones are .5 - 2m apart
Rockiness
n/a Percolation Rate n/a Depth to Water Table n/a Depth to Bedrock or Impervious
Comments: no assessment of the septic field limitations conducted Appendix 4 -155- Site: Red Heather Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/23/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #4 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 5 1 Total Area of 1575 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 700 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails 1 1 1 Mutilations 2 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Heather-Sedge Meadow with evidence of ponding and down-slope seepage. A sub-alpine mixed Mountain Hemlock Yellow Cedar meadow. Distance to water over 70 feet.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #5 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of 420 ft sq Campsite 4 Barren Core 420 ft sq Area n/a Litter k Duff
1 4 Social Trails 1 Mutilations
2 Campsite Development
Other Comments: As per Site #4. Distance to water 10 feet. Appendix 4 -
Site: Along road to Elfin Lakes
Date Inventoried: 08/30/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Assigned Measured
2 Density of Vegetation 2 1 Composition of Vegetation 4 Total Area of 520 ft sq Campsite 1 Barren Core Area n/a Litter & Duff natural meadow
4 j Social Trails
1 Mutilations
2 Campsite no evidence of current use in this "Closed" site Development
Other Comments: No water available at this site. Site a natural meadow bounded by Mountain Hemlock. Site on ridge top 30 min or more from Elfin Lakes. Appendix 4 -157- -Site: Elfin Lakes Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/30/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #1 Assigned Measured
o Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 15,000 ft sq Campsite 3 Barren Core 169 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
2 1 Mutilations mulitated logs
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Main campsite is a Sedge Meadow approximately 150 x 100 ft with red heather meadow surrounding. Closest mature Mountain Hemlock over 100 feet from campsite; some infilling of Mountain Hemlock occurring (2-3 feet tall). Heather meadow a. mix of Red Heather and Low-bush Blueberry. Water over 100 feet away.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #2 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 15,000 ft sq Campsite 4 Barren Core 391 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
15 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Same as Site #1 Appendix 4 -158- Site: Elfin Lakes Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/30/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #3 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 15,000 ft sq Campsite 2 Barren Core 80 ft sq Area n/a Litter k Duff
5 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: See Site #1.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #4 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of 1 1 Vegetation 1 2 Total Area of 825 ft sq Campsite 3 Barren Core 825 ft sq Area n/a| Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
1 1 1 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Distance to water 20 feet. Site in the lee of a Mountain Hemlock stand. Appendix 4 -159- Site: Elfin Lakes Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/30/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #5 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 2 Composition of Vegetation 2 j Total Area of 714 ft sq Campsite 3 1 Barren Core 714 ft sq Area 4 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Distance to water 20 feet. Site located under a Mountain Hemlock and Yellow Cedar stand.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #6 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 1950 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 750 ft sq Area 3 Litter & Duff
2 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
2 Campsite Development
Other Comments:Distance to water 75 feet. Site located against a Mountain Hemlock stand. Appendix 4 -160-
Site: Elfin Lakes Campsite
Date Inventoried: 08/30/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: Trails Campsites Septic
Wetness surface ponding
Flooding
Permeability impeded
Slope meadow 4 to 67. with slopes to 107. between sites
Surface Soil SiL (silty-gritty) Texture Surface Coarse Fragment Stoniness few at surface
Rockiness
Percolation rain running over surface during precipitation Rate Depth to Water assumed impermeable layer Table Depth to Bedrock or Impervious
Comments: Heavy rain night prior to inventory and periodic showers during the inventory. There was a skim of water running over all exposed soil and the soil pit filled with surface water as fast as in could be dug. Appendix 4 -161-
Site: Trail to Garibaldi Lake
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: Trails Campsites Septic
n/a Wetness sections of trail demonstrate year round seepage
n/a n/a Flooding subject to periodic washouts at creek crossings
n/a n/a Permeability
n/a n/a Slope variable to 607.; trail grade to 157.
n/a Surface Soil sandy-silt; trail worked by machine Texture n/a Surface Coarse variable 3-4 Fragment n/a Stoniness variable 2-4
n/a Rockiness
n/a Percolation Rate n/a Depth to Water Table n/a Depth to Bedrock or Impervious
Comments: Trail runs from Coastal Western hemlock bio-climatic zone through to sub-alpine Mountain Hemlock zone Appendix 4 -162- Site: Taylor Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact. Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #1 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 1250 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 1250 ft sq Area n/a Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Remains of a Red Heather-Sedge meadow. Represents a cluster of four campsites as designated by BC Parks. Over 150 feet to water.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #2 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 1 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 2390 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 2390 ft sq Area n/a| Litter & Duff 1 5 Social Trails 3 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: A Low-bush Blueberry-Heather meadow with relatively undisturbed vegetation around the Mountain Hemlock stands. Site represents 11 designated campsite by BC Parks. Appendix 4 -163-
Site: Taylor Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: data collected off Site #2 Trails Campsites Septic
3 3 Wetness 1 IH 1 Flooding 3 1 3 1 Permeability
1 1 1 Slope
2 2 Surface Soil silty-gritty,loam 1 1 Texture 1 1 1 Surface Coarse Fragment 1 1 Stoniness
1 1 Rockiness
1 Percolation 14 min/cm^ Rate 1 Depth to Water unknown, likely shallow 1 1 Table 1 1 Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Appendix 4 -164- Site: Taylor Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #3 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of Vegetation 4 Total Area, of 800 ft sq Campsite 4 1 Barren Core 457 ft sq Area 5 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
3 1 Mutilations
3 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Campsites located within Mountain Hemlock stand with a heather and Low-bush blueberry understory. Site represents 6 interconnected and overlapping camp-pads between two small streams above Taylor Creek.
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: near Site #3 Trails Campsites Septic
3 3 Wetness
1 1 Flooding
3 3 1 1 Permeability
1 1 1 Slope
4 4 Surface Soil silty organic soil 1 1 Texture 1 1 1 1 Surface Coarse Fragment 1 2 Stoniness
1 1 Rockiness
3 Percolation 28min/cm3 Rate 4 Depth to Water soil saturated 1 1 Table 4 Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Appendix 4 -165-
Site: Taylor Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #4 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 1155 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 1155 ft sq Area n/a Litter k Duff
5 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
2 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Remains of a sedge meadow bounded by Mountain Hemlock stand. Distance to water 50 feet. Still some grasses surviving within core area.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #5 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 5 Composition of 1 1 Vegetation 4 Total Area, of 990 ft sq Campsite 5 Barren Core 990 ft sq Area 5 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Site is located partially under a Mountain Hemlock stand with an understory of Low-bush Blueberry, forbs and sedges. Site is on a terrace beside Taylor Creek. Distance to water is 30 feet. Appendix 4 -166- Site: Taylor Meadows Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: located in Site #5 Trails Campsites Septic
3 3 Wetness
2 2 3 Flooding I'l Permeability 2 3 3 Slope
1 2 1 2 Surface Soil Silty, sandy loam (SiL) Texture 1 1 Surface Coarse Fragment 3 1 3 Stoniness
1 1 Rockiness
2 Percolation 22min/cm3 Rate 4 Depth to Water less than 2 ft (60cm) above creek 1 1 Table 4 Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Appendix 4 -167- Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #10 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 2 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of 80 ft sq pad; total area of site 324 ft sq Campsite 4 1 Barren Core 244 ft sq expansion Area 2 ! Litter k Duff i 3 1 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
1 1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: ponding evident in nearby depression
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #11 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 2 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of 80 ft sq pad; total area of site 400 ft sq Campsite 4 Barren Core expansion 320 ft sq Area 3 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
5 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Site constructed on a side-hill and is well drained. Appendix 4 -168- Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #12 Assigned Measured
1 Density of Vegetation 3 j Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of pad 80 ft sq; total area of site 300 ft sq Campsite 4 I Barren Core expansion 220 ft sq Area 2 1 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
1 1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Site constructed on top of a hillock, well drained.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #2 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of pad 128 ft sq; total area of site; 480 ft sq Campsite 4 Barren Core expansion 352 ft sq Area 4 Litter & Duff
5 Social Trails 1 4 1 Mutilations 1 Campsite Development
Other Comments:Site constructed upon a hillock in Open canopy Mountain Hemlock with a Blueberry undergrowth. Ponding evident in nearby depression. Appendix 4 -169-
Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: adjacent to Campsite #2 Trails Campsites Septic
3 3 Wetness
1 1 1 Flooding
2 1 3 1 Permeability
1 1 1 1 Slope
2 2 Surface Soil Silty, clayey 1 1 Texture 1 1 Surface Coarse Fragment 2 3 Stoniness
3 2 Rockiness
3 Percolation 37.5min/cm3 Rate 1 3 1 Depth to Water Table 4 Depth to Bedrock 1 or Impervious Appendix 4 -170- Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments-.near outhouse above Shelter #3 Trails Campsites Septic
3 Li Wetness 1 1 1 1 Flooding 3 1 3 1 Permeability 1 1 1 Slope -
3 2 Surface Soil Sandy, silty with ash 1 I Texture 1 | 1 Surface Coarse Fragment 2 1 Stoniness
1 1 Rockiness
4 Percolation 42min/cm3 Rate 4 Depth to Water 1 1 Table 4 Depth to Bedrock or Impervious
Comments: Soil approximately 3inches deep with high ash content. Appendix 4 -171- Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #46 Assigned Measured
1 Density of Vegetation 3 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of wooden pad 48 ft sq; total area of site 150 ft sq Campsite 3 Barren Core expansion 102 ft sq Area n/a Litter k Duff located within natural opening in forest
2 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
3 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Natural Heather and willow meadow on ridge with many bedrock outcrops around.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #40 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 2 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of pad 36 ft sq; total area of campsite 360 ft sq Campsite 4 Barren Core expansion 324 ft sq Area n/a Litter k Duff
5 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
2 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Site constructed on a hillside leading to ridge. Area mixed Mountain Hemlock and Red and White Heather. Many rocky outcrops neighboring. Appendix 4 -172- Site: Garibaldi Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/07/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Campsite #35 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 2 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of pad 80 ft sq; total area of campsite 246 ft sq Campsite 3 Barren Core expansion 184 ft sq Area 2 Litter & Duff
Social Trails 4 •
3 Mutilations
3 Campsite Development
Other Comments: location similar to Campsite #40
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: across from campsite #35 Trails Campsites Septic
Wetness
Flooding
Permeability
Slope
Surface Soil Silty, sandy loam with ash layer below 8inches Texture Surface Coarse Fragment Stoniness
Rockiness
Percolation 49min/cm^ Rate Depth to Water Table Depth to Bedrock or Impervious Appendix 4 -173- Site: Cheakamus Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/11/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #1 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 1 1 Composition of Vegetation 5 Total Area of 1800 ft sq Campsite 4 1 Barren Core 360 ft sq Area 4 Litter & Duff
4 Social Trails
5 Mutilations
2 1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: Mature Western Hemlock forest within 10 feet of the river at the outfall of Cheakamus Lake.
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #2 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 1 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of 225 ft sq Campsite 3 Barren Core 120 ft sq Area 3 Litter & Duff
4 Social Trails
4 Mutilations
2 Campsite Development
Other Comments: same as Site # 1 above Appendix 4 -174- Site: Cheakamus Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/11/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #3 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation Composition of i1 Vegetation 3 j Total Area of 330 ft sq Campsite 3 I Barren Core 80 ft sq Area 2 Litter k Duff
4 Social Trails
3 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: as per Site #1
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #4 Assigned Measured
5 Density of Vegetation 1 Composition of Vegetation 2 Total Area of 100 ft sq Campsite 1 Barren Core Area 2 Litter & Duff
3 Social Trails
2 Mutilations
1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: as per Site #1 Appendix 4 -175- Site: Cheakamus Lake Campsite
Date Inventoried: 09/11/90
Visual Impact Assessment: Value Parameter Comments: Site #5 Assigned Measured
3 Density of Vegetation 1 Composition of Vegetation 3 Total Area of 440 ft sq 1 1 Campsite 1 1 Barren Core Area 2 Litter & Duff
5 I Social Trails
4 Mutilations
1 1 Campsite Development
Other Comments: as per Site #1
Soil Capability: Value Assigned: Parameter: Comments: near Outhouse Trails Campsites Septic
1 1 Wetness
1 2 3 Flooding 1 1 2 1 Permeability 1 1 1 1 Slope 2 2 Surface Soil 6 inches of duff over Silty, sandy loam 1 1 Texture 2 2 Surface Coarse Fragment 3 3 Stoniness
1 1 Rockiness
4 Percolation 28 min/cm3 Rate 1 Depth to Water 1 1 Table 1 Depth to Bedrock or Impervious